Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 23 December 2019

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Dilidor Disruptive / Uncivil conduct towards other editors

Hello, I would like to request Administrators review the conduct of Dilidor toward myself and other editors. I believe Dilidor has a long history of disruptive editing and abusive behavior towards editors (including myself) and is not making an attempt to follow Misplaced Pages policies despite a number of warnings from other editors and administrators. The policies I believe Dilidor regularly disregards and has demonstrated towards me are WP:CIV / WP:UNCIVIL, WP:PA, WP:EP, WP:CON, WP:LISTEN and WP:DE. He also has a history of WP:EW.

The example of their behavior towards me are:

1. Start of discussion
2. Continuation of discussion: , ,

I believe Dilidor’s statements speak for themselves, so I will not repeat them here. If desired I can expand on this.

The times when Dilidor does engage in discussion with others, it is often confrontational or hostile and contains insults. I believe this is intentional for the purpose of driving others away from the discussion. Even if it is not intentional it has had that impact. In addition to my current situation, Oldperson is a recent example , .

I have made a good faith through my talk page to involve others in the discussion to resolve the issue before coming here.

I think the above discussion on my talk page has valuable information from other editors and admins regarding this matter. In the course of this discussion, it has become apparent to me that other editors and administrators have had the same problems with Dilidor and they seems unwilling to stop/change even when warned by admins (such as Cúchullain , , Favonian , and RexxS , ). I think the content on User talk:Dilidor page such as , , , , , , , , , , and their history in WP:ANI such as and ,demonstrate this pattern of unacceptable conduct and disruptive editing.

I've chosen to disengage from Dilidor and not discuss the other reverts he made without discussion to my edits (reverts to which I think are examples of his being intentionally disruptive or reverting recklessly). Because our interests overlap and Dilidor’s history I believe this will repeat if not addressed.

Please let me know if I can provide any other information. I am relatively new, so if I have made a mistake, again please let me know. Thank you.   // Timothy::talk 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur fully with TimothyBlue's complaint over Dilidor's behaviour. My own unfortunate interaction with them occurred when they made multiple changes to an article on my watchlist, where several of those changes breached our Manual of Style.

I reverted the changes with what I thought was a neutral edit summary, too many mistakes, run on sentences, breaches of MOS:NUMNOTES, which was promptly re-reverted by Dilidor with what I consider an aggressive edit summary you probably should learn what "run-on sentences" are before accusing someone of creating them; and what "mistakes" have I introduced? take this to the talk page---because my edits are a DISTINCT improvement. The "discuss" part of WP:BRD should have happened before any re-reverting by Dilidor.

I explained my revert on the article talk page at Talk:Momsen lung #Problems with recent edits, where I explained that Dilidor had created a run-on sentence (a comma splice to be precise) and had breached MOS:NUMNOTES by starting a sentence with numerals and using a mixture of numerals and words when enumerating the same quantities.

Dilidor's response was to ask me to explain which was the "run-on" sentence, and what errors they had made, completely ignoring my previous explanation, which I believe was already clear enough. I now know that this is simply part of Dilidor's style of debate, to frustrate other editors by repeatedly requesting more explanation.

The debate continued with me attempting to explain to Dilidor what a run-on sentence is, thinking that they were not understanding. Of course, I now know that they simply "know better" and disagree with our Manual of Style, which does not accept a comma as appropriate punctuation to join together multiple independent clauses. That may be usable by James Joyce as a stream-of-consciousness device in Ulysses, but not in an encyclopedia article.

Eventually the exchange climaxed with Dilidor writing "your spelling reveals the core of the entire problem--you're a Brit! That goes a long way in explaining both your condescension and your ignorance." Judging by the stream of complaints voiced at User talk:TimothyBlue #Advice / Guidance needed, that appears to be typical of the way Dilidor treats other editors.

I believe that Misplaced Pages would be better off without Dilidor's contributions, if they cannot learn how to edit collaboratively and respect the project-wide consensus contained in our Manual of Style. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I've interacted with Dilidor and he certainly has a recurring problem with incivility and edit warring, as well as ignoring consensus, eg here and here. He's been warned about this various times by various editors and admins, but he falls back on the same behaviors time and again. He certainly deserves admonishment as it's high time he shaped up - or else found another hobby.--Cúchullain /c 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor persistently, and sometimes disingenuously, removed parenthetical commas per MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA at Plymouth Rock; see discussion here . A few weeks later, the same thing over at American Revolution and American Revolutionary War; discussed here . I expect to find myself having the same argument with Dilidor again, at some other page. I have not been very friendly with Dilidor, I suppose, but I think it's fair to say I have been patient. Regulov (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being late here. Dealing with a broken leg yesterday p.m. and today. Been away from the Internet.

I have found Dilidor to be immediately abusive, arrogant, disingenuous, and even outright dishonest. I have provided links to corroboration for all of this here, and made previous appeals for administrator intervention to put a stop to it both there and at TimothyBlue’s talk page.

