Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:36, 23 September 2020

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Blueandwhite87

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

Blueandwhite87 (talk · contribs)

This editor has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. They have, as far as I can see, never responded. I was inclined to block, but thought to raise here first. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 19:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor was blocked twice before for adding unsourced content; the second time (July 2018) the blocking editor unblocked per this edit where the editor said they'd add a source. Since then, they've been warned six times on their talk page about making unsourced edits. At the same time, the user has made zero edits to article talk space (except for the automated edits that are done when a page is moved) and a grand total of 2 edits to user talkspace, one of which was in response to getting blocked. This was despite getting a huge number of notes from other editors on their talk page during the same time period (including a bunch of notes asking the editor to use edit summaries, which the editor apparently ignored). Therefore, it doesn't seem that this editor is willing to engage with the concerns of other editors unless they are blocked. Giving the situation, I think that a block would be appropriate as it may be the only way to get their attention. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, I hadn't even looked at the block log. Further evidence of the long term disruption, and the fact that they can communicate, they just choose not to... GiantSnowman 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This editor continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. Is nobody else concerned at this? GiantSnowman 17:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am! Robby.is.on (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass Kyiv disruption

As I guess everybody knows Kiev was renamed to Kyiv in a contentious RM a couple of days ago. Since then, we have been witnessing mass moves and replaces of instances of Kyiv with Kiev ewerywhere, by many users. Whereas some moves are probably justified others are clearly not. Examples of clear disruption include mass out-of-process category moves (example 1, example 2) and mindless replacements of all instances of Kiev with Kyiv (populating a redirect category, introducing a redundant piped link to itself - note that in the last example the action was performed by an administrator) - and this is only from my wacthlist, from which I have removed most of the Ukrainian topic articles earlier this year. To be honest, I am not sure what to do here, I do not have a list of people performing these actions, and I think even if they stop we have enough editors more than happy to continue, but may be someone has a good idea how this transition from Kiev to Kyiv can be made according to the policies. We are talking about thousands of articles, templates, and categories. Ironically, just before the move, somebody - I do not remember who it was - told me that they believe that Kyiv vs Kiev is about a single article and would not have any bearing on other articles. I responded that does not matter what is in the policies people will come to move everything overnight - and now we see it happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Or even this - piped link to a redirect introduced when an article exists.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Historical usage, by the same administrator. I think I am going to stop posting here. I do not think we, as community, are capable of solving this problem. We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blame the piped-link glitches on the visual editor, or file a bug report at the right technical forum. But I highly recommend a Wikibreak, anyway. —Michael Z. 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter! So you say that WP "are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet". What about beeing a Russian Propaganda outlet for at least 25 years? You are russian, doens't matter what you write on your page. When I registered in WP - you were russian, and now you changed your origin to be from Netherlands. It is a ridicoulous lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

And this is a brilliant illustration of my point. Well, who cares about WP:CONSENSUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And may be I am old-fashioned, but "what you say is blatant lie" for me is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For me your words that I "so far failed miserably" and "Would you please stop playing an idiot" for another editor - are clearly personal attacks. Your quotes below, shows clearly, that you prefer Russian names everywhere. For Ukraine - keep russian names, because it is history, doesn't matter that the places are currently in Ukraine. But for Kuril/Kunashir Islands - we keep russian names, because they are currently in Russia. Japanese history is not important. Clearly different logic!
"You are already seeking this for years and so far failed miserably. You may want to look at Talk:Kiev/naming. Misplaced Pages operates on the basis of consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS, not on the basis of the opinion of the Ukrainian government. The current consensus is to keep Russian names.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"
"Would you please stop playing an idiot? Kunashir is located in Russia. All countries except Japan recognize this, and therefore the principal names of localities and geographic features located on Kuril Islands are taken from Russian, not from Japanese. Moving articles from Russian names to Japanese names is disruption. (Japanese names were already in the articles, for the record). Adding info about smth currently located in "Kunashiri, Japan" is disruption. You perfectly know this. If you do it once again, I will block your account. Is this sufficiently clear?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)" T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

Look, I am not really here to react to all aspersions of a user who has no useful contribution, resorted to personal attacks and edit-warring, and is not interested in editing in accordance with WP:Consensus, however, the statement that "I prefer Russian names everywhere" is blatantly false. One can easily check that I merely follow WP:CONSENSUS in all articles and many times have reverted users who were replacing Ukrainian names in the articles with Russian names (in particular, in Crimean articles).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For the context, the user I was arguing with and trying to explain our policies in relation to Kunashir, Ineedtostopforgetting, was not getting it, I have to take them to ANI, and they received a block. Later on, a checkuser blocked them as a sock. I still estimate however that my interaction with them made my life a few days shorter.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I only came here to find out what Kyiv meant, and I discover that it's foreign for Kiev. Good grief. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

For instance, somebody thought it was a good idea to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv. It's now back to where it was. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for the turn of historical usages such as Kievan Rus'.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And here we go: --Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Btw I blocked that user previously for disruptive Ukraine-related editing. May be it is time to continue since they obviously have not learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And Chicken Kiev was probably created in Saint Petersburg.--Mvqr (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How about "Chicken Petrograd"? That sounds appetizing! EEng 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

When the doctors say I have 48 hours left, EEng, I will edit war to change it to "Chicken Leningrad", in your honor. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

From Russian jokes#Rabinovich: Rabinovich is arrested on the street in Leningrad. After an hour of being beaten, a KGB agent comes and asks him, "Where were you born?" / He spits out, "Saint Petersburg!" / The KBG agent beats him for ten more minutes and asks him, "Where were you raised?" / "Petrograd!" / The KGB agent beats him for fifteen more minutes and asks him, "Where do you live?" / "Leningrad!" / After a half hour more beating, the KGB agent asks, "And where would you like to die?" / "Saint Petersburg!" Lev!vich 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the subject... Many will have heard the joke about anti-tiger dust: Sitting on a train, Man #1 finds himself opposites Man #2, who has his hat in his lap, crown down and brim up. Man #2 keeps dipping his hand into the hat, withdrawing it, and then flicking his fingers in various directions. Seeing #1 is puzzled, #2 explains: "It's anti-tiger dust, to keep tigers away." Man #1: "But there are no tigers for thousands of miles from here!" Man #2: "That's how well it works!"OK, so a friend who knows Russian culture well told me that in Russia they tell the same joke, except that the punchline is that #2 leans close and whispers conspiratorially, "Well that's good, because it doesn't work!" Speaks volumes. EEng 08:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PAGE MOVEDGLOBAL SEARCH-AND-REPLACEDON'T CONSIDER CONTEXTEGG ON YOUR FACEMyanmar-Shave Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

eeeeexcellent GeneralNotability (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I echo what Ymblanter said. The language disruption is spreading to traditional transliterations of Russian (or Ukranian) text. See here. It will beg the question of what to do with sources that use the traditional Kiev spelling. RfC likely needed. Anyway, I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that it's not just Kiev/Kyiv that is affected. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I raised this on talk a few days ago, expecting that would happen. On a smaller scale, similar happened when Chinese Communist Party was renamed and we end up with (eg) unnecessary CCPs across articles. It's a pain. RfC not needed, I think. Appropriate way to deal with it would be making a list of Kyiv related articles, having a short period for opposition and moving the ones that nobody opposed. Require a separate RM for the rest (like Chicken Kiev). Not sure how you'll address people unilaterally making changes. Maybe a temporary edit filter where page title contains Kiev/Kyiv, and the editor is not EC confirmed (if so, block move)? Can be done using action = move. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. There's no way around doing the work of updating the encyclopedia. And yeah, it's a large encyclopedia, so there's a lot of updating to be done. (Hey maybe we'll all remember this next time we discuss notability guidelines.) It's already being discussed at Talk:Kyiv#Cleaning up associated articles, and I've started a list of related articles and categories at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. Lev!vich 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I am greatly surprised that anybody is surprised by mass disruption. What did you imagine was going to happen when the "Kiev" article changed to "Kyiv"? How long have you been on Misplaced Pages? Walrasiad (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not suprpised, this is precisely what I predicted, including doing so in writing. However, it is still massive disruption and need to dealt with. I have seen that some moves were reverted, some RfCs and RM opened, and some blocks given out, and we probably need more blocks for those who do not get it. What I am actually surprised at is that these users have zero interest in improving articles on Ukrainian topics on Misplaced Pages. I was single-handedly creating articles on urban localities in Ukraine, we still have several dozens to create, which will probably keep me busy for another couple of years. Here we have a bunch of people who pose as defenders of Ukrainian national idea, they are happy to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv and to replace Kiev with Kyiv in the filenames so that the files turn into redlinks, but they never edited any article of more than a hundred which I created on Ukrainian localities (those still on my watchlist) - except for those of course which are located in Kiev Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously lots of these examples are silly, but isn't it normal to move category trees (e.g. Category:Railway stations in Kiev) to match the name of the parent article? It seems unnecessary to insist on a discussion for each one. – Joe (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Categories always should go via CfD. There is a speedy process for them, which takes two days to process provided no objections have been raised, WP:CFDS, and some of these categories were indeed nominated there but for whatever reason met objections and were moved to a full CfD discussion. Moving categories without involving CfD is out of process move.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I can toss in my two-cents. I work primarily in historical articles, and did not follow (nor participate) in the modern Kiev/Kyiv article discussion (I know better than to wade into nationalist pissing contests). But the wave of disruptions has arisen in historical articles, imposing that spelling anachronistically and rendered many historical entities, events and figures unrecognizable (e.g. Kievan Rus, St. Anthony of Kiev, etc.) with "Kyivan" or "Kyiv". For many (if not most) historical articles, the "Kiev" form is far and away the most common name in English-language history books and general reference works. Misplaced Pages criteria for an article doesn't end because another article happens to change its name. It seems to me that at least for historical articles, we're going to have to go on a case-by-case basis, via RMs, with reliable sources from general English-language resources. I realize this can become tiresome. As a short-cut, perhaps a general rule can be introduced that considers Kiev -> Kyiv to be a name change, much like Constantinople -> Istanbul in 1923, and similarly adopt a boundary date when that change goes into effect (e.g. 1995), so that historical articles that refer to "Kiev" before that date don't get anachronistically affected. Walrasiad (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  A more recent example is the renaming of Swaziland to Eswatini in 2018. It would be grossly anachronistic to refer to anyone from there who is more than 2 years old as having been born in Eswatini. Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• And now we see that the IP who started the RM was in fact a logged out user topic-banned from Ukraine who was avoiding sanctions. It does not invalidate the RM of course but adds a flavor to the whole thing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hello, I am sysop in Ukrainian Wiki. I browsed through diffs Ymblanter provided us, and there are no users active in Uk.Wiki I've noticed. So it seems people coming from news mainly, not from another wiki. If this is of any help. --Brunei (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. There are definitely users active in the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages: I noticed hat Vitaliyf261 was blocked for disruption here yesterday, because he apparently decided that now everything related to Ukraine must be transliterated from Ukrainian, and AndriiDr who yesterday in this edit not only replace Kiev with Kyiv, buty also Odessa with Odesa, for which currently there is no community consensus. I did not even try to look up all edits related to Kiev -> Kyiv, I only operate with those which are on my wactchlist or were brought to my attention, but it is indeed possible that only a small part of this disruption is coming from the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oh yes, and Piznajko, who most likely started the RM while being topic-banned from Ukrainian topics, and today was CU blocked indef, is an active editor of the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Seems like there is some canvassing going on by another IP . Could this IP be the same as the blocked user mentioned by @Ymblanter: above? Walrasiad (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  My guess this is another one. The goal of the blocked user was always to rename Kiev to Kyiv in all contexts; the goal of this IP is pure trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  That IP seems clean on CU. I think we should assume that it is a meat puppet --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps pushing spelling variant with deceptive edit note: "Fixed typo"

2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:E471:60B7:FBA8:818A/64 keeps pushing British spelling and date formats, despite of numerous reverts and guidances:

• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:C0B8:823A:8DF0:A37
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:69D4:518B:5446:F24D
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:459C:EA7E:9A4E:DEEA
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:102C:2C2C:A44D:5060
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:A557:AB6B:76D8:DDAC
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:F415:417B:2690:9DD5
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:751C:5531:9D0:7C2A
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:1C5C:D436:7E26:E51E
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:3956:E7B2:61CF:35BA
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:55D:5E0C:896F:F206
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:8C6A:DDB:44F7:EA3 blocked for short term (ineffective, address never used again)
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:58C3:BC87:3DE1:70A6
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:9E3:35C8:ABF9:E278
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:C472:D975:29DA:2DBB
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:31AF:4EBD:A03:16E

(I don't know what would be the appropriate IP range.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotheina (talk • contribs)

Looks like 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/65 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and I don't see any collateral on that range. We could try blocking for a month? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the range for 48 hours with a note to read WP:ENGVAR before proceeding; hopefully that gets their attention. OhNoitsJamie 20:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I meant 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you used that anyway - well done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Question: would User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:0:0:0:0/64 be seen by anyone? If not what is its purpose? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've always assumed that anyone in that range would see it, but maybe not? WP:ENGVAR is in the block reason, so hopefully they'll at least see that. OhNoitsJamie 20:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to communicate with IPv6 editors sometimes. If their IP address changes very often, it's almost impossible. There's no way to communicate with an entire IP range. Unless they actively go looking for messages on random pages, they'll never see anything put anywhere except their current IP talk page. The WMF has some major changes planned for the future, so I guess we'll see how those work out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

When – during the second Kamala Harris administration? EEng 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I'm guessing, it's related to meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, which is being pushed despite near-universal objection from the community. SQL 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I was merely referring to the glacial rate at which WMF projects proceed. EEng 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate but related, it's also worth remembering that even if it is a static IP, communicating with an editor without an account using the mobile website is (AFAIK still) difficult. Sure their talk page may stay the same, but unless they're experienced enough to know to check it, messages are going to go unheeded simply because they don't know they have them. Does this apply to the iOS app too? If so, even if the IP wasn't changing it's not surprising they would have no idea barring that block. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, so don't use it. I've been almost exclusively editing from a phone for over 4 years,  and only used the mobile website once, only long enough to figure out it's pointless.  John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  @John from Idegon: don't see how that helps us dealing with the thousands of editors who do use it unless you convince the WMF to shut it off. The whole point of this thread is how we can communicate with editors who are potentially unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages, who may not even know talk pages exist and this includes some who only ever seem to use the mobile site or in this case the mobile app, at least on whatever device the IPs are attached to. (Potentially these editors could also edit using a desktop or laptop computer, or a tablet, but these may have different IPs due to using a different network connection or SIM card.) As I already mentioned editors familiar with the limitations of the mobile site could easily regularly check their talk pages so the primary problem is always going to be those who are aren't familiar. I suspect they may be more likely to use both. (As much as anything because of they probably use and edit more often so even with an equal chance of them using it for any given edit or read, it becomes more likely.) I personally rarely edit with my phone finding both the mobile site and the desktop site too annoying to use without a mouse and preferably a keyboard too, but when I do (without these), I find both sites useful depending on the situation. But it's a moot point for me, because I also never edit with IPs so that limitation with the mobile site is irrelevant. Also since I use both I will eventually find out I have new messages even if I was using IPs. Again none of this helps us with our problems communicating with editors who do use IPs and do use the mobile site. Potentially the app too (like the OP) although no one has commenting on that so I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't have access to a recent iOS device, but after some testing the Android app at least seems to suffer from the same flaw i.e. absolutely no indication of new messages, or even that you have a talk page, if editing without an account. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for the iOS app. So someone editing from an IP and exclusively using the app would have no idea they have new messages, no matter how little their IP changes, unless they know to check. An interesting point is that the app doesn't seem to support viewing the history, it instead opens it as a link. It does support talk pages but the view talk at the bottom treats it as a link albeit a Misplaced Pages one meaning you can either open it in your browser or in the app. Anyway if you open stuff in the browser, you could see signs of new messages. But only if your browser is defaulting to desktop. If it defaults to the mobile site as I believe is the default for phone browsers, then you'll have no indication. And yes I confirmed that AFAICT, there's still no indication of new messages for editors not logged in, on the mobile site. I mostly tested on my desktop computer and browser using the mobile site but there was also some testing on Firefox on Android and some on Chrome. The desktop site is still the same with the orange box of doom, although I forgot that caching means you may not always see the new messages box for a while. Of course once you edit you should see it. But an IP editor just browsing, including an editor who browses on the desktop site sometimes but only ever edits with the mobile site or Android and probably iOS app may take a while to find out they have new messages unless they specifically check. And getting back to the main point, an editor without an account who only ever uses the mobile site or Android and probably iOS app at least on the device which has the IP with the new messages, will have no idea unless they specifically check. Editor's personal opinions of the mobile site or Android app or iOS app or whatever seem beside the point except if you believe you can convince the WMF to stop these. A personal dislike or non use of them doesn't change the fact some people do use them, sometimes apparently exclusively and sometimes without accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Perma Block the entire range - The editor has proven it's nothing more then an annoyance to the project. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  This is a /64 that's almost certain to be one user, so a longer block to prevent this is absolutely going to be reasonable if it continues - but I definitely support the idea of giving them this shorter block to get their attention just in case they're just misguided, given the acknowledged issue with communicating with IPv6 users. ~ mazca 19:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Partially blocked IP 112.200.44.30 keeps adding unsourced content

Anon user 112.200.44.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has been partially blocked on September 12, 2020 for adding unsourced content, seems to have returned to adding content without references. Affected pages need to be investigated and reverted if necessary. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have investigated into all of the IP's edits and have reverted problematic edits where necessary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Justdoinsomeedtits on The Devil All the Time (film)

Justdoinsomeedtits appears to believe they own the The Devil All the Time (film) article. The lede initially said "The film received mixed to positive reviews from critics, who praised the performances (particularly those of Holland and Pattinson) but criticized its grim tone and violence." but they removed it with an edit summary which said "Please point to a source criticizing the film for having a grim tone or being violent".

I did exactly that which they quickly reverted claiming "If you think the reviews criticize the movie for being violent or for being grim, you seem to have misread them".

I added the references back with lengthy quotes illustrating that they criticized the tone and violence and they reverted it again claiming "Please refrain from removing valid, sourced information from an article in favor of inaccurate, improperly sourced material that better suits your personal opinion. Further such behavior will result in a report."

I noted that the sources were literally quoted and they reverted again and slapped templates on my talk page saying I needed to " moderate yourself so as not to offend."

TL:DR Justdoinsomeedtits asked for sources when they were provided they edit warred because they want to control the way the film is portrayed. Helper202 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a reading comprehension issue. The movie is violent and has a grim tone - it is not being criticized for "being violent" or "having a grim tone", nor are its violence or its grim tone the object of criticism in any of the reviews cited by Helper202 (aside from calling its grimness "exciting but a little wearying" - hardly a point that can be used as a summation of its negative reviews in their entirety). What the source reviews in fact take issue with are a "lack depth", being "unflinchingly centered on white faces", and being "repetitive" and "simplistic". All of these are actual criticisms - "it is violent" or "it has a grim tone" are not, at least as far as the cited reviews are concerned.

As far as "ownership", I see no difference between Helper202's behavior and mine, with the exception that my edits constitute criticisms directly quoted from cited reviews and Helper202's constitute a misreading of his cited material or perhaps an unfamiliarity with the meaning of "criticism". Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This sort of "critics said X"/"no, they didn't" is why any critical summary should be properly sourced. If you want to say that there's a critical consensus, you need to find a source that says there's a critical consensus. Otherwise, it's just synthesis based on cherry-picked sources (two random critics said X, so we're going to ignore what every other critic said and say that X is the critical consensus). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

User IvanMisner

• IvanMisner (talk · contribs)

Blatant vandal, switching the main image for the subject at Ivan Misner to an obviously digitally manipulated image. Claims to be the subject of the article . --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I'm not sure it's vandalism, although that image does look rather odd. I've blocked as possible impersonation. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Rather odd is an understatement. It is utterly bizarre. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

While the image did go through Photoshop, it struck me as "another pose" probably taken at the same time as the image it replaced. The image it replaced has been nominated for deletion on the Commons here due to licensing issues. My guess is that the recently uploaded high resolution version has the same licensing issues. If this editor is in fact Misner, and he can demonstrate that he, not the photographer, owns the rights, then this photo will be allowed to stay on the Commons if and when it is challenged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, maybe his head is really that huge. I don't know, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Can we get a fact check? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats by two IPs

IPs 128.127.106.237 and 106.215.241.123 have both threatened to file an FIR (first information report?). diffs: , Dylsss (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Information: 128.127.106.237 may be a proxy according to Proxy IP Checker. However, that tool is not being maintained. RIPE shows it belongs to a small IP range owned by a hosting company. The other one appears to be from India. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I ask for help please

In the voice Fargo (season 3) I included in the main cast the actor who plays the partner of the protagonist and among the secondary characters a henchman who, apart from dying in the middle of the season, was certainly by mistake inserted in the main cast (when has ever seen a henchman in the main cast?) But unfortunately a user got me rolled back twice. I ask for help here please, because I never know how to deal with these bullies :( --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: This is a WP:content dispute and the way to deal with it is to discuss the issue on the article talk page i.e. Talk:Fargo (season 3). You will need to explain with inserting your personal interpretation of who is the main cast based on the role they played and the amount of speaking they did, and your personal experience of what you've "seen" before in other main casts, instead of going by the credits; complies with our policies and guidelines especially WP:Original research and WP:Verifiability. Instead I would suggest you bring a reliable secondary source to the discussion which disputes the actor being part of the main cast. Also when you start a discussion here, there is a big box which tells you to notify any editor's you are discussing. Although you didn't name them, it's fairly obvious from the history that you are referring to User:Drovethrughosts. I see that you've made it to their talk page before but you did not notify them of this discussion. I will do so for you this time but please remember to do so in the future. This is especially important here given that you've accused the editor of being a "bullies", which appears to a personal attack by you and the only thing here at this time which has any chance of warranting administrative attention. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, excluding a Wikiproject article assessment, the talk page was last edited in 2017. Ironically that was in relation to the same issue. This is hardly ever a good sign for an ANI thread. Also, as always, if the article content dispute can't be resolved on the article talk page, there are several forms of WP:dispute resolution which can be tried, none of which should involve any of the ANs. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to explain that the fault lies with the Google translator, I trusted it translation of “questo tipo di prepotenze”. But obviously I didn't want to refer to the user with an adjective, but my not used to this type of war edits. In any case I apologize to the user and the administrators for being misunderstood. With the latter also for having the wrong place to raise the question. --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing

I have received an email from a person that claims to write Misplaced Pages articles about people in exchange for money. As a long term editor of Misplaced Pages this worried me and I know it violates Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution_disclosure. I would like to report the editor, but all proof I have is said email and of course I do not want to accuse anybody wrongly. I will write an email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org at the same time to report this behaviour and hopefully we can identify affected articles and either delete them or correct them (remove POV) if required. Please let me know how to proceed and whether to post affected articles/usernames here or not. Best regards --hroest 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). You were right not to post any details here. Another possible place to forward that email is WP:ARBCOM (contact details in that article). That's what I did the last time I got one (except that the cheapskate wasn't even offering me any money), and they courteously replied that they'd identified the emailer as a WP:SOCK. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you have to take these things with a grain of salt. There have been instances recently in which people have gone to fairly great lengths (posting phony reviews on noticeboards and the like) to frame productive editors as paid shills. BD2412 T 17:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412, the mere thought of that existential sort of situation occurring made me cringe. Editors involved greatly in anti UPE/SPAM who have a target on their back need to be very careful. Unfortunately I fall into this category. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412, Celestina007, and Narky Blert: Thanks for your comments, I have forwarded the email to WP:ARBCOM. Hopefully some admin can look into this in more detail (I hope this gets taken seriously, since this destroys the culture and joy of editing). I dont think this is a case of an elaborate scheme to frame some editor and it clearly looks like an account that tries to keep a low profile and only edit very specific articles. --hroest 01:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: also pinging @Primefac and Beeblebrox: as they may be interested. --hroest 02:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Not much to add to the above; if it's off-wiki evidence, mail it in. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparent legal threats on S.U.C.C.E.S.S.

FeelGooda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have made a legal threat in their edit summary For the record, should a formal testimonial distributed by an law enforcement agency with witnesses documenting an assault by an assailant causing damage to the Canadian agency indicated on this page, including bodily harm to staff personnel or property with conscious intent whereby investigation indicates causation of such actions perpetuated from the information displayed on this Misplaced Pages page, the admin as a representative to Misplaced Pages abides by their previous action and content reversion, I believe they are referring to me, though I am not an admin. They have been making multiple pseudo-edits adding spaces and making threats and intimidating other editors in the edit summary under Defamationz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FakeVerify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. If an admin could take a look, that would be great, thanks. Dylsss (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• None of the accounts are active at this moment. Nonetheless, I have protected the article for one week and warned FeelGooda with the {{uw-legal}} template. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wandering Green User

Wandering Green User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since August 2019 and almost 100% of their edits have been creating templates, userboxes, and other miscellany in their userspace in blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Alongside that, they've uploaded numerous copyright violating images. By my count, I've found literally only two edits that were actually related to developing the encyclopedia: one adding a period and one adding a (probably unnecessary) image. This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and just wants to use the site as a free web host. Nathan2055 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see lots of templated messages, but no indication that anyone has attempted to have a discussion. Did I miss it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nathan2055:I did see him helping another user by creating a user box. People who are here to help people build an encyclopedia provide value. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent bot-like reverts of a specific user

While I'm still looking into other Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution methods to deal with this, I feel it is necessary to record this incident here. Requesting assistance here, as the list of diffs is too big, and I do not know how to proceed.

Apparently, users Miaumee and JayBeeEll had an argument in User_talk:Miaumee#Basic_issues_of_punctuation, which eventually led to JayBeeEll reverting numerous edits by Miaumee, in an almost bot-like fashion.

At first glance, I'd say this is an infringement of Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.

Most (if not all) of Miaumee's edits consist of:

1. adding multiple references of kind <ref name=':01'> , having Mathworld or Mathvault as source; and
2. making changes to the wording of the text.

In Variance diff, these changes in wording seemed quite positive to me, hence why I reverted the revert.