Being peremptorily aggressive and reflexively dismissive is his standard MO, as other users have given multiple examples of here and at TimothyBlue’s talk page. An example of his being disingenuous is his repeatedly accusing me of, for example calling him a “jerk“ at the TimothyBlue talk page discussion, when that was clearly a paraphrase used in context to characterize the consensus held by the group.

Here is the passage at issue:

What is the point of these good faith efforts by User:TimothyBlue if he is going to be ignored by administrators and just told by other editors, “Sure, Dilidor’s a jerk, and absolutely knows better. Just put up with it and everyone will get along.“ This is going to keep good editors at the encyclopedia? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

An example of his outright dishonesty is at the above cited link at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, where he attempted to pretend he had not twice been previously been cited for edit warring at that page on his own talk page (here and here) by me regarding his peremptory, uncivil, and disruptive behavior there. Then tried to play the victim at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, and act as though I had all along refused his entreaties to meet in there on neutral ground. All of which is transparent nonsense, and easily exposed as such.

Enough is enough. User Dilidor has behaved this way chronically towards both new and clearly conscientious users, and veteran users with hundreds of thousands of total edits over decades of work here in aggregate at this encyclopedia. He needs to be sorted out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've only rarely interacted with Dilidor and it was never a particularly positive experience. On one occasion he simply removed my message from his talk page without saying a word because "it was not signed" (yes, I forgot to sign it, but it was by no means an anonymous message). His copy-editing work does have some merit, but that is nullified by the amount of grief and disruption that he causes to the community. Dilidor is the typical competent but difficult character that in the end is more of a hindrance than a help to the project. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree. I first interacted with him at New London Union Station, where he removed massive amounts of well-cited text from the (GA status) article. Those edits introduced multiple factual errors and non-existent infobox parameters, and his reaction to my reversion was hostile; only the intervention of an admin stopped him from edit warring. A month later, he came back and repeated several of the disputed changes - once again refusing to use the talk page when asked to. Given that the diffs given in this section indicate that his behavior has not changed, I believe that action (likely a block) is needed to stop his toxic and confrontational attitude. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like it may be time to consider placing a one revert restriction considering the level and lengthiness of the problem here. In the very least he needs a direct final warning that he needs to shape up now or he's going to face restrictions.--Cúchullain /c 00:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

They agreed to such a 1RR restriction earlier in the year, in regard to the removal of wikilinks. However I don't see a content-related restriction (alone) as enough. The problem here is not just article-space edits, but their attitude to other editors in general, across the talk: spaces. They demonstrate a belief that their own edits are perfect and unquestionable, yet other editors must first and continually demonstrate the apropriateness of them, and their qualifications to be here at all. We do not work on that basis, single editors do not get to impose such expectations. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

What more do we need to say here to get some action? This isn’t simply some misdirected jihad by a bunch of cranky editors. It is a well established consensus reflecting chronic and preemptory WP:Civil-violating behavior {and more) towards new editors, veteran editors with decades of experience and hundreds of thousands of total edits in aggregate, and even multiple administrators. What gives? Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

While IfindDilidor frustrating, I am positive that others find me frustrating. (I have been accused of edit warring after 1 revert none the less), I have noticed that Dilidor has made the effort to make explanatory or at least better edit summaries. However I do disagree with his reasoning behind some. He appears to be motivated by a mythological view of the history of New England, and will revert edits that are soundly and reliably sourced. edits that don't fit with his version of reality. I have just reverted one of his reverts and have asked him to take it to the talk page.here and here I am awaiting a response. I might have gone to far as to inquiring motives, but consistent behavior elicts a desire to understand motive, perhaps if there was a discussion explaining why RS were reverted, then the issue could be put to rest. Putting everything on a balance scale, Dilidors contributions do outweigh any frustrations or problems. Should someone say he same about myself. I do not see any problem here that can't be solved by open communication. In fact that could be said for most problems that arise.Oldperson (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see Dilidor, who has been editing regularly since this report was opened, address this here. Refusing to account for his behavior or respond to the concerns within the ANI thread is itself disruptive. If he can't discuss things here, maybe he needs a block until he's ready to engage on these concerns. Grandpallama (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal: as edit warring is a common thread in the disruption caused by Dilidor's behavior, I propose that they abide by a WP:1RR restriction: only one revert per 24 hours.--Cúchullain /c 14:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. This will at least keep things on the talk page.--Cúchullain /c 14:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I also support a civility warning.--Cúchullain /c 20:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• weak support (not opposed to this). But it's still failing to address their hostility. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support as better than no action. It may not be strong enough to result in behaviour modification in their interactions with other editors, but it might spare articles from their idiosyncratic copy-editing. --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a preventative measure that will help reduce disruption (since it doesn't appear any voluntary preventative measures are forthcoming). I would also support a civility warning. – Levivich 00:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Let us hope not to return to this issue. Regulov (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I would also support a civility warning.   // Timothy::talk  20:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support without prejudice to other solutions addressing hostile behaviour. Guy (help!) 00:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy Vanishing