The multiple reversions can be checked in JayBeeEll's contributions, but I plan to collect of the disruptive edits here soon. Walwal20 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The list of all reverts are as follows:

FWIW, the edit summaries of "Undid revision by Miaumee (talk) Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" makes it appear this is a WP:POINT retaliation. Helper202 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, my edits are not making a point: their edits are bad, reverting them is an improvement (at least on net). Also, I find it a bit annoying that this couldn't wait until after I responded on my talk-page (note that I have not performed any reverts in several hours, despite there being another 50-100 of these edits that are the last edit to their respective page). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

All of these appear to be references to either Wolfram MathWorld or Mathvault. Is there any intrinsic problem with these sites as sources? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't think there is a problem, as I see them often here and there. Even if it were a "bad" source, I'm not sure if it would be OK to revert all edits, especially due to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Walwal20 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mathworld is widely used but mediocre; Mathvault (and Brilliant.org, which they also seem to use) is super low quality, and the way they add them is very spammy. David Eppstein has also been reverting on sight (though I do not mean to suggest he endorses specifically the systematic reverts I've made). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

True. For what it's worth, I believe the edits are in good faith, but low quality. More, they are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. Many of the changes are innocuous, neither better nor worse than what was there before, but many more are disimprovements, making the grammar worse, making the mathematics less accurate, or introducing low-quality web sources to articles that are already more carefully sourced to higher-quality publications. In any case the only issue here that is behavioral rather than content is Miaumee's continued pattern of edits beyond their level of competence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that JayBeeEll's behavior of performing a mass revert with poor edit summaries qualifies as a behavioural issue regarding WP:POINT and WP:ESDOS, and it should be recorded as such. Walwal20 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The way Miaumee rephrases things (rather than adding useful content) can be seen as infringing MOS:STYLERET; though in some of these diffs (I did not see all) I think the rephrasing actually improved the text. Is there any guideline that supports not using these poor sources (Mathworld and Mathvault)? Walwal20 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that good faith but low-quality contributions cannot be undone merely as a matter of editorial discretion for being low-quality, and that instead they can only be undone if there is some policy or guideline that they violate. I strongly disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. (Also the guideline as far as Mathvault is concerned is WP:RS.) —JBL (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein And let me guess, you get to make the decision as to what is low or high quality. It goes without saying that I'm against that.

A massive revert such as the one done is only justifiable if there is a clear infringement of a[REDACTED] guideline. As such, Miaumee's edits' quality are largely debatable, and JayBeeEll should have brought up the problem in, say, Wikiproject Mathematics.

You also miss my second point. I understand if it is hard for you, but try to place yourself in Miaumee's shoes for a moment. Hours of your work have been reverted, and with a quite unhelpful edit summary. This clearly goes the opposite way of WP:CIVILITY (particularly, but not exclusively, WP:ESDONTS). Ideally I want this to be solved in a way that is, at the very least, civil towards Miaumee. Walwal20 12:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about Miaumee's feelings if they were responsive to concerns about their edits -- the actual best outcome here would be for them to say, "Yes I understand what is wrong with my edits, here is what I will do better; and by the way I will check over all my remaining edits to make sure they are okay." Their unwillingness to change in response to valid criticism is by far the most serious problem here. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't get that kind of response from the other party if you just throw facts on their faces. First of all, what guarantee do they have that you are correct? Absolutely none. That's why you need consensus, supports from other people. I'm much more likely to recognize that I am wrong if more than some random editor calls out on me. Walwal20 21:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is an absurd elevation of process over substance, and it's particularly ridiculous given that you didn't bother to see what discussion with me would yield before running off to ANI. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm most concerned with the civility problem. JayBeeEll applied the edit summary "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" to over 70 edits. It would be hard to argue that that's appropriate; it seems to me like WikiHounding. I noticed the uncivil edit summary in one of the pages on my watchlist and it led me to comment on their talk page, and I also considered starting an ANI thread before I saw this one. Benny White (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess it would help to make the following things explicit: I noted Benny White's concerns earlier and have not made any of thse edits since then. When I resume examining the rest of Miaumee's edits, if I revert them, I will endeavor to write edit summaries that don't rub people the wrong way. Likewise, I will proceed at a slower pace. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is no admin input to this, other than David Eppstein's (which was summoned here by JayBeeEll himself), I intend to take the role of an unrequested WP:THIRD opinion to solve the dispute. I will politely:

1. explain to Miaumee, based on what was discussed here, that Mathvault and Mathworld can be seen as WP:QUESTIONABLE sources or largely WP:RSSELF published sources, and thus lack WP:RELIABILITY.
2. explain how her persistent and somewhat bot-like edits to rephrase text, while good faith, go against MOS:STYLERET when there isn't a clear improvement to the text. In some cases, such as here, there was a significant improvement to the text, but I guess that's because the original article had more significant problems in writing style. Most of Miaumee's other edits were modifications to an otherwise fine text, some of which arguably decreased the text quality.
3. invite her to undo JayBeeEll's reverts where she is sure the two above items do not apply.
4. invite her to selectively undo JayBeeEll's reverts, so that the content that does not infringe items 1 and 2 can remain live in the articles.
5. kindly request that she shifts her focus to adding actual new content to articles (properly sourced, of course).

Best, Walwal20 13:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As the person who thought this was worth escalating to WP:ANI you are the wrong person to claim to take a neutral role in this. And your suggestion that Miaumee be encouraged to reinstate some of the bad edits and continue making more of them is unconstructive and makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was unsure if it was worth bringing the incident here, but now I am sure that's what should have been done. I'm glad to have this incident recorded here, but to some extent disappointed with the lack of feedback from neutral uninvolved admins.

I still believe I am a neutral party here, as I never had any relation with Miaumee and I noticed this whole problem merely because I'm watching Variance, and suddenly a revert with a weird edit summary popped up in my watch list. To make it worse, it reverted a largely fine edit (thought I intend to remove the mathworld references soon).

Might I add, I am now reminded that an RfA has just been denied on the grounds that the candidate had bad dispute resolution skills (withdrawn at 17 September), so the dispute resolution skills I am witnessing here is having its toll on me. Best, Walwal20 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As an attempt to improve the item you mentioned, I have striked it and added a reformulated one. By no means I would proposed she fully revert edits, as all of them involve mathworld etc references, and I'd rather have her keep these away. Walwal20 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walwal20, Miaumee, David Eppstein, and JayBeeEll: Walwal20 reached out to me, as an uninvolved admin, which I am. Indeed I don't think I have ever edited any of these articles, or interacted with any of you except David Eppstein, who I have had slioght but quite positive interactions with. Several points:

1. I accept for the moment, the statement that Mathvault and Mathworld are generally low-quality sources.
2. An editor who believes that a given edit is unhelpful may surely revert that edit as a matter of editorial judgement. No one's approval is needed for that, although if the revert is challenged WP:BRD applies.
3. However to mass-revert over 75 edits at a rate approaching 5 edits per minute approaches the level of bot-like editing covered by WP:MEATBOT. This is not acceptable in the absence of consensus. I accept that all these reverts were done in good faith.
4. As per WP:SUMMARYNO, "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing"is not a helpful summery, and it looks pointy whether it was intended as a POINTY action or not.
5. I therefore ask JayBeeEll to refrain from any further such edits until there is time for a discussion of the matter. Please consider this a sufficient challenge to these edits to invoke BRD.
6. I have as yet no substantive opinion on the merits of these edits. I will try to form one. There are both content issues and behavioral issues here.
7. I will address :::Miaumeedirectly on that user's talk page, and ask for a Stop to the edits now being reverted.

I ask for calm and civility from all involved. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It goes to show the absurdity of this situation that I committed to the things you ask of me six hours ago. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now made This edit to User talk:Miaumee DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

JayBeeEll I am attempting to respond quickly to prevent further problems here. I have not yet had time to read everything written about this situation. I apologize if I have overlooked comments of yours, and i am thankful that you have already agreed to my requests, which I hope are reasonable ones, and which were in part addressed to all. Could you give me a pointer to the agreement you mention, please? or at least was it in this thread or elsewhere? DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going offline for a few hours, but will check back when I can, all. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Sorry, I didn't mean to snipe at you specifically, I just find it ridiculous that this was brought to ANI in the first place, without waiting for a response on my talk-page. The comment I mean is the one is response to Benny White above -- although rereading it I guess it promises slightly less (or at least is vague about when I might resume looking at Miaumee's edits). So let me take the opportunity to observe that there is nothing urgent about any of this; to further make clear that I will not resume before this is resolved; and to restate my earlier committment to not doing the things that people object to (the speed and edit summaries) if I do resume after this is resolved. Finally, I appreciate your comment on Miaumee's talkpage, thanks. --JBL (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite all right, JayBeeEll, no offense taken. I see the comment you refer to, and i thank you for that and for your later response just above. I am now hoping for a response to this from Miaumee. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. Thanks for chiming in. I guess I'll start by saying that my edits are not exactly as systematic as some here have presumed. Often times, the editing barely happens because I find a sentence jarring or hard to understand, and the rest proceeds organically from there. The intent is often not to introduce new content, but to put myself as a first-time reader and see which passage appear nebulous (as is common in mathematical text) and how they can be rephrased. The edits weren't done with the intent of reverting style, although for someone with a certain grammatical style whose edits are often substantive, it could appear that way.

The other thing I thought I would mention is that during the course of editing, I've come to learn certain grammatical changes (outside of MoS) are touchier than others. In the beginning for example, I used to reflexively remove duplicate spaces after full stop as I read through the text. But after being notified that some prefer double spaces, I became more aware to adjust my writing to fit the predominant style of the article.

So this, among other reasons, is why I never revert any edit on Misplaced Pages (there are others more capable in making those sorts of judgments than me). The history of me being on Wiki has been me doing the editing, and others doing the reverting (if they so feel compelled). To be frank, the reverting basically didn't happen until fairly recently, but that's also why there hasn't been any edit war involving me in the first place—since I almost never edit an article twice.

So the point here is that I'm not the type who would seek to reinstate any reverting. I think that if the edit is good, then it'll find its way there somehow, and if it's bad, someone will either change things up or revert it altogether. That's basically why I have been confident with editing—knowing that I cannot possibly satisfy everyone in the process.

OK. Back to the concerns about grammar. To be honest, I didn't think that it would be such an issue since the MoS covered many aspects rather thoroughly. From my exchange with JBL, I've learned that he takes issue at least with my use of stray commas and em-dash. While the uses of these are rather common on Misplaced Pages, they have the potential of changing the meaning of the sentences. So that's definitely something I think twice before doing.

Apart from those, I really haven't got much clue whether the issue with grammar are indeed grammatical errors in the Misplaced Pages sense, since—as you might know—I haven't been able to get much info from the reverts aside from "grammatical disprovement". It'd have been nicer if the edits were modified instead of being reverted—but I guess that's hard to do due to the substantive nature of the edits.

As for the citations, that's something I have a mixed feeling about. As you might know, I have a few handy online sources I use for reading on a topic and doing the editing. If I slap a citation on an article, it's generally not because I'm crazy about them, but because they happen to be just around and ok for the sentences being substantiated. While I agree that these different sources (mathworld, mathvault, mathsisfun, brilliant, math insight) are of different levels of quality, I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least).

Hmm... how should I put this. I think I'll start by saying that it is generally not easy to find a citation in mathematics (though it sure is easy for those doing the policing). The point is that I've chosen those sites precisely because they are reference-based and non-self-published (at least in the appearance of it). Even if they were to be self-published, these are generally written or reviewed by competent individual (including mathsisfun, which admittedly looks very inappropriate for citing). I guess what I'm saying is that out of millions of questionable math sites, those are the ones that tend to stand out and happen to be around during the research (and are less likely to disappear like some academic PDF would).

For example, I also have some reservation about citing Brilliant.org, which is technically a wiki. But unlike open-for-all wiki, they have a curation process so that only certain individuals can edit (almost as a sort of peer-reviewing). If this were about biography of living person I'll definitely think twice, but if one considers those sites as low quality, then considering their factual accuracy and the amount of math resources they offer—it'd be like playing a game with your hands tied (unless one turns to textual sources, which I assume is possible but much less handy). My inclination is that them doing harm on the site is a bit of an over-stretch, but of course that doesn't mean that anything goes either.

Anyway, I am not saying this out of defiance, nor I am trying to discredit your points—as I'm sure I can do better on many fronts. Basically, this is yet another reason why I'm sort of prepared to have my previous edits reverted (if it were to come out that way). As I mentioned on my talk page, I'll refrain from any editing until the dust is settled. Though I really, really do appreciate the admins and fellow editors for standing out, I'd probably stay relatively low-profile to avoid clouding the judgment. Miaumee (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Miaumee, I am glad to read your comment above. I hope we are wewll on the way to resolving this.

It seems to me that three are two parts to this, content issues and behavioral issues.

The content issues are the quality of edits by Miaumee, and how they can be improved, and whether reverts are needed going forward. That is really out of scope for ANI, but perhaps needs further discussion somewhere. It could be done on User talk:Miaumee or on a separate page, perhaps a new page such as Misplaced Pages:Math edits by Miaumee (or I could create such a page in my user space if people prefer).

The behavioral issues are fairly simple, and I hope will not need further discussions or any restrictions on anyone. On Miaumee's part, there must be a serious effort to make the best possible edits, and to work collaboratively. An attitude that if there is a problem with an edit, someone else will revert it or correct it is not optimal, it can seem as if that means expecting others to clean up after poor edits. Also attention to Misplaced Pages:Communication is required. And in this particular case, Miaumee should review their own past edits and revise them to remove problems where possible.

On the part of JayBeeEll, care to Assume good faith and keep Misplaced Pages:Communication is required in mind. Mass reverts, as described in the comment by JBL ...I feel that you have left no option other than to revert all your edits... and as carried out by JBL in the list of diffs earlier in this thread, are not usually appropriate. There are a few cases where an editor's contributions will be reverted in bulk. For example, when a Contributor copyright investigation has found that an editor has made sufficiently frequent copyright violations that a mass revert is warranted. But copyright issues are rather more serious than grammar and punctuation errors, for one thing, and such a decision is never made by a single editor, it is done by consensus, normally after a formal process. I do not think that the problems with Miaumee's edits rise to that level. Therefore I must also disagree with and disapprove of the comment by David Eppstein in this thread that Miaumee's edits are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. WP:QUO says If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Help:reverting says Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? and n the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. WP:SUMMARYNO also points out the need for helpful, specific edit summaries, saying While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. and Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack. Also WP:MEATBOT says that Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. and warns of the dangers of highly repetitive editing. I gather that JBL has agreed not to use such methods of reverting in future.

With JBL's agreement above, and with Miaumee's stated intent to do better (I'm sure I can do better on many fronts.) It seems that the behavioral issues have perhaps been addressed. Does anyone think that further discussion of these or of any other behavioral issues is needed here? DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "why I never revert any edit on Misplaced Pages" You never check for insertion of vandalism, unsourced content, and POV edits? How does that work?

• "I almost never edit an article twice." Do you add the articles you edit to your watchlist? This allows you to check newer changes.
• "I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least)." Then you should discuss the reliability of the sources with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikimeedian

User:Wikimeedian, in this edit posted a highly offensive comment, allegedly as part of a barnstar award, which included the phrase: i liked it better 'back in the day when we would just make fun of the Jewish Nazi prisoners (sorry if part of this may have come off offensive). I have used revision deletion, at the email request of the user who was the recipient, but any admin can confirm the diff. This may have been intended as a joke of some sort, but I do not find it funny, and neither did the recipient. Both of us had distant relatives who were murdered during the Holocaust. I ask that the user be at least admonished, and warned that anything of the sort will result in a prompt block. Perhaps an immediate block is warranted, as Wikimeedian clearly knew this was offensive. I will formally notify Wikimeedian of this thread. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't just block them. Natureium (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Because I am generally very reluctant to unilaterally block without previous warnings. So I am asking for opinions here. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Note this is not a new user. They've admitted it's a "fresh start" account and there are things about them that may be familiar to someone. They routinely remove things from their user talk, so it's necessary to look at the history. They demonstrate significant CIR problems in the very little article-space work they've done, so I'm guessing their previous stint here was short-lived. —— 01:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who they are or used to be, but I'm not playing this game. Indeffed. For the record, I think we're being trolled - they say they're a fresh start or whatever (per AlanM1's link above) but their userpage is trying to make them out as a brand-new user (and yet has that "Methmetics" joke, whatever that's supposed to be). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As a note, while I often disagree with GN in terms of warning/immediate block, in this case I also believe we are being trolled - too many warning signs all going off at once. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Good block by GeneralNotability. Troll is spot on I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by multiple related accounts at Christian Rowan

Mostly promotional and/or political spin. At my request, two administrators assisted in bringing this to a more neutral version, but their work is being persistently undone. Page protection and perhaps a range block may be worth exploring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See blocked account 2001:8004:2770:CDAD:7162:DECB:4BE8:FA99 (talk · contribs). Since then, continued disruption by 131.242.101.250 (talk · contribs) and 131.242.101.248 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor keeps recreating article that has been repeatedly deleted.

Saroha_Rajgan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps recreating the same article over and over again. It has already been speedily deleted several times, and he has already been warned multiple times to stop recreating this article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I now see that this speedy deletion was declined. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• An ancillary issue here is that the user’s name is in clear violation of our username policy, as it’s the name of a Pakistani village (which is the subject of the article that they’re trying to create). They need a soft block for this reason alone. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Since when is using a placename as a username illegal on enwiki? And which part of Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low is difficult for you guys to understand? Quite surprising how you scurry to chase off anyone whom you perceive to be a non-native English-speaker, yet basic sentences in your own language are too much for you to process. And we wonder why enwiki has such a strong Anglo-American bias: it's because you folks don't want that to change. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of that rule. However, populated, legally recognized places can still be deleted if we can't find a source that can verify their existence. I tagged the article for speedy deletion because it had already been deleted so many times for similar reasons and had identical wording to the previous versions. I was also unaware of the link that existed in the user's sandbox. I guess I got too ahead of myself on this one. For that reason, I'll refrain from tagging any more articles until I have more knowledge of the process. However, this does not change the fact that this user is still being very disruptive despite several warnings to change their behavior. I don't doubt that they are acting in good faith, but I feel that some kind of action needs to be taken here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So then criticise him for that disruption, rather than absurd stuff like the act of creating an article on a notable place, or having a matching username. Looking at their contributions, I don't disagree with the assessment you make in your last sentence, but I most certainly will not stand for the other nonsense that has found its way into this saga. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right. It was a bad move on my part to tag the article. I shouldn't have relied so much on previous deletions even though part of me was uncertain as to whether I was doing the right thing. Had I known that the tag had been removed, I would not have posted here without consulting an administrator. The AFD is getting a lot of attention. I plan on voting keep if we can find a reliable source. In the meantime, I think I'll let the administrators deal with him. I'll try asking him if he can find sources for us if he comes back. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Russian brothers messing around pushing Kremlin agenda calling "Pentagon unreliable source" they have returned after page protection ended

These two are constantly adding pro-Russian views and removing US State Dept. or Pentagon sources calling them unreliable. One of the users have returned after a page protection ended due to dispute and has made the same exact revert. User:F.Alexsandr and User:Mr.User200. They are hardcore editing russian missile systems and jet fighter articles to make them look superior by using Russian language sources they also remove US sources critical of them saying its probably "fake". These guys dont belong here. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The user above argues in bad faith. It is one thing to use Pentagon or state department as a source, However the user above uses opinion articles on NewYourkTimes which cite US Africa Command as an undeniable source. Especially in such important and heavily reliant on sources topics like defence and losses of military equipment he continues to use single "sources" or rather opinion articles unsupported by photo, video, or documentary evidence, which support his point of view, not even trying to diversify them. I have proposed to him several times to move discussion to the talk page, but instead of doing this, this is the second time in a week when he uses Noticeboard to ask to restrict me from editing on Misplaced Pages. F.Alexsandr (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not rely on image board logic of photo or video evidence. We have a thing called reliable and unreliable sources, namely the NYT etc. While RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. This is a rule, if you refuse this you are welcome to enjoy a temporary block. And if you continue that will become a permanent block. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I know that RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. I have never used them and I dont know why you are telling me this. Just because NYT cited USAFRICOM who said that there are 14 russian jets in Lybia does not mean that this should be used in infobox as undeniable statemnt of fact. We know for shure there ARE russian jets in Lybia, but we dont know how many. I proposed to you to move the US claim to a separate section of the article, or to discuss possible settlement in a Talk page, but you have ignored me. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss it, I only responded to give administrator some context. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No you are just sweet talking meaningless words to buy you time so you can edit russian weapon systems to make them look superior. Only a unaware person would discuss anything with a russian troll. dont tell me another word because i am not talking to you. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't make a statement in a noticeboard discussion and then, in effect, "no-contact" them (you can of course say not to ping you etc). Are there diffs of them using depreciated sources as you claim? Currently it sounds rather content-dispute, and thus outside our remit. But obviously there are lots of conduct issues in this area, so I wanted to ask for more specific evidence for your claim and show a conduct basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is a content dispute, and additionally the IP needs a block for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a clear case of Sockpupetry and POV push (Agenda), both anon IPs (176.88.145.111 & 176.88.142.57) keeps pushing a agenda, Pro Turkish btw, on modern military conflicts. I think a SP investigation should be carried out soon and a Check User. Those war related pages have been systematically vandalized by two Sockpuppet masters. User:Gala19000 (Socks) and User:RandomAccount1235423(List of Socks) + lesser IPs. I think User:Shadow4dark could also make an opinion here.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This ip is sock of RandomAccount1235423 see ] similar personal attacks. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for a month for block evasion, as it seems to be a static IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This ip is likely a sock of User:Maistara. {{3125A|talk}} 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid Page

We have been contacted by an editor claiming that we need to pay him $400 in order to fix an undisclosed paid page on our page or else he will flag it to be deleted.

I don't want to publically publish their details here. Please could you advise on how to process?

Thanks User:Sheffielder22

Sheffielder22 (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sheffielder22 you'll need to email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org Praxidicae (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sheffielder22: (non-admin comment). You were right not to post details here. I would forward them to WP:ARBCOM (contact info in that article). They are unlikely to take kindly to blackmail, or to treat it lightly. WP:LEGALTHREATs are bad enough, but illegal ones are something else again. Narky Blert (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps vandalizing articles

Hi, someone under the IP 75.181.163.167 keeps vandalizing articles. That person was already given several warnings which did not help. --Uostofchuodnego (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Uostofchuodnego: Straight vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV which is faster most of the times. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

gross incivility caught in filter

97.37.32.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gross incivility caught in the edit filter. IMO time to remove the IP's ability to hit the save button. Including tpa please. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 36h--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Self-promotion since 2007

Normally, I'd just handle obvious self-promotion like this by myself, but this has been going on since 2007. jniccum has been adding himself and links to articles he's written on lawrence.com and other media since his third edit in 2007. He's never responded to the small number of messages he's received about it, nor has he edited outside of mainspace. Is there a reason I'm missing that he's just been given a couple of warnings? --jpgordon 14:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, Clarion444 seems to be doing the exact same thing. --jpgordon 14:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I usually draw a line between overt citation spamming and someone who's habitually citing themselves. The first is inherently disruptive, but the second doesn't have to be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit that jniccum made to the Smothers Brothers article didn't even support the information where it was added. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Use of two accounts suggests this is not good faith self-citation, but instead deliberate refspamming. I suppose we could ask a CheckUser whether these are actually the same person? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not necessary. --jpgordon 01:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's enough of a behavioral match to indef User:Clarion444. There are other Niccum refs but a quick spot-check suggests they are added by unrelated editors. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see User:Notfrompedro has undone a lot of these. Would have been nice if their WP:ES had linked to this discussion--I and at least one other editor were misled by the one that was used. DMacks (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This was started after I began removing the links. I left a note on Yamla's page because they had warned Jniccum in the past. I only found out about this after seeing jpgordon's comment on Clarion444's talk page. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying the timeline (as well as working on cleaning up the mess, even if confusing for us outsiders' watchlists). DMacks (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I think jpgordon probably saw my edits and followed up leading to this report but I just assumed contacting the first admin who had warned jniccum a couple of years ago would be the right move. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's right. I saw your edit on Laurie Anderson and got suspicious. --jpgordon 01:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

He's been using a lot of IPs as well.

• • 2001:48F8:9021:1C86:7193:225E:192A:C9D7 (examples )
  • 24.124.4.220 (examples )
  • 24.225.110.75 (examples )
  • 24.124.125.33 (examples )

I'm still finding more. He's been at this for years. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• It appears as though the editor simply looks for places in articles to add links to Niccum articles, whether they actually support the content or not. For another example (similar to the Smothers Brothers edit above), on Kathy Griffin, they add a Niccum link to he second season of My Life on the D-List, which premiered June 2006, earned Griffin the 2007 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Reality Program, non-competition...however the Niccum interview was written in 2006 and the 2007 Emmy awards had not yet been awarded. On Nicholas Sparks, the article content is After being offered a full sports scholarship for track and field, at the University of Notre Dame, Sparks accepted and enrolled, majoring in business finance but the Niccum article (interview) has Sparks only saying I was a track and field athlete and ended up going to Notre Dame. Nothing about a scholarship or major. I did find a handful of useful edits that did not involve citing their own work. Per WP:SELFCITE, I think Misplaced Pages articles would be better served if this editor offered their links on article talk pages and let other editors make the call whether to cite them. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree. If the editor agrees to using {{refideas}} on the article talk page, there would be no reason to block. Without such a promise, the editor is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts for reference spamming, self-promotion, and abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon 14:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

On User talk: Shaheryar Shabbir#September 2020 when I asked them to declare their paid editor status. UPE + legal threat = clear reason to block as WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If you could go back and read my statement, I've clearly stated I'm new to[REDACTED] and have very less knowledge and I've asked that If I could move legally, I used the word (IF) there is a huge difference between asking a general question and verbally threatning someone kindly read my statement again before declaring my statement in wrong context, Thank you Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shaheryar Shabbir, whether or not you are able to take any sort of legal action is quite beyond the point. Even broaching the subject is grounds for administrative action. Whatever the outcome here, I would respectfully suggest you leave such questions aside. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I've already mentioned it 3 times now, That I'm new to wikipedia, can you please read my statement? Please? Thank you Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shaheryar Shabbir: How is this related to the issue at hand? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless this user reads WP:OWN (which they've been told about in at least 3 places- their talkpage, article talkpage and the help desk), WP:PAID and WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, and complies with all three, they should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. All the material they're trying to remove is well sourced controversy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As I told you I'm new on the[REDACTED] I am not much familiar with how Misplaced Pages works so I made a mistake by using a statement which caused someone to take it as a legal threat context, I would apologise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs)

Also please stop trying to delete this article. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (2nd nomination) was 1 month ago and was a speedy keep as no policy was given for deletion. Your current attempt to AFD it again is just more disruption and will just result it being kept again. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the nomination they need votes which I know people will vote now to get the page deleted, Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It needs a consensus not a vote, and there was a consensus last month to keep it. The more you keep editing without reading key policies, the more likely it is you will be blocked. You still haven't declared your paid editing status correctly. The latest misplaced nonsense that needs cleaning up is the misplaced Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka and Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination). There is a consensus to keep, you will not get it deleted no matter how much you try. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And this user still hasn't posted a redaction of their legal threat, can't believe they haven't been blocked yet..... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

: It wasn't the first legal threat either. See — Blablubbs 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Can I just propose an indef now? They've still failed to make a disclosure even after a lengthy discussion via our help channel and nearly a dozen messages on their talk page, here and other places. This is not just a TOU vio at this point, it's also well beyond WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  They made this although the template is broken and they're trying to link to a private discord group or something. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  How are they not indeffed for clear legal threats yet? It's a blatant violation of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS and having made many edits, they have refused to redact tge legal threat. I would have expected admins to take this more seriously, they usually do. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal threats, he's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Block'em for that as I just did and the situation resolves itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TheRealityPost Spam links self promotion

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

TheRealityPost is posting spam links of his website. Please see. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Payal_Ghosh&diff=prev&oldid=979742100

Duc4Wikmedia and redirects

Duc4Wikmedia has been creating redirects from film production companies for a long period of time now, many of which are not mentioned at the redirects' targets. These are regularly nominated by me on RfD, where they are deleted unless a different user fixes the problem by adding a respective mention to the article (see the notifications on the user's talk page for reference), and were discussed on WikiProject Redirect's talk page. Thus, their creation should be considered disruptive editing. After being warned twice, they still continued to create Foxxking Entertainment, Foxx Hole Productions, and Reveal Entertainment, some similarly unhelpful redirects. Therefore, I propose to consider a topic ban on redirect creation for the user. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Found at target. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:89EA:72E4:97DB:14B5 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Now found at target", you mean (1, 2). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User Alexjonesissupercool

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

Is it worth persevering with escalating warnings for this user, or is it likely a WP:NOTHERE situation based on the username and things like this? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

BHG

I have asked BrownHairedGirl to not message me directly, I think quite civilly. This appears to be being ignored. I was kind enough to bring her attention to a category issue, even though I fundamentally disagree with categories altogether. I decided to revert a message I wrote as although I did feel that I was being gas-lighted it was probably something I shouldn't have said out loud. I then got a message, with a threat to take me to AN/I. I’ll admit I haven't read the entire text of the message because - I’m not interested! Also, it is triggering my anxiety.