I request a courtesy vanishing as soon as possible. Been trying to get one for a while, unsuccessfully so far. There is a period of time I have to wait because of a TBAN. I wish to have the courtesy vashing done before the end of this year, because I will be unable to log back in later. If a courtesy vanishing within the next two and a half weeks is not possible, can I arrange one in advance? Any action on my part must be done before the end of this year. Iistal (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iistal: Please follow the "how to" section at WP:VANISH. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• ’’Vashing’’ apparently isn’t a word but it I’m declaring a contest here and now for the best suggestion for what it would mean if it was. EEng 06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Iistal, you cannot vanish unless you are in good standing. Have you successfully appealed your TBAN? The six month period mentioned after your June appeal Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Topic_Ban was simply the minimum wait before you could appeal again, not an automatic end to the topic ban. And do you understand that vanishing means that you intend to permanently leave Misplaced Pages? Perhaps you are thinking of WP:FRESHSTART (which still requires that your TBAN be appealed). Meters (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I'm aware that vanishing is permanent. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place to appeal the TBAN? Please remember, I will be unable to write back after the year's end, so all of the necessary efforts on my part have to be now. I would like the TBAN appealed as soon as possible. If there is a minimum length of time I must wait before it can be successfully appealed, I wish to arrange that in advance. Iistal (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You cannot vanish because you have a topic ban. You probably won't be able to successfully appeal it in the time frame you are asking for. Just scramble your password and never log in again. There is no reason to vanish you. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

What about emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org? Iistal (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You were told in June 2018 that "this topic ban should not be appealed without six months of editing activity that does not involve violating this active topic ban." You then made 8 edits over 10 months, most of which skirted or violated the topic ban. You were again told in April 2019 that "sers are expected to show that they can contribute positively in spite of editing restrictions if they want them lifted." After that you blatantly violated your TBAN, were blocked, and finally unblocked in October 2019. Since then you've blanked your Talk page, asked the admin who imposed the TBAN about courtesy vanishing, and then came here to say you've been "trying to get one for a while". That's it. No meaningful editing activity as others have repeatedly asked. You're clearly NOT HERE to contribute to the encyclopedia—because you haven't been contributing and also because you're leaving soon anyways—plus you're misrepresenting your own efforts about the courtesy vanishing. So why should the community allow it? Woodroar (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The answer is no. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iistal: What are you trying to accomplish? You cannot completely vanish since anyone familiar with an edit you made previously can find your new name with minimal effort just by looking up the new name in the article history. With that in mind, you can normally achieve the same result if you just stop editing. 2600:1003:B851:85CB:E91E:359C:ADF:BDF (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48's incivility on Talk:Bruce_Pascoe

I would request an admin have a word with HiLo48. He seems to be getting more and more incivil over at Talk:Bruce_Pascoe. He started off ok, in Talk:Bruce_Pascoe#status_as_Indigeneous_and_sourcing he states
I draw your attention to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. That means we don't make nasty allegations about other editors.
The sarcasm isn't productive. Not a sign of assuming good faith.
However, starting in Talk:Bruce_Pascoe#Lead_paragraph he begins showing incivility pretty quickly
Thanks for reinforcing my point IP editor, and also showing a refusal to learn how to discuss things properly on a Misplaced Pages Talk page. No indenting. No signature. No registration (especially important since your IP address keeps changing). Bad faith comments. I think WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED allows us to ignore any further comments from you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

He really gets going in the Rfc on the page with

Oh FFS, yet another non-indented comment by a random IP editor. PLEASE learn how to edit, and please register a name. It gives you greater anonymity, and helps us all follow conversations more easily. (Were you attempting to explicitly reply to someone else there, or is this just another repetitive point being hurled into the mix?) He continues in the same vein in the Rfc with Who wrote that? It's been a long time since I've participated in page of discussion with so many incompetent editors. But you did get me laughing out loud. The very first thing your link brought up was link to a Misplaced Pages article, List of Indigenous Australian group names, a title clearly avoiding the use of the word "tribe", and from this very encyclopaedia. Thank you for proving me right. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC) (this was a reply to one of my messages
When I reminded him to essentially assume good faith, his response was :

Yet another post that stuffed up the indenting, and this time from a seemingly experienced editor. Why has this discussion attracted so many incompetent editors? As for "...let's not comment on the commentators", Misplaced Pages depends on reliable sources, so we must ALWAYS be judging the reliability of what is presented as sourcing for content here, AND commenting on it when it fails that test.

It seems to be he's getting entrenched by this issue and might need a quick word spoken to him by an admin, however, If I'm wrong, feel free to close this out, I'm good with that ! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Clearly several personal attacks. Kirbanzo  16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