I would ask that this be reviewed and that my civil and respectful request that she not message me be respected. If an admin could please review, that would be appreciated. Unless absolutely necessary I will try to make this my only message on AN/I. I will add the notice to her talk page per policy, but that will be all. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See my post on Chris's talk, where I set out why I ignored the request. If Chris had actually read the message, they'd see why I posted it ... and they could save time at ANI.

Chris needs to make up their mind: do they want non-interaction? Or do they want to troll me in multiple venues and then complain when I ask them to desist?

This is all a continuation of the saga a few months ago, where Chris caused a massive storm by emptying a category out of process, and then launched a vendetta against User:DuncanHill for challenging the disruption. I challenged that vendetta, and Chris then complained that I had "bullied" them. Oh, the irony.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is perhaps relevant that this request for non-interaction was left here roughly a day after Chris.sherlock initiated an interaction with BHG by leaving several snarky comments about her editing on a widely-read discussion board diff1 diff2 diff3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thats not entirely accurate. I let BHG know that there was a category issue she may want to be aware of. I take on board that some of my later comments may have come across snarky, for which I apologise. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @David Eppstein. It's highly relevant, and sadly it seems to be part of a long history of similar conduct by Chris: troll and attack others, then claim that being asked to desist is triggering their anxiety. I sympathise with Chris's mental health problems, but they would help themselves best by desisting from their pattern of manufacturing situations which cause them to get upset when asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • • Not knowing the background, I thought the first of these comments highly sensible, & indeed Bhg did join the discussion with a very useful post. After that I got puzzled. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • How about we enact a ban on Chris which prevents him from discussing BHG on talk pages, or pinging BHG in any form, including mentioning her in edit summaries. A further ban from her talk page with the sole exception of leaving required notifications may also be of benefit. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • That sounds to me like a good way of giving Chris what they claim to want, but which they are unable or unwilling to implement on their own. It's is an odd situation, but maybe this is the solution. I am not asking for any sort of ban, but I would like to avoid a re-run of the absurdity of being taken to ANI for interacting with an editor who claims not to want to interact with me, but repeatedly trolls me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • I am happy to take this to ArbCom if an interaction ban is what is being proposed here. I am merely asking not to be messaged. I raised the category issue as a courtesy for BHG. I haven’t asked for her to not interact with me on the rest of the wiki, merely not message me. I do feel that categories are broken and a lot of it is busy-work, and I explained why. As I say, I don’t want to say much more other than to ask that she not message me. I don’t think that is unreasonable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I can't help but feel that part of the problem stems from the fact that you "fundamentally disagree with categories altogether", which suggests that anyone involved in the work of implementing them on a large scale is going to be an annoyance to you. I myself find categories immensely useful. BD2412 T 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Thats not quite my full opinion on the matter, which is that categories are sets and that by not allowing them to be intersected, substracted or have any other set operation applied to them we risk pigeon holing people into stereotypical categories. So I don’t fundamentally oppose categories altogether, just wince when I see things like “Black women writers”, which diffusion categories don’t really address well. I also find it problematic when people who are trying to use categories are called “sneaky”, which is what BHG called that other editor, which is probably what caused the tone in my subsequent comment. However, all I am asking for here is that BHG not directly message me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
              • @Chris.sherlock This is very simple: I posted on your talk page because you were repeatedly trolling me, and I wanted you to stop. if you do not want me to post on your talk page, then do not troll me. The fact that you have such great difficulty in grasping this simple point does not bode well for your ability to function in a collaborative environment.
                As to your views on categories, you ae of course entitled to whatever views you may hold ... but you are also obliged to respect the current consensus. If you want to change categorisation policy, then feel free to open an WP:RFC to propose whatever changes you seek. I don't think you will succeed, because the problem here is that you do not understand how WP:EGRS already bans pigeonholing and has done so for nearly 15 years; but you are quite entitled to make a proposal. However, you are not entitled to go around hurling gratuitous insults and bogus allegations at editors who work within the existing consensus ... and you are certainly not entitled to then start yet another round of whining in faux-injured-innocence when you are asked politely to stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
                • I will do my best to not whine in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If Chris.sherlock wants nothing to do with BHG and doesn't want BHG to interact with them then Chris.sherlock should stop involved BHG in their conversations and interactions. Seems to me that if Chris.sherlock doesn't want the interaction then they should stop the interaction. You can't tell someone not to interact with you and then go around interacting with them the other way. Chris.sherlock if you decide to interact with BHG then it's 100% fair for them to interact back. This is all on you, so don't go dragging BHG here when you started the interactions. Canterbury Tail talk 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s a fair comment, however you’ll notice I pinged her directly on the page where categories were being mentioned. I thought that was fairly reasonable under the circumstances, given wholesale changes to categories around women were being proposed. Perhaps I was mistaken, and I should have let consensus be made there, in much the same way as happened at AWNB. Last time that happened, two longterm editors quit. I was rather hoping that wouldn’t be the case on WP:WIRED, a project I feel passionate about. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. If you don't genuinely want to stop someone messaging you on your talk page, there is another side of the bargain to be kept which is not to keep mentioning them elsewhere (a) in a conversation which they were not a part of when you first mentioned them, and (b) leaving comments like "Those ways of editing are ridiculous". That is not unreasonable, either. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon reflection, that was indeed a needlessly inflammatory comment I made. I apologise for that. I appreciate the criticism, and take that onboard. I don’t apologise for pinging them about the category issue, given the mistake I made on AWNB around category changes and the roasting I got because of it, I was hoping to stop any changes at the pass! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock, I would be more inclined to accept your apology if it was a one-off inflammatory comment. In reality it was just one latest in a series of unnecessary inflammatory comments which you have made to me, which amount to trolling. And in reality, your trolling of me is just the latest in a series of episodes where you have acted disruptively, and where you have responded to complaints by playing the "triggering-my-anxiety" card. There seems to be a long-term pattern here of you failing to recognise either that you are behaving badly, or that the anxiety is the direct consequence of your own repeated misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The apology is given nonetheless, that comment was out of line and I am sorry for it. I had hoped that involving you early on in a category change would prevent a massive issue. I realise you think I was being disruptive for the sake of it around that last issue, and I probably will never be able to convince you otherwise, but the fact of the matter was that I had thought I had gotten consensus to make that change on WP:AWNB. History shows that I was mistaken, and it’s a pity you ascribe malice to my motives, but I was trying (and failing!) to gather consensus on a change around an Australia-related matter. I am quite serious in asking you to stop messaging me directly, but I also point out that had I not pinged you on that project talk page as a courtesy then you would not have been aware of the massive change being proposed. If you would prefer I not do that in future, say the word and I will not ping you again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock, you are making very heavy going of very simple things:

1. If you are going to apologise for gratuitous insults and bogus allegations, apologise for them all, or expect your selective apology to be rejected.
2. I have not asked you not to ping me.
3. I have no objection to be pinged by you.
4. I do want you to stop trolling me by making gratuitous insults and bogus allegations
5. If you or anyone else engages in such trolling, I will post on your talk to ask you to stop.
6. If have not asked for any limit to interaction with you.
7. If you want to limit interaction with me, then stop trolling me

You are engaged in time-wasting drama-mongering. Enough long ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not gone out of my way to troll you, but I definitely apologise for any hurt illspoken and inflammatory comments I have made has caused you. I do ask you to stop messaging me directly. I’m assuming you are not upset I pinged you as a courtesy to let you know about the major planned category changes, however I will keep any pinging of you to a bare minimum in future. As I say, please stop messaging me in future. Peace. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, if you do not recognise how your repeated unprovoked personal attacks amount to trolling, then it is likely that the problem will recur. If it does, then I will post on your talk to ask you stop.

So this is entirely within your control. However, your failure to read and understand my comment #2 "I have no objection to be pinged by you" does not bode well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I might have confused things a little. I have made a decision, based on the comments of a few people here, to limit pinging you. I have not gone out of my way to troll you, but I can see how some of the comments I have made in the past might have led you to that conclusion. My apology is given freely for this, and I understand if you do not wish to accept it. I will try not to cause you pain by my actions in future. If my apology is insufficient and you have specific examples of my actions you would like me to apologise for, I would be happy to review them and make amends. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you can make amends in the following ways:

1. Stop trolling. Learn how you are a troll, and work to cut it out entirely.
2. Drop all your vendettas against the many editors who have worked to contain and revert your disruption
3. Stop commenting when you have nothing of value to say. Learn to identify when you do and do not add value.
4. Stop whining when you are told you have screwed up.
5. Sop using your mental health issues as shield.
6. And above all, stop creating drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I apologise for the wrongs I have done to you, I am deeply hurt you use my mental health against me, and I am hurt that you would call me a whiner. I would respectfully ask you to not make personal comments of this nature against me, it is extremely unkind.

Comments such as this one are why I do not want you to message me directly. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you continue to invert the facts: you are using your mental health problems as a weapon against others. You troll and attack, and when asked to stop being disruptive you invoke your mental health as a shield. This is nasty, manipulative conduct.

You invoked your mental health as a weapon in the post which opens this ANI thread. That was your choice, and if you don't like being called out on that, stop doing it. I used the word whine to describe your pattern of making big dramas to complain about the fact that others stand up to your hostile actions. If you don't like being called a whiner, then stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(a general thought) For a long time, I've been bothered by the fact that editor A can ask editor B to refrain from posting on their talk page (and expect the request to be honoured), while still feeling free to interact with, ping or sometimes even post on the user talk page of editor B. Maybe the text at Misplaced Pages:NOBAN could include this concern (but as often I won't be the one to raise it there). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but BHG, point 5 is way out of line in your last post. Whether you genuinely feel that way about other users or not, you cannot in any case say that. If I was you I would redact that whole rant and apologise to Chris and the community. Games of the world (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I propose an IBAN as neither of BHG or Chris seem to want to be civil to each other or recognise that, although one does not want to interact, there maybe instances where a message or a ping is needed. BHG did absolutely no favours in her distasteful response to an apparent headsup ping/I'm not sure what it was and frankly don't care, on Chris' talk page. Just end the drama and have an Iban. Games of the world (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have apologised to BHG and am trying to make amends. If an IBAN is to be enforced, I would request that it be taken to ArbCom first. My preferred approach would be that I not be messaged by BHG. Can I say, however, that I appreciate you stepping in Games if the world, and thank you for your level headedness. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Games of the world, your have chosen to make a negative judgement on me without taking a few moments to examine the facts. That is not a constructive approach.

I do not object to being pinged. On the contrary, the ping was helpful. I did not make a distasteful response to an apparent headsup ping. The problem is that after I provided my substantive input as requested, Chris then responded to it with a series of unprovoked personal attacks:,,. I posted on Chris's talk asking them to stop, and pointed out that Chris had previously followed me to another venue to make an unprovoked personal attack.

Chris's response to being asked to stop this was to come to ANI and accuse me of triggering their anxiety. This a repeated pattern in Chris's conduct: troll and attack, then invoke their mental health problems as a shield. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

None of those comments required the sarcastic and bombastic personal attack response that you posted on his page. One of those is a request for you to get involved (depending on your sensitivity scarasticly?), one was about perfection (again not nasty but certainly displaying needle between the pair of you) and the third was after you got into it, so I'm not going to comment on it but again no PA. Either way none of them justify your response. Games of the world (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Games of the world: I think you are overlooking the main trigger of BHG's talk page message. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: Pings should be, and AFAIK generally are treated the same as talk page mentions. If someone asks you to stop pinging them then to it or risk being blocked. I'm sure I've said this before but while it is possible to block pings from editors via settings, this should never be necessary except if you think it's a better way to deal with the problem. Editors needs to respect each other not to violate such simply requests.