IPs & editors who either don't know how or simply don't bother to indent there posts properly, can be quite frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no love for HiLo48 and have found him to be at times unacceptably abrasive, uncivil, and insufferable. But the above !diffs are rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes, and likely not actionable. I agree with GoodDay that non-indenting, and refusing to comply with requests to indent, together constitute an extremely frustrating practice that try the collective patience of experienced editors.--WaltCip (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The bad behavior of one person neither mandates nor even excuses the bad behavior of another. Whether or not the IP editor has done things they should not have done has no bearing on whether or not HiLo48 has also done things they should not have done. Other responses by HiLo48 to the bad behavior of others are entirely possible, and I would say, are preferred over the reactions noted above. CIR also applies to knowing how to treat people with decency, and when an editor has been around as long has they have and still don't seem to understand how to do so, perhaps there's a lack of competency there that needs to be addressed. --Jayron32 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, yet another attempt to silence me via this noticeboard. I will comment here, hopefully only once, because I know that in cases like mine where I have tackled many often wilfully ignorant, POV pushers over the years, including some Admins, it will simply become a place for those who hate me to pile on more of that hate, with massive amounts of lies and exaggerations, along with raising truckloads of hugely irrelevant material. It's what's happened in the past. This is possibly the worst place on Misplaced Pages for the achievement of anything like truth, fairness and justice. There is never any consequence for those who pile on with their lies and misrepresentations.

In the case of the IP editor at Talk:Bruce Pascoe, I suspect I have probably been more kind and more polite than any other editor on Misplaced Pages. It is my habit, in the hope of encouraging good editing, to always welcome new editors to the project. I did so in this case, with the standard, template driven welcome on his Talk page. In addition, because I had already seen this editor struggling with many aspects of how to properly comment here, but especially with indenting, I also gave him a personal welcome in my own words, explaining how indenting works and pointing him at some extra material that should have helped on his journey here. One normally hopes for some improvement after doing something like that, but in this case, nothing. I suspect those already attacking me above are completely unaware of these actions I took to try to help this editor, but I'm not surprised. After my welcomes and advice, he continued to completely fail to indent at all for a while, then after a few more prompts from me and others, started seemingly randomly indenting all over the place, even further destroying the flow of conversation there. It's important that anyone trying to fairly judge this scenario has a look at that Talk page, not just at its current form, which is bad enough, but at earlier versions. The mess this editor and a couple of other clearly novice editors were making on that page led to some more experienced editors trying to clean it up. It has meant to that many comments, including mine, were moved, even within the flow of conversation, something I don't really feel comfortable with at all. Because that editor has a constantly changing IP address, making conversation even more difficult to follow, I also advised him of the problems with that, and advised him more than once how important it is to register on Misplaced Pages. Again, nothing, just more repetition of the same arguments over and over again, coming from different IP addresses, but probably close enough to indicate it was the same person. (Can't be certain though, can we?)

It's worth pointing out for those who won't look properly that the topic on that page is one about race, always a difficult and divisive one.

I do have limited patience. This editor is clearly incompetent, and unwilling to cooperate with our policies. He has ignored an awful lot of good and well intentioned advice from me, and continued to waste my time and that of others on that Talk page. I am not the problem there. The IP editor in question is, along with several others who continue to ignore policy and the sound, source based arguments of others. I'll stop now, and probably ignore this page for a few days. I know from past experience here there is no point arguing with haters and POV pushers. (My opinion on that front will change when I see any consequence at all for anyone who piles onto this case with irrelevant, off-topic hate comments about me.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• No one is trying to silence you. What they are trying to do is to get you to stop being rude to others. It isn't complicated. When you speak to other people, choose words and phrases and sentences that are polite and civil, and no one will bother you. It is possible to express any idea you want without doing so in a way that belittles or abuses others. --Jayron32 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The issue here isn't the IPs. The issue here is that in your efforts to guide them in the right direction your tone noticeably shifts to one that is more hostile - which constitutes straying into personal attack territory. Also, some points:

1. It appears you need to be more tolerant of IP editors. Not everyone wants a name associated with their edits and are fine just leaving their current IP address. You can encourage them, yes, but near the end of the tone shift it seems more like applying undue pressure than encouragement. The constantly changing IP is a different problem - you might want to look into why this is the case, since they might have a valid reason for why it is changing.

2. While indenting is helpful when dealing with replies, and is standard practice, you're not required to do it. Wiki markup is not exactly the easiest to learn; it certainly took me a bit. Again, you seem to be putting undue pressure upon them to indent near the end of the tone shift, instead of encouragement. I understand you took steps to try and teach them, but we must remain civil throughout discussions.

3. The editors here aren't out to get you, we're just noticing a problem that may need administrator intervention. Please assume good faith, and consider this something you may need to improve on. Doing so would help prevent discussions like this in the future, as taking constructive criticism and using it to improve will fix the issues that have been brought up

As for the IP editor in question, as we do not know their identity we cannot make too many assumptions as to why they are neglecting to learn how to indent and other aspects. However, I am inclined to say that we should not bite them as other than this peculiarity, there seems to be no other issue (as while you said the article in question is about race. you said nothing about if their comments were constructive or not).

Hopefully I've cleared up this discussion enough so you can make a solid defense and not have to misrepresent anything. Kirbanzo  22:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyone should do their best to indent properly but I sometimes mess it up, even after 10 years of editing. Indenting is simply not worth getting all upset about. WMF and Misplaced Pages policies permit IP editing, so asking an IP editor to register an account in the midst of a disagreement is out of line and unlikely to be received well. Humans are capable of deciding not to be frustrated or irritated by trivialities beyond their control. I recommend that HiLo48 try to learn that lesson. Improved patience comes from a conscious decision to be more patient. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What Cullen said. The encyclopedia content is the important issue here, not how someone indents on talk pages. It is almost always obvious what is a reply to what. To me indentation seems obvious, and so Cullen should either have used two colons rather than three (and that made it difficult for me to decide how to indent this), or, if the reply was supposed to be to Jayron above, have put this comment immediately after that, but in the past I have had my correct indentation changed to incorrect, and have on many occasions quietly fixed bad indentation without comment. It seems that what is obvious to me, and perhaps to you, is for some reason not obvious to other editors. Part of the problem is that WP:INDENT is far too long - it should simply say, "indent your edit at one more level than the edit that you are replying to, and put it after any other reply to the same edit." Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. What I said above has been underlined by the edit conflict with Kirbanzo above. We are now even further from ideal indenting, but the discussion is still perfectly clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of being contentious, might I suggest that expecting everyone who comments on an article talk page to understand obscure markup language might seem a little unnecessary in 2019? Misplaced Pages promotes itself as 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', and the WMF raises large sums of money on that basis. Maybe a little less sniping at newcomers and a bit more pressure on the WMF to put some of their funds towards creating an interface suitable for normal non-techie types might not go amiss. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, for years I've been encouraging WMF to develop what I propose we call a "Visual Editor". It's hard to see what could go amiss. EEng 14:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Our comments are falling on deaf ears. HiLo has already said he does not plan on paying attention to this page. We need to either go to his talk page -- or frankly block him, to get his attention.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's be fair, the anon-IP started the problem, and it wasn't just bad indenting. They were pushing a strong bias against the BLP subject, and weren't listening and responding to anybody's attempt to explain policy/guidelines/practices on anything. I'm not posting a link, because you really have to look at the totality of anon IP comments on the talk page. I was personally tempted to just blank some of the IPs comments, since they seemed disruptive (but I know that's a blockable offense). HiLo48 can't be criticized for not trying to help the IP get better, but rather their mistake is the opposite, they should have just ignored the IP entirely. Every attempt by HiLo48 to explain things to the IP triggered another reply, which wasn't indented or responsive, which triggered another, and so on. --Rob (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We all deal with difficult IPs from time-to-time. Being able to handle them with consistent civility and evenhandedness is itself an indicator of competence.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Propose block - HiLo48 is demonstrating serious WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on the talk page (in the diffs posted above, and almost every other edit Hilo48 made on the talk page). If what WaltCip says is true, that this is "rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes", and they aren't going to pay attention to anything said here, then a short block seems warranted to deter this kind of behaviour. HiLo48 needs to learn to assume good faith (including not unfairly assuming that others aren't assuming good faith) and lay off the personal attacks - HiLo48 questioned someone's talk page 6 times on that talk page alone, and it wasn't all directed to the IP editor, not that it should matter. Cjhard (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I just read almost all HiLo48's comments dated 4 December 2019 and later and most of them are perfect—I don't know about the accuracy of the statements regarding the topic but the explanations of standard procedure and policies are exactly correct. See User talk:202.161.1.218 for how HiLo48 welcomed the IP on 3 December 2019 and offered a friendly and simple explanation about indenting. Those commenting above to the effect that an IP's indenting doesn't matter are mistaken—frequent posts without the correct indents are disruptive as they break the flow of a thread and make subsequent posts difficult. If someone is going to frequently contribute to a talk page, it is kinder to bluntly tell them about the problems they are causing. HiLo48 did better than that—he politely outlined what is needed which is more help than I noticed from others. The diffs of "uncivil" comments above are very weak and do not account for the totality of the talk page. It's true that a couple of the mentions of "incompetent" were excessive, although they were accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with Johnuniq. Indenting, at least to me, isn't that big of a deal, really. We can all read , yes, indenting makes it easier but it isn't needed. I could have typed this message without the indent and Johnuniq would still understand that I was responding to his message by reading the first four words.

Also, I would like to point out HiLo48's response to the olive branch I extended to him. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Talk about not assuming good faith... Kirbanzo  18:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The IP is the problem. It's either not competent to learn how to indent properly or choosing not to learn spitefully. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should sentence him to a period of indented servitude. EEng 14:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! Nice one. :D Bacondrum (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s someone else’s joke but I can no longer remember whose. EEng 20:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think HiLo48's comments directed towards others violate CIVIL. I've had some interaction with the editor and I do think they need to understand that comments that come off as dismissive (or worse) aren't helpful. Comments that focus on the editor vs the content are a problem. I haven't read this whole discussion so I will abstain from supporting or objecting to the proposed block. This isn't behavior that should result in an immediate block but, if the editor has been warned, and this ANI is a clear warning, this is behavior that should result in a block if it continues. Springee (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Give him a warning - No need for a block, yet...just give him a warning. I generally find this editor to be a good sort...having said that, my friendly attempts to calm the situation were met with uncollegial responses here, where I was pretty much told that I was being a pedant about his swearing at other editors and here where a very reasonable and friendly request to tone it down was met with unreasonable hostility. Having said that, I've generally gotten along well with this editor and value their contributions, so I think a warning is in order, but not a block (unless they continue this disruptive behavior). Having said all that, I think HiLo's behaviour has been disruptive, how do we tell the IP to pull his head in when HiLo is telling him to "fuck" this and "fuck" that? It makes civil discussion impossible, HiLo doesn't have to respond to the IP at all, and besides the consensus is firmly against the IP, so HiLo really should just ignore it. Bacondrum (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment While I've found HiLo's carrying on a bit much, the IP has been a real pain and I can see why HiLo was getting cranky about it. Bacondrum (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Long-term abuse from the socks of certain Umertan

I looked into the contribution of the edit warrior and I think this is an IP-sock of Themanhascome, who is the sock of UkrainianSavior who is the sock of Umertan.