As for user A posting to B's talk page or pinging them when they've forbidden B to post on theirs or ping them, I don't see why editor's cannot manage this themselves. If it gets too annoying, they too are free to ban the other editor. Some editors may prefer to leave that flow open in the hope it resolves whatever problems lead up to the ban. Okay it gets slightly complicated with admins but let's put that aside. Of course if it crosses a line, they are also free to open an AN//I thread even without a ban.

As for mentions outside the talk page or pings, that's more complicated. Remember user A banning user B from posting on A's talk page doesn't stop B from posting whatever they want about A elsewhere either. It may be taken onboard in any ANI thread, but so will A posting too much about B. I agree such a talk page ban does mean A should minimise mention of B elsewhere but it's not always that clear cut. As I mentioned below, as long as editors are interacting via editing, then there may be some need for discussion of the edits, which can take place on the relevant page talk page as always. Likewise discussions over proposals etc. Again if editors abuse this, we will need to deal with it at ANI//I. On that token, with talk pages bans behavioural issues can't really be addressed, unfortunately these too need to be dealt with at AN//I. The community should take on board the lack of an attempt to address it with the editor is because it wasn't possible.

All this is IMO still the best solution since talk pages and pings are intended primarily to communicate with the editor directly but if the editor doesn't welcome such communication, indeed is going to ignore it, what's the point?

Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, you are missing the point. I have not objected to being pinged. On the contrary, Chris's ping was helpful.
I did not seek any engagement with Chris, but have been repeatedly subjected to trolling and personal attacks by Chris, at two venues. So after the latest round, I made one post to Chris's talk, asking them to stop. I believe that is in accordance with WP:NOBAN, as a preliminary step to taking the issue to a noticeboard. Having trolled me, Chris chose to completely ignore the substance of my request that they desist (they explicitly said in their opening post her at ANI that they were not interested in reading it) ... but used my request to stop trolling as the basis of an ANI complaint against me. This is classic troll conduct: repeatedly bait me, then complain that they were asked to stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Can't you both please just walk away? I really don't want to see decent people slapped with IBANS and the like. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Is it really that difficult to ignore each other, stop the pinging and messaging. Don't even mention each others user name in a discussion. That's it, done, problem resolved, now can someone close this. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• This entire thread opened by Chris.sherlock is nothing more than trolling. After claiming in the OP that the OP would be his only post to the thread, he went on to make 11 (and counting) more posts; falsely claiming victimhood, making faux apologies, and other classic troll tactics, all to do nothing more than endlessly waste the community's time. It's time to put a stop to this. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• As always, BHG needs to stop posting on Chris.sherlock's talk page, except for compulsory notifications. They've been asked to stop and there is no benefit to posting on Chris.sherlock's page if Chris.sherlock is just going to ignore need. If BHG feels Chris.sherlock's editing is a problem e.g. NPA violations, they should bring it to a relevant AN. The community will take on board the reason for a lack of any attempt to address the problem with Chris.sherlock first is because it's not possible since Chris.sherlock has rejected it. Chris.sherlock needs to stop pinging BHG. It's not clear to me if they were specifically asked to stop but it's clearly unwelcome. Violating of these simple requests is from either party is WP:harassment and should be met with indefinite blocks. (Remembering indefinite is not forever.) Chris.sherlock should also minimise mention of BHG. It needs to be completely relevant to what they're discussing and should not be needling etc. If Chris.sherlock keeps bringing up BHG unnecessarily, this can be brought to ANI and an interaction ban considered. It's possible that this is already justified, the fact that BHG is also needling Chris.sherlock by posting to their talk page when asked not to means I say we let it be for now. This is a somewhat more complicated issue since while it's well accepted that posting to someone's talk page or pinging when they've asked you not to is harassment, as long as editors are interacting elsewhere some minimal mention of the other party or especially their actions may be required. E.g. if you revert a change and can't post on the page talk page 'I reverted this change because', there's a problem. Bringing up BHG to make some point when their actions aren't directly involved will likely be needling which can lead to an iban, or worse. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nil Einne, that's a strangely couterfactual narrative that you imposed on these events. I posted once on Chris's talk to ask them to stop trolling. That is not in any sense me harassing or needling Chris ... and it is sad to see you trying to construct an equivalence between the troll and the editor who asks the troll to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: One-way IBAN on Chris.sherlock concerning BrownHairedGirl

This would seem to solve the entirety of the problem, since (even by his own admission) Chris.sherlock seems to be the one instigating the mentions and interactions. Chris.sherlock has threatened to take this to ArbCom, and I daresay this would be the result (at the very least; he might also get a TBAN from Categories), so let's just enact it now, since he doesn't seem to want to WP:DROPTHESTICK or stop trolling or mentioning BrownHairedGirl. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Let's get this over with. Jerm (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Chris has a lot of serious problems. He admits it. This restriction would put to an end the specific problem that has flared up recently. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Call it needling. Call it obtuseness. Harassment? Whatever. You cannot ping or otherwise engage an editor (with whom you have had problems already) and then complain at ANI about them responding. The TBAN on categories is not a bad idea either. I was going to post earlier, but thought the stick had been dropped. OK. Furthermore, ArbCom is for when the Community has not addressed a problem. This community solution addresses the root cause of this problrm. One can only speculate as to how they would perceive this poking and then running to ANI when BHG responds to being poked, but they are not stupid. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support including pings and edit summary mentions per my post above. Mjroots (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support this will probably solve the issue at hand. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• comment Just to make it clear for Chris (so that we don't have a flair up in 2 minutes) this IBAN is not specifically about not posting on each others talk pages, as both seem to be leaving each other alone in that sense since April until a couple of days back, or pinging where needed. It is about going on to a page/discussion where the other one is leaving each other alone and only discussing the content. If Chris cannot abide by the above then I would say that he needs to think about a self imposed ban from discussing categories being the better solution. BHG needs to find a better way to deal with him instead of providing ammo for flair ups. Break the cycle BHG, rip the playbook up and disrupt his behaviour if he is as others have put "poking you," don't keep playing into his playbook. Both parties need to take time reflect on their own behaviour and how to change the cycle. Games of the world (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. The terms of an IBAN are very clear: WP:IBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • To clarify what I meant is you are already doing some of the IBAN rules. I would say a no fault interaction ban two way would be better. BHG seems to like to get into it with him, neither seem to want to leave alone. Wouldn't want a flair up to start over some random comment she made. Would prefer a belts and braces approach here. Games of the world (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per all the above as well as the ancient principle of "duh." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Manoramu and Cumulative accuracy profile

• Manoramu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cumulative accuracy profile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Cumulative accuracy profile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor User:Manoramu appears to be a single-purpose account who is trying to make some edits to Cumulative accuracy profile (a statistical concept) that have a breezy informal tone that is not encyclopedic. The edits are not wrong; they just have a tone of speaking to a high school class.

Manoramu has been reverted four times now, and has also submitted a draft of this article, which was declined as already existing, and has now been rejected as already existing. Either Extended-Confirmed Protection of the article or a partial block is probably needed to protect the tone of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A newly registered editor who mostly edited in July and one edit on Sep. 8th on Cumulative accuracy profile hasn't been given any explanation as to what they did wrong. Constantly reverting the editor isn't helping. Perhaps a personal message that explains some of the concerns of other editors would help, and of course, a list of WP:RULES. I mean this is a new editor who most likely doesn't have a clue about Wiki policy & guidelines. That should've been the first thing, at least a welcoming message with a list of policies and guidelines, not ANI. Jerm (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Article talkpages are also useful.Tribe of Tiger 05:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD closes by DMySon

DMySon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly run into problems trying to clerk AfDs and unfortunately I think the time has come for a formal topic ban.

In the last few months, five editors (Serial Number 54129, TonyBallioni, Praxidicae, Girth Summit and Barkeep49) have warned him about incorrect relists (User talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Relistings, User_talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Relisting, User_talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#AfD relists). Praxidicae and Girth Summit both asked him to stop closing/relisting AfDs, which he agreed to do . To be fair, he perhaps meant this as just a commitment not to relist, rather than close or clerk AfDs in general.

However, today I came across a DRV of an AfD that DMySon closed as no consensus despite there being no participation other than the nominator and which could have been soft deleted or relisted. Barkeep49 reverted that as an obvious WP:BADNAC . I followed up and found four more closes by DMySon today, three of which I had to revert and relist for similar reasons.

I am sure DMySon means well but he is rushing into AfD clerking when he lacks the competence to do so, and unfortunately this has continued despite multiple warnings and commitments to be more careful. There also appears to be some competence issues with CSDs and moves to draft, but I'm hoping a ban from relisting or closing AfDs will be enough to get him to slow down. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• As an admin active at AfD/DRV, I agree with the proposed topic ban. Sandstein 18:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A concern was mentioned above about moves to draft, that I will restate. Incorrect moves to draft are easily reversed, because they go into AFC and can be accepted by a reviewer, but the reviewer doesn't really want to have to ask, "Why was this draftified?" Biographies of dead people who have an obscure mention in the history of Burma/Myanmar do not need a lot of sources. While systemic bias does not mean that we should accept non-notable crud, it should be considered in leaving dead people in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support tban based on my experience today and as evidenced by the previous communication I had with this editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: Here's an idea, but I wanted at least a couple of people to give feedback before I post it at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-admin closure: Perhaps "non-admin closures" for certain types of discussions should be changed into something like the WP:AFC process, where "tools to make it easy" are only available to people who sign up, and if you sign up and display incompetence, you lose access to the tools. It wouldn't change who could do a non-admin closure, but it would incentivize competence. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's an intriguing idea david - essentially limit XfD closer to those who have been granted a pseudo perm. As someone who has concerns about non-admin closing at AfD in a way that those who frequent some other deletion areas don't that could be a good way to nuance this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment) - The one thing to keep in mind is that it would probably be best to keep a way to close your own nomination as a speedy keep withdrawn. That's about the only time I use XFD closer at AFD, although I do clerk RFD on very rare occassions. Seems like withdrawing your own nomination is a fairly uncontroversial NAC, generally. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment) I think this is an excellent idea. I've never closed an XFD, and have no intention of doing so. I have the WP:APAT and WP:PGM privileges, and had to ask for them and show that I knew what I was doing. To assess competence at WP:AFD, there's the AFD Statistics Tool - %ages for initial sorting, and a list of recent contributions to show activity level and to weed out anyone who might be piling-on.

  This idea would also give pileologists a useful way to indulge their hobby. Requests are likely to be rare once established XFD closers have been grandfathered in, and so unlikely to consume much admin time.

  Another way to handle self-withdrawal might be something like the {{db-author}} tag for pages you're sorry you created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narky Blert (talk • contribs) 22:20, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

  Except withdrawal often occurs after someone else points out that you missed something. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Budget Cuts, where me withdrawing quickly was the best course of action after it had been proved notable, but db-author wouldn't work, as I was not the only primary editor, and the discussion there should likely be kept around for posterity about the notability of that article. Seems like leaving a technical exception for self-withdrawals is maybe a good thing to leave open. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal discussion to limit non-admin closures to certain peole copied to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-admin closure#Proposal_- limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list (permalink). Please consider the lines above related to this proposal "archived" and continue the discussion as it relates to XFD on the other page. Please continue the discussion as it related to OTHER non-admin closures below this line or start a new discussion at the appropriate discussion page. If you do start a new discussion, please post a link below this line so we can participate, or ping the names in this section if this discussion has already been archived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My Apologies, It was not my intention to do the wrong things on Misplaced Pages. I consider it my last warning. You may undid my all closure. I will never touch afd closure in future. Appreciate your time. DMySon 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support t-ban There is no reason we need to continue down this path of empty "I'm sorry"s if the first 5 or warnings weren't enough, there's no reason to believe a sixth formal warning will be. And on an unrelated note to DMySon specifically, I like Davidwr's idea, it should be simple if we set it up like AFC where you have to be on the participant list. Require a number of AFD participation - which is very, very much needed, more so than closers. Praxidicae (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae, Sorry for interruption but this is my second mistake in AFD. You said, i did 5 times mistake but i am not able to recognizing my five mistakes on AFD. DMySon 13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. Take a look at your own talk page and ctrl+f "sorry" and "never". This isn't only about closures/relists when it comes to repeated mistakes, either. Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Cyphoidbomb, Thank you for the notification. My apologies. That was my mistake. I will never do this again.DMySon 12:28 am, 6 August 2020, Thursday (1 month, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi @Barkeep49:, i have already apologized for this here. And after that discussion i stopped relisting any discussion. DMySon 1:02 am, 26 July 2020, Sunday (1 month, 29 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi @Shirt58:, Thank you for the notification about this. It was a mistake and i am human. I already apologized for this in the above discussion with Girth Summit. And the user who claims me as sock with akmal khan creator, is already afraid to disclose his identity. He did this using ip address (82.132.214.106). Moreover, I am not connected with this man Akmal khan. Off-course you may block my account if you find any connection with this man. I agree i moved the article to the draft but that doesn't mean i am connected to the subject.DMySon 9:03 am, 25 July 2020, Saturday (1 month, 30 days ago) (UTC−4)

  My Apologies, I will not do this stuff again.DMySon 11:14 am, 23 July 2020, Thursday (2 months, 2 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi Serial, Thanks for the notification. My apologies, this is my mistake. May i undo my action? DMySon 7:44 am, 28 June 2020, Sunday (2 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)

A bunch of empty promises and apologies are worthless and indicate that you do not intend to stop making the same mistake over and over again. Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring allegation advanced against user:Ron Wells, MDiv.