I also do not understand the meaning of the actions of El_C in this article. After the anon deleted the source and made a new, dubious statement in the long-time stable article , El_C protected this article , advised me to go to RSN , and when I reported the facts indicating sock-puppeting , he just stopped responding. Or did I missed some changes in Wiki-policies?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC) You are mistaken, I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I explained myself very clearly on the talk page of Aeroflot Flight 1492. You were using a source from TASS, a state owned Russian news outlet that is known for spreading disinformation, and I rightfully deleted it. You also posted a link to the Moscow Times website, claiming it stated the name of a witness to the accident, when in fact it did not. 2601:143:4200:E070:4567:A17C:CCF1:F517 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• One of the articles the IP was warring on has already been semi-protected, and I have done the same for the other one. Either there is some meatpuppetry involved or they appear to be using two separate ranges, one IPv4 and one IPv6, so protecting may be better than rangeblocking at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! But the second article was full-protected , not semi-protected.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Partial appeal

I was recently T-banned for articles relating to the Knights of Columbus. While I disagree, I respect the consensus of the community and intend to abide by it. As I don't typically engage in these types of conversations, I am not entirely sure what is appropriate and what isn't. (I'm not even certain this is the right place to make the following request.)

However, I would like to appeal the block of the talk pages so that I might make suggestions, similar to a WP:PP. If my idea has merit, a non-banned editor can make the change. If it doesn't, they won't. For example, the Knights was founded to provide insurance for members and has grown into a Fortune 1000 company. However, there is almost no mention of it after the entire section, after being largely trimmed, was deleted. It seems odd to me that a major insurance company wouldn't talk at all about its insurance operation and would like to be able to suggest another editor add content related to it. I don't want to violate my ban, just make a few good faith suggestions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#TBAN_for_Slugger_O%27Toole

You were T-banned three days ago. I think it's entirely inappropriate for you to be asking this three days after being banned. Prove that you can work in other areas first. 2001:4898:80E8:F:B6E4:2EDB:363E:5BD9 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, a good part of the rationale for the TBAN was your stonewalling on Talk. I suggest you sit back at least until the article has stabilised with the current cleanup. Guy (help!) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, I'm sorry about your ban. Since it's only been a few days this is premature and unlikely to pass, but if you are willing to continue editing in other unrelated areas for some time I would support scaling back the ban in a little while. Michepman (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, I reccomend you edit elsewhere, and come back after (at least) 6 months of good behavior. I know topic bans don't feel good, but they'll do you good in the long run. If you show that you can abide by the community's wishes, you should have the ban lifted without too much fuss. However, if you break it, even accidentally, beware that the community might never lift it. I reccomend you stay as far away as possible from your topic ban until this storm blows over. But I do wish you the best, and smooth sailing, Captain Eek ⚓ 08:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Per all of the above, 3 days is not enough time to demonstrate that you've learned to work with others better. I would recommend as well that the spirit of WP:SO is followed, and you wait at least 6 months before asking for a modification to your ban. --Jayron32 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron, Captain Eek, and Michepman. Even after more than 10 years of editing, this is largely unfamiliar terrain for me. I was unaware there was a WP:SO. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole I'd also caution you not to push the same kind of self-sourced and related references to add UNDUE or misleading content to Harvard Extension School. That kind of conduct is going to be scrutinized in the future if you ever appeal the TBAN. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Jkg1997 is STILL doing Filedelinkerbot/CommonsDelinker's work

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

• Jkg1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#Jkg1997 is doing Filedelinkerbot/CommonsDelinker's work

Jkg1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After the thread was archived, Jkg1997 just continued! @EdJohnston and Phil Bridger: clearly nothing got through. Thanks Vycl1994 for notifying me about this. - Alexis Jazz 22:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion, Some uploading copyvio files on Commons that linked to Misplaced Pages directly, because of plagiarism Why? because of suspected users severely of uploading copyrighted files on Commons, does not followed the instructions on Commons:Licensing policy. Therefore, on this statement in the Description file page says “Own work” by suspected user. It means the files taken or stolen from social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. The user successfully uploading copyvio files, it is possible to get plagiarized. Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 02:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You can't decide what does and doesn't get done. Struck. Please block Jkg1997, I'll request a global lock after that because this user clearly doesn't understand anything. See also Special:Diff/931466102. - Alexis Jazz 02:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Jkg1997 does not understand what people are saying here, and is determined to continue this disruption. Given that this editor appears to do nothing else on English Misplaced Pages a block would seem to be the easiest solution here. I would add that the "en-4" template on the user page, which I previously took at face value, appears to be a pretty big exaggeration. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Jkg1997 indefinitely. That is needed due to the combination of making disruptive edits and being unable to explain them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that on their userpage, where I'd expect care to be taken in things one wishes to say, the opening statement says "I have busy for my work due to past anytime, but if needed some update the articles." That's surely automated translation, the "en-4" userbox is blatantly false, and this is someone who does not possess the language competence to work on the English Misplaced Pages at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The cats have taken over. ——SN54129 10:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Image copyright/licensing issues are often complex/confusing for editors. The last thing needed is an editor who doesn't properly understand them making swathes of less than competent edits which they are obviously unable to explain if necessary. It's fair to say I have above average experience in this area, but there is no way I would contemplate making this kind of edit in such a wholesale manner on a project where I was not fluent in the language and customs - that would be madness, and if I attempted that I'd expect to be quickly blocked there on a CIR basis if nothing else. It's a shame that a block was necessary, but sometimes it really is the only sensible option - thanks to Johnuniq for taking the necessary action. -- Begoon 11:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• The editor has been blocked, so can someone who knows how please close this? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I should reopen or just reply below this discussion, but.. m:Steward requests/Global#Global lock for my account (Jkg1997) (which refers to WP:KAGE) and m:User:Jkg1997. (note the page history: Jkg1997 is the only contributor)

This is weird, right? - Alexis Jazz 07:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be claiming they are a sock of an LTA. Perhaps someone familiar with that case could do any paperwork, although the indef seems enough. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've encountered edits from that LTA before, and have notified Favonian about a potential connection. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I know NDG and his obsessions all too well, and I don't believe Jkg1997 is one of his socks. "Wild goose chase" is probably the best way to describe that confession. Favonian (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Persistent removal of content - rejected at AIV, so bringing here

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

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

• Vandalism after final warning. Destructively removing archive details from references/links despite requests to stop/explain - ignores all warnings/requests to communicate. Aside from a couple of other unhelpful edits the account has basically done nothing except dozens of these destructive removals, so pretty much a vandalism only account, by any definition. Rejected by ToBeFree as not obvious vandalism... I'm not sure what vandalism is if persistent destructive removal of large, useful parts of our referencing content, refusal to discuss in any way, and ignoring all warnings isn't it. -- Begoon 11:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  For context about the rejection, see the "Bayfone" entry at Special:PermanentLink/931526647. For context about the "habit" alleged there, see Special:Diff/927151671, the only other occurrence I am aware of. Thanks for bringing this to ANI instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  No, thank you... I simply love being forced to waste my time repeating my posts to get action taken against an obviously damaging editor who refuses to discuss why they are causing damage, and whose destructive edits I have spent substantial time defending against, with effort invested to give them the benefit of the doubt and explain the seemingly inexplicable (most people wouldn't bother with that).

  From the AIV discussion you link you have clearly misunderstood the bulk of their edits - they are, in almost all cases, removing useful archive information destructively, particularly, it seems, archive.org, for some unexplained reason - not "replacing a link with another link" or whatever other nonsense you put forward there - See Help:Using the Wayback Machine and WP:DEADLINK and do try to examine the facts, please... Removing useful archive links can never be a "good idea" - how could it ever be a good idea to reduce the readers' options for verification of a link which may one day become inaccessible? Common sense surely makes that "idea" nonsense.

  Every time you try to reject a valid report like that it does make me a little warmer inside, but I'm just worried I might overheat, so if you could see your way clear not to "help" me like that in future I'd appreciate it. -- Begoon 13:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  This isn't helpful as it destroys what was the specific ref source to a general category. Removing the dead URLs with the archive links hurts because it essentially makes the text unsourced. That seems to be the bulk of their editing. That combined with not talking to anyone about it isn't good for the encyclopedia. spryde | talk 13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's obvious, as, I would hope, is what I said above. ToBeFree, I guess, doesn't like me because I alleged someone was a sockpuppet and they disagreed. I may have been wrong and I may have been right - I think I was right, but so what - they made some unjustified deletions to my talkpage at the time, and I didn't object because I didn't want to upset them, and the SPI was done. If they want to pursue this grudge further, though - it'll be hard for me to be so understanding about what seems like abuse of admin rights any more.

  If I'm honest, though - all that can wait - we should just block the editor deleting useful content - or am I being too simplistic? -- Begoon 14:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Begoon, before you wrote "smh again", I did not have the RFPP decline in mind. Before your comment here made me have a look at your talk page archive, I also did not remember Special:Diff/891833374. It may seem strange to you, but I was honestly unaware of our previous interactions each time I declined one of your reports. Now that you have mentioned your talk page, though, I can finally understand where your suspicion comes from. It is incorrect, even now; there is no reason for me not to like you. To prevent this understandable impression of hounding, I will do my best not to respond to further noticeboard reports made by you, unless they are about an incident I was involved in. Please do remind me if I forget this; I'm serious about this offer. I definitely do not intend to upset you.