Since the subject of the article J. Delano Ellis has been declared deceased, several subjects have made known their personal affiliations via conversations held on @Jackfork:'s discussion page and upon the person at hand @Ron Wells, MDiv.:. In doing so, they have made various attempts to remove information which has been cited appropriately and referenced for the sake of "truth" and being "for the LORD Jesus Christ" in their own written words. This Misplaced Pages contributor had their contributions reverted by Misplaced Pages administrative team members and I in efforts to cease this situation, as I have explained Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on the issue at hand. Nevertheless they refuse to offer any reasoning other than what may appear to be a personal conflict of interest with general public information, which can be viewed in this summary of J. Delano Ellis's article revision history. It is becoming quite tiresome to continue to revert such seemingly unhealthy behaviors, and I request immediate intervention. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The following person whom the allegations stand against has, in an effort of unknown reasoning, blanked the evidenced proposed against them via their talk page history which can be viewed here. I am again, requesting immediate intervention for the sake of preserving Misplaced Pages's encyclopediac ethos. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have given them a proper 3RR warning and a copyvio warning for their sandbox which was a clear copy and paste from another site. It should be noted that a user is allowed to remove information from their talk page, so TheLionHasSeen do not reinstate it if they have removed it. Removal is taken to mean they've read and understood it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Canterbury Tail:. I appreciate your assistance. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, they have begun to revert again with no explanation offered @Canterbury Tail:. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately this is a content dispute, and you are also edit warring, you should not have reverted them. I will be blocking them for 3RR violation, but you should also consider this an edit warring warning. Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually that may be harsh on you looking into the edits. They are clearly reverting referenced information just because they don't like it. Anyway they're blocked for 24 hours, next move is theirs. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am grateful for your swift assistance and investigation of this incident. Thank you @Canterbury Tail:. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring allegation advanced against user:HistoryEtCulture

On September 13 as evident from the following article's revision history, I have taken an effort to cleanup articles of religious bodies and the like. Particularly looking upon the article P'ent'ay, I purged the article of unsourced information and adapted it toward a neutral point of view in accordance with neutrality and veriability guidelines prevalent on this encyclopedia. Since then the user whom this report is about has in apparent good faith, attempted to rewrite the article in collaboration. Upon reviewing their contributions I had to, again, remove unverifiable information from the article alongside correcting grammatical errors. As a result of my contributions the content of the article has been blatantly reverted and extended with overlinked text within the primary infobox and the re-adding of unverified history pertaining to the founder of P'ent'ay churches and organizations. Responding to this matter at hand I began a discussion thread on the talk page of the article to discuss why their contributions have been reverted (without directly mentioning them in an effort to forgo any resonance of potentially harassing or personally demeaning them). Their response since then has been to continue reverting the contributions with ahistorical, unverifiable information and clutter the infobox alongside poor grammatical corrections. I would desire to see an end to this conflict as soon as humanly possible; this currently appears to be yet another edit war. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The contributor has opted to respond, however it seems as if they decide to personally attack the Orthodox Tewahedo and label them derogatory terms. Please refer to Talk:P'ent'ay. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Since elevating this situation and discussing, it would appear a consensus is in close reach. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The alleged Disparaging a religious group charge against me is a FALSE ACCUSATION. How in the world is the statement that says 'there was no such claim made that "P'ent'ay churches are the original church pre-State church of the Roman Empire-era". The claim was that Jesus founded Christianity and P'ent'ay churches are Christian, they are not a separate non-Christian religion as some Orthodox Tewhado sectarians supremacists would would claim) in that certain minority of sectarians who happened to be Orthodox have used the false claim that Pentays aren't Christian in order to disparage or discredit Pentays.' A few statements made in the talk page seemed to espouse that ideology but, all I did was mention the existence of that ideology and said that the comment can be misconstrued as condoning similar disparaging statements, but I never said that 'all Orthodox use it to disparage Protestants', which is a false statement that I never made. I assumed later on that the issue was a good faith misunderstanding until I end up hearing about the false accusations and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents charges that have been lodge against me. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming the alleged disparaging of a religious group has to do with "The claim was that Jesus founded Christianity and P'ent'ay churches are Christian, they are not a separate non-Christian religion as some Orthodox Tewhado sectarians supremacists would would claim). — HistoryEtCulture" I consider that offensive towards Orthodox Tewhado Christians, and that also sounds like HistoryEtCulture has an WP:AGENDA. Also, I didn't really check the sources to see if they were reliable. That would be more for the articles talk page, but I do want to comment on this. HistoryEtCulture, do not use Misplaced Pages as a source to cite content per WP:CIRC. Jerm (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In the event this somehow offends someone in any way, I am truly sorry, it was not intended to the offensive in any way whatsoever, and I will try to pay attention the the specific wordings next time. I am truly surprised and perplexed that this can in any way be misconstrued to be offensive. But, I'll learn how to operate under the norms of Misplaced Pages. I still don't know how this can be seen as offensive unless the word "some" that I used in this context was purposely ignored during the the deliberation of this Administrative Notice. The word "some" signifies that the issue in questions is not a generalization of a group because it is a word that is synonymous to the phrase "certain minority of". HistoryEtCulture (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from continuing to undo edits because from our conversation which has stalled on the discussion page of P'ent'ay Christianity, and upon here thanks to intervention, it appears you continue to forgo collaborating constructively. I have reverted your contributions one final time as we continue to discuss the matter at hand, however after doing so I do publicly acknowledge I should have not done so pertaining to advice freely gifted from Misplaced Pages administration prior. Forgive me, Misplaced Pages administration for doing so. If they continue, I will just let you handle the situation. As for now, I am bowing out until they seek to discuss instead of going off-topic on some parts and refraining from dialogue. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I am quite annoyed now. When you first arrived onto the English Misplaced Pages, you attempted to merge templates without any formal discussion. I reverted those contributions. Now, I examine your contributions to see that you have indeed merged those said templates without any formal discussion whatsoever. I agree with @Jerm: in alledging a WP:AGENDA-driven contribution period here. This is unhealthy for the encyclopedia, and I will not partake in it any further. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfair use of reverts on the deletion of factually accurate information by TheLionHasSeen (talk).

How is this a falsehood, a lie, or misinfromation? Someone is just deleting stuff without even reading any of my contributions.

| type = Eastern Christianity
Eastern Protestant Christian

| main_classification = Evangelicalism | orientation = Primary Denominations: Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, Mennonite (Anabaptist), Holiness movement.
Other Denominations: Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Adventist, etc.

| language = Oromo, Amharic, Wolayta Sidama, Tigrinya, Somali, other Languages of Ethiopia, Languages of Eritrea, and Ethiopian-Eritrean Diaspora Languages (e.g. English, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, French, Dutch, Hebrew, Finnish, etc.)

| area = Ethiopia, Eritrea, United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Israel, Kenya, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, South Africa, and other parts of the Ethiopian-Eritrean Diaspora

|founded_date=19th-20th centuries|founder=Kale Heywet: Sudan Interior Mission (SIM) in 1927
Mekane Yesus: Peter Heyling and Gudina Tumsa in 1959
Mulu Wongel: in 1967
Meserete Kristos: in ~1950s|founded_place=Ethiopian Empire
(Ethiopia and Eritrea)}}

P'ent'ay (from Ge'ez Script: ጴንጤ), or Wenigēlawī (from Ge'ez Script: ወንጌላዊ for Evangelical), are originally Amharic-Tigrinya language terms for a Christian of a Protestant denomination, widely used in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and among Ethiopians and Eritreans in the diaspora as the terms for Evangelical Christian. In English speaking contexts, it may be referred to as Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelicalism or the Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelical Church.

Ethiopian and Eritrean Evangelical Christians are the result of American and European Protestant missionary work and among youth who left the Orthodox Tewahedo churches because of theological differences, and later fanned by persecution against them. P'ent'ay Christians schismed from the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, other branches of Christianity, or converted from other religions with the aid of Protestant missionaries to reform Ethiopian Christianity from what they believe to be doctrinal and theological diversions. The major lasting influences on Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelicalism have been Pentecostalism, the Baptist tradition, Lutheranism, the Mennonite tradition, while several other influential streams of theology exist. Since the creation of P'ent'ay churches and organisations, prominent movements among them have been Pentecostalism, the Baptist tradition, Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, and the Mennonites.

Primary Denominations ...

• The Ethiopian Kale Heywet (Word of Life) Church - a charismatic Evangelical denomination with Pentecostal and Holiness Baptist (Baptist) roots. It is associated with the Sudan Interior Mission (SIM), an interdenominational organization, and has an Eritrean branch.
• The Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (Place of Jesus) - a Lutheran denomination which includes a Presbyterian-leaning synod. The Eritrean Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (also know as Evangelical Lutheran Church of Eritrea) is the Eritrean Lutheran church.
• The Ethiopian Full Gospel Believers' (Mulu Wongel) Church, a Pentecostal denomination with Mennonite influence.
• The Meserete Kristos (Christ Foundation) Church, a Mennonite denomination with Pentecostal influence.

Other denominations ... .

And the edit conflict are deleting my work.

References

1. https://books.google.com/books/about/Hidden_Triumph_in_Ethiopia.html?id=gGYMEV-UmPwC&source=kp_book_description
2. "The peace-making Pentecostal". www.eternitynews.com.au. Retrieved 2020-09-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
3. "Antsokia Ethiopian Evangelical Church". www.antsokia.net. Retrieved 2020-09-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
4. "About the Evangelical Theological College". Evangelical Theological College. Retrieved 2020-09-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
5. "International Ethiopian Evangelical Church". International Ethiopian Evangelical Church. Retrieved 2020-09-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
6. "Evangelical Church Fellowship of Ethiopia". www.ecfethiopia.org. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
7. "Current Influences and connections of western and Ethiopian churches" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2016.
8. "Antsokia Ethiopian Evangelical Church". www.antsokia.net. Retrieved 2020-09-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
9. "About the Evangelical Theological College". Evangelical Theological College. Retrieved 2020-09-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
10. "International Ethiopian Evangelical Church". International Ethiopian Evangelical Church. Retrieved 2020-09-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
11. "Evangelical Church Fellowship of Ethiopia". www.ecfethiopia.org. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
12. "Current Influences and connections of western and Ethiopian churches" (PDF). worldmap.org. Retrieved 22 March 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

HistoryEtCulture (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of merging templates without any formal discussion: Seriously, I put up the "merge to" and "merge from" signs up for all four template pages, I kept waiting but no one came to discuss them. So, TheLionHasSeen, came in, they took down all the "merge to" and "merge from" signs and said no discussion happened. In hearing this statement in the edit history log made by TheLionHasSeen, I assumed that because I went through the proper channels but because nobody contested the merger, I was free to merge them myself. In the edit summaries of my mergers, I put the statments "merged Template:Ethiopian diaspora into Template:Ethnic groups in Ethiopia, merger mentioned but no one contested it" and "merged Template:Eritrean diaspora into Template:Ethnic groups in Eritrea, merger mentioned but no one contested it" to signal what I was doing. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Reread my comments here, and upon Talk:P'ent'ay. This is getting out of hand, as I have stated many twice the process of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss yet you seem to forgo any discussion. I ceased discussion for the sake of my own integrity, however as I have logged back into the encyclopedia I see this going nowhere. From adding churches as if they are "founders" to not taking the time to spellcheck with numerous free online sources for the sake of improvement, and from continuing to point a finger without any reasonable discussion, I am tired. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Structure your comments, please. Do not place your comments in random sections as it appears you are attempting to take control of the conversation when there should be no control from either of us. You have to bring a discussion to the table as to why you feel such templates should be merged. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said? I your edits summary made it seem like it was ok to merge it myself if no discussion happened because you took down all the "merge to" and "merge from" signs I put up so others can join the discussion but you took it down and said no discussion happened. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

HistoryEtCulture, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, so all that content related stuff you posted above is a waste of your time, and a waste of time of all the other editors who have to sift through it all looking for anything relevant to this noticeboard. So, I have the same advice for you that I have for TheLionHasSeen: Do not edit war. Do not ever, ever engage in that behavior. Instead, discuss disputed edits on the talk pages of the various articles, with the goal of coming to a consensus agreement. If that is not possible, turn to other forms of dispute resolution. If you edit war, you will be blocked. I hope that this is clear. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary reverted your proposal for discussion because if you place such a template, you as the proposer must propose via the talk page. There were no discussions hosted whatsoever. Those edit summaries blatantly insinuate that such a proposal is deemed invalid because no discussion on your part was made proposing why it should be merged. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen thank you for intervening. I had apologized prior, as I should not have reverted their contributions again after already clarifying and bringing it to the discussion table. Forgive me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Following a request at RfPP and w/o knowing of this discussion, I have fully protected the page for 48 hrs and issued formal warnings for edit warring to both parties. This needs to resolved on the article talk page. If the edit warring resumes after the protection expires, unpleasantness will follow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. And again, forgive me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears a consensus is not in reach. I am forwarding it to dispute resolution, alongside alleged incivility via an allegedly snide remark. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptor Editor 76.66.141.232

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

So 76.66.141.232 is still keeping doing the same thing over and over again. It's still the same person He still keeps putting up random people again and again. It's so annoying and frustrating. You said you would block him and you haven't. Why haven't you done it yet? Please block him or else he will keep doing it. Here's a list of

Blocked for 1 week. As far as I can tell, none of the credits the user has added over the last few months are verifiable, even on IMDB. OhNoitsJamie 21:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Force: Constant Revision & Personal insult

I added additional info aboutEgyptian Air Force that Turkish Aerospace Industries produced materials. I gave half a dozen sources.. I am insulted and they always revise constantly.. I recommend you take a look. The resources I give official sites. I don't understand what their goals are.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I see on there is someone calling an IP a Turkish troll nothing else offensive. I don't see any edits from yourself on TAI. Failing to see what the issue is here. If it is a content issue please go to the DR board. Games of the world (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

IP address removing scrapped locomotives from lists of locomotives

IP addresses 171.252.189.23 and 171.252.154.181 have been removing scrapped locomotives from lists of Australian locomotives. See here and here. This is persistent on Commonwealth Railways CL class. 14.202.123.115 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Public Interest Legal Foundation

Hi, could I get some admin assistance at this article, please? I surfed in on a link and thought the POV lacked neutrality so I tidied up and added some positives. My edit was immediately reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been reverted without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but it still looks very negative to me, and the positives I added to the article last week have been reverted. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not the right forum buddy! Talk about it on its talk page. If this doesn't work, go to WP:POV noticeboard or WP:DRN. If all else fails, go to the WP:BN. This can be resolved without admin intervention. HeartGlow 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Attempted discussion on the talk page has already failed. I'll try the POV noticeboard. Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.