  The full diff is Special:Diff/917558513/931471648, which replaces a redirect to the home page by at least a specific category. The only copies available of the page in the Internet Archive, dating back to 2012-03-08, are redirects to the home page. It is really only the refusal of discussion that worries me here, not the good-faith attempts at fixing references. I do not object to a block, but please don't use "Vandalism" as the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry. I don't believe you. You're a poor admin, you hold evident grudges, and I wish I'd opposed you at RFA. -- Begoon 14:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Please, Begoon. There can never be evidence for a non-existent grudge. You're a fine editor, your report does have merit, and you're welcome to ask for a recall at User:ToBeFree/recall if my behavior during the first year is unacceptable to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Don't condescend. Others can judge. I'm not advocating removal of your admin tools right now. I might, after I think about all this, but it won't be in the unconsidered, evidence-free mode that you thought you could deal with me when I do. Think on. Have you blocked the obvious vandal yet? -- Begoon 14:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Begoon, you’re being a complete asshole in this conversation. Please take the olive branch. – Levivich 15:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I understand the interpretation that the user is trying to fix references. The removal of archive links isn't helpful, but all instances I saw where they did that were when the original link was incorrectly labeled as dead (probably it was dead at some point in the past). I agree that this isn't vandalism (in the sense of deliberately trying to make things worse). However, the user is making some things worse, and they need to stop that. I suggest to block after (a) somebdoy explained to them why what they were doing was wrong and (b) they then do that again. (They received a link to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, which does not explain at all why their edit was wrong, so it is no wonder they are continuing). From Misplaced Pages:Vandalism: "For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Misplaced Pages". —Kusma (t·c) 15:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  There's no way the edits improve the encyclopedia. A description of vandalism is perfectly justified. -- Begoon 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Actually not so much. The only time you should call edits vandalism is where the user's intent is clearly to harm Misplaced Pages. As noted above, there is the possibility that the user thinks they are being helpful. So long as a user thinks they are being useful, you should never call their edits vandalism. That doesn't mean the person should be allowed to continue, just that unless it is obvious to everyone that they are trying to be harmful, you should seek other forms of redress. --Jayron32 16:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  You may describe it as vandalism, but it is not vandalism. —Kusma (t·c) 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Begoon, ok, you actually described the problem to the user in plaintext a week ago, so I see your point better now. My apologies. As the user has stopped for the day, I chose to give another semi-handcrafted final warning (using DE, not vandalism as reason), but I am happy to block them on the next edit. —Kusma (t·c) 16:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  You receive a special bonus for eventually, actually reading the evidence. You seem to be unique here in that respect. Yes, I'd taken the time to explain the issue to the user in detail - that's really the whole point here - that they continued regardless is the vandalism. I'm extremely pissed off by this whole incident, and the wagon-circling to play down a very poor, plainly grudge driven, "admin" action at AIV, but your apology is, at least, appreciated. Thank you. -- Begoon 00:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not all disruptive editing is vandalism; This might warrant a block for refusing to communicate, but even then... I' not convinced. This seems very much like a user who just doesn't understand how to use their Talk page - that's pretty common, and honestly a failing on our part as a community more than theirs as a new user trying to contribute. Begoon - I can't say your tone here reflects well on you, at all. Your report does have merit, but the information kidna gets lost in the noise of you flinging shit at ToBeFree. Calm down, approach this from what's best for the encylopaedia rather than the idea that some admin holds a grudge against you. -- a 15:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Huh? -- Begoon 15:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Let me try to explain it, Begoon. Vandalism is not a word that should be used to describe every type of disruptive editing. It is reserved for ONLY that type of editing which only has, as its purpose, to damage Misplaced Pages, things like inserting gibberish or random swear words in Misplaced Pages articles. Reports at AIV may be regularly declined if, in the opinion of the admin who happens to respond, that the editing does not appear to them to be obvious vandalism. That doesn't mean it is good editing, just that the venue of WP:AIV is not particularly well suited towards dealing with forms of disruption that are not really obvious vandalism like that. The rule of thumb you should follow is that any time that the editing needs any kind of lengthy explanation of what is wrong with it, AIV is probably not the locale to handle it. That does NOT MEAN that the person causing the disruption shouldn't be blocked, it just means that you should try somewhere else like here to deal with it instead. Also, since there are hundreds of admins, not every admin will deal with everything exactly the same way. Some admins will see something as obvious, and another may not. This is also not a huge issue here at ANI, where we can discuss things, but at AIV, where discussion really doesn't happen, if a report gets declined, it doesn't mean anything about you. It just means that ANI may be a better venue to handle blocking the person in question. I hope that explanation makes sense to you, since you found Alfie's explanation above confusing. --Jayron32 16:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Not really. It's clearly vandalism because it's clearly persistent damage to content, deliberate, and malicious. I'm extremely pissed off about this whole incident, and "circling the wagons" doesn't help. As a result I'm reconsidering my participation here as a whole. When my genuine efforts to protect this encyclopedia are rebuffed by an "admin" with an obvious grudge, and