• a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
• b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
• c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"

2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)

3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.

4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Misplaced Pages:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.

5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag

6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: ]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Misplaced Pages consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).

Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Misplaced Pages project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Misplaced Pages as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

T0mk0us and WP:NOTHERE

T0mk0us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a spillover from the Kiev/Kyiv topic. I am embarrassed to take too much attention of the community for this, but this user is really disruptive. They have 110 edits, from what I see, they are clearly net negative for Misplaced Pages. They have stated their position very clearly , that they believe that everything which refers to the city of Kyiv, including historical contexts, must be blanket moved to Kiev. Note that there is no consensus of the community to support this point of view, quite the opposite, the currently running discussions will likely be closed with a decision that historical uses must stay at Kiev. The user is also consistent, they are edit-warring at Principality of Kiev (4 reverts so far: , , , ), they disrupt the talk pages (note edit summary: - we are talking btw about a 12th century polity), and they demonstrate a particularly clear IDHT behavior at the talk pages of their opponents, KIENGIR example and K.e.coffman (example basically accusing them in edit-warring. I just do not see how they can productively edit Misplaced Pages, and it looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. KIENGIR repeatedly asked me to do something about the user, I was hesitant to block because, even though I am not involved with the article, the user managed to personally attack me on this very page ( - if someone wants to know why these aspersions are bullshit I will be happy to discuss but this is not the point here). Since they continued to edit-war and accuse their opponents, rather than themselves, in edit-warring, I finally blocked them indef today, but then I thought this is not a good idea, unblocked them, and brought the matter here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't spend false information about me. I never said that historical contexts should include ukrainian transliteration Kyiv. Only that all references to the modern capital of Ukraine should be renamed to Kyiv. Both users KIENGIR and K.e.coffman repeatedly reverted my changes in the page of the principality of Kiev, even those related to the modern capital of Ukraine, and regardless that illustrations are named Principality of Kyiv. That is why I have accused them of edit warring, because it was. I have never attacked you personally, but I have presented to you your own citations where you attackin other users, calling them idiots, for example. You are telling that what I say is a bullshit, isn't it a personnal atack on me? It is. Why my 110 edits are negative to Misplaced Pages? Because I did 4 reverts (during three days) of ONE article? I have translated the article "Flag of Kyiv" for English Misplaced Pages. And I am trying to enrich articles about Ukraine in English Misplaced Pages, when I can, because I have a full time job. At the beginning, article was named Flag of Kiev, because, at the time of translation, the consensus was to use Kiev. I have never did edit-warring, so please, stop calling me disruptive, negative, etc. Thank you.T0mk0us

If you say this is not usage in historic context (12-13th centuries) you are not competent to edit Misplaced Pages which is actually my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Then why the picture is named "Inner Principality of Kyiv" ?

And, I repeat, I never stated that ALL historical pages should be changed to Kyiv. I am competent to edit Misplaced Pages. A have a master of Architecture degree and know very well History and Architecture of Ukraine. T0mk0us (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What picture? What are you talking about? And, well, you have stated that in all instances where the city of Kiev/Kyiv is mentioned Kiev must be replaced by Kyiv. I provided the diff above, which literally says this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Presumably he's using this poor edit to justify his worse one. I have restored the pre-absurdity version. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it could be the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. I am not touching to any historical pages about Kiev from this time. Will wait for the consensus. However, I would like to mention, that your words "We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)" shows your unacceptance of Ukraine as an independent country and its right to have only one official language - Ukrainian. It is also an attack against Ukraine and Ukrainian identity. I think that for you, like for most Russians, Ukrainians are inferior beings, IMHO. It is not a personnal attack, it is just what I am thinking, In My Humble Opinion. In all this Kiev/Kyiv battle the question was not about changing name of the city, but of changing its pronounciation from Russian to Ukrainian. Ukrainian government is not involved in any propaganda. Russian government is. Russia is continuing war against Ukraine. Russia is trying to interfere in internal affairs of other countries - USA, Great Britain, etc. The whole world knows about this.

Thank you. T0mk0us (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter please stop WP:Wikihounding pro-Kyiv editors even after Kiev/Kyiv RM was closed. You knowledge WP:Beurocracy to block those who disagree with you is commendable, but you might want to consider a wikibreak from doing that (or editing Misplaced Pages in general) because it is becoming disruptive. And while your knowledge of WP:Beurocracy is great, you still forgot that WP:Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball and you cannot know the future to say things like Note that there is no consensus of the community to support this point of view, quite the opposite, the currently running discussions will likely be closed with a decision that historical uses must stay at Kiev -> you cannot know the future Ymblanter and hence do not know if editors, following Kiev->Kyiv RM decision, will decide that Kyiv should be used in most instances on Misplaced Pages (and only excluding idiomatic expressions such as "Chicken Kiev" per the fact that they are idiomatic expressions), because Kyiv never changed its name in all of it 10+ centuries of existence, and only the transliteration/romanization of it into English changed over years (to Kiovia, Kiyev, Kiev, Kijow etc.), or whether editor will support the solution you are lobbying will only allow Kyiv to be used in modern context and will forbid its usage in pre 1995 historic usage. @T0mk0us please also re-consider the tone with which you are communicating with Ymblanter (and other editors such as KIENGIR and K.e.coffman) and make sure you are always polite and constructive in all your edits and comments, because that is explicitly asked for in WP:Civility. Especially when communicating with someone like Ymblanter, who has a strong WP:Systematic bias against all Ukraine-related topics, you should always remember to discuss edits and not the editor. If you absolutely have to discuss the editor (rather than their edits), such as in the case where you are accusing Ymblanter of being disruptive over many years in Talk:Kiev/naming and other discussions, by silencing and blocking (which for what it is worth, is indeed true), you need to do a much better job at mining through the Talk:Kyiv/naming 15 pages of archives and other discussions and finding the exact diffs that Ymblanter used over the years to block/threaten/intimidate pro-Kyiv editors to help maintain an illusion of Consensus for a wrong title (thankfully, given Ymblanter's prolific legacy, there are dozens if not more diffs that you can find there that prove this). Heck, if you actually do a good job of digging those disruptive diff's on Ymblanter you might be able to turn this into WP:BOOMERANG (though don't count on it much: you are an inexperience editor, with very few edits and as well as very limited "wiki-knowledge" of wiki-markup/policies&guidelines/even things like signing your own posts; plus, in additino to your juniority, Ymblanter is indeed correct in saying that most enwiki admins try not to get themselves mixed up in Eastern European topics, so they might just ignore this whole discussion) Lastly, T0mk0us try avoiding emphasizing that Ymblanter is a "Russian enwiki admin" (while it is true that Ymlanter is Russian (per their TP profile), they themselves try to de-emphasize that (and they, same as anyone, have a full right to that), so you should respect their desire to not be referred to as "Russian admin" and in general try to maintain a respectful tone in all your communication with Ymblanter and other editors.--67.175.201.50 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Will follow your suggestions! T0mk0us (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner

   Merely advocating and implementing changes to Misplaced Pages articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed and even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions."

So, why is it me who is accused in the edit-warring and disruptive behavire while it were other users KIENGIR and K.e.coffman who started to revert my edit?

Question about outing a paid editor

(The names have been changed in the following to protect the guilty)

I noticed that a user who I will call User:Banana1 was doing a lot of editing promoting a cryptocurrency/blockchain product which I will call wackywidget.

A Web search found the following at cryptowackywidget.com, posted by user "banana"

"Hi there! I am Geoff Banana and wanted to introduce myself! I am Marketing Lead at CryptoWackyWidget and part of the BlockChainWidget family. I am working primarily on Community/SEO and growth hacking topics and love helping to grow a lively CryptoWackyWidget developer community."

Having the same name with a "1" at the end and editing about the same company where he is a marketing lead working on SEO (search engine optimization) quacks "paid editor".

But if I post the evidence at ANI replacing "Geoff Banana" with the actual name, "banana1" with the actual[REDACTED] user name, and "cryptowackywidget" with the actual company name, would I be violating WP:OUTING? If so, how do I report this?

Asking for a friend. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think in a situation like this it's best just to email arbcom. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That can't be right. There are 14 arbs and thousands of COI editors. Asking Arbcom to deal with every slam dunk case that involves off-wiki evidence will swamp them with work. It would be better to pick a random admin and email them if the info can't be publicly revealed.

But is it really true that the info can't be revealed? Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing says

"We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed paid editing. Posting and discussing information such as links to an editor’s job posting, company profile, or other information connecting that editor to editing an article subject for pay can be an effective way to identify and stop undisclosed paid editing. These kinds of transparent investigations may also help prevent abuse and ensure that people who aren’t actually connected to editing for pay can have an opportunity to explain their situation if circumstances cause a mistake to happen. It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements."

So let me ask a more pointed question: if I post the evidence concerning "Geoff Banana" and his paid editing for "cryptowackywidget" corporation, is somebody here going to report me for violating WP:OUTING? Or is it better for some admin to block "Geoff Banana" but refuse to say why? Even a simple "User:Banana1 is blocked for paid editing" will allow anyone to look at the "cryptowackywidget" webpage (it's pretty obvious that Banana1's edits always promote cryptowackywidget) and see his publicly posted name and other personal information. How would an uninvolved admin be able to evaluate an unblock request when the reason for the block is not revealed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the more widely published things are in off-Wiki reliable sources, the less you have to worry about "outing." If the name is nearly identical, it's almost a sure bet that either it's the same guy or a joe job. In either case, the name SHOULD be brought to an administrator's attention, because having a username that might suggest you are someone else - having a name or name and editing behavior that together suggest you are the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget when in fact you are not - is impersonation. Let's say the marketing lead's name is common, like Joe Smith. Let's say his username is JoeSmith1 (apologies to whoever has that username). If JoeSmith1 almost exclusively edits pages related to CryptoWackyWidget, then it should be reported. If only a small fraction are related to CryptoWackyWidget, and the other edits are not problematic in their own right, just assume it's a coincidence of names. On the other hand, if the marketing lead's name is very unique, then consider reporting it even if the majority of the user's edits are unrelated and okay, if for no other reason than to have an administrator strongly suggest that the editor put a disclaimer on his user page saying he is NOT the same person as the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget and that he has no affiliation with that company. Also, you may not have to go straight to WP:UAA, it might be enough to put one of the COI user-warning templates found on WP:Username policy#Talk to the user to get him to change his username and to get him to pay attention to WP:COI and WP:Paid editing disclosure if they apply to him, or to put a disclaimer on his user page if it's not "him." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Supercomputing in India

I have edited and in my opinion improved the article Supercomputing in India from c. July to August 2020. The revision before my cleanup tag and changes be seen here. On 21 September 2020 my revision were reverted to the old state without much explanation by User:Mohan Rose Ali. As my changes were a clean-up I did revert this. I left a comment on why I did this on Talk:Supercomputing in India to encourage debate assuming good faith. User:Mohan Rose Ali has reverted again per this revision. You can see the edits made, the change to the actual page, and the comments on the revision. I am not happy about this for multiple reasons: (1) I did try and engage in good faith, (2) it has now disrupted the article, and (3) is what I perceive as quite an aggressive and bad faith attack directly on me. I have not edited the false accusation out yet preferring to see if I can find a neutral admin to help with this. I considered arbitration, however I have tried engaging, but I also cannot let false accusations stand. Could someone point out the best forums to deal with this please? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Normally I'd suggest that a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page, but Mohan Rose Ali's edit summaries and strange additions to the content smack of extreme bad faith and WP:OWNership. Mohan Rose Ali - why on earth did you add the following text to the article:

What does 'A cyber complaint is made' mean? Why are you describing another editor as a hacker? Specific issues with the edits should be discussed on the article talk page, but from the look of that article's history I'm not sure that Mohan Rose Ali is competent to be editing that or any article. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked them from editing Supercomputing in India. They seem to have some sort of CoI as they are adding their name to the page. See here. Remove or extend ass required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Extra Eyes on Margot (activist) Please

Experienced editors and admins with a free moment are kindly asked to keep an eye Margot (activist) for the near future. There has been some heavy duty edit warring there involving potential MOS and BLP vios (trans naming etc.). A brand new account also showed up for the party. I have blocked the editor I think most responsible and issued warnings to the others. Additionally I reverted the article back to the point where it was semi-protected by El C and have bumped the protection to extended confirmed. Thanks in advance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous editor behaving like newly blocked account

• 2605:E000:1313:847C:D0E7:307B:4290:CEF4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fongpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New anonymous user made nearly identical edit () to just-blocked (apparently single-purpose) registered account (similar recent edits: ) hours after block. Anon user has been notified. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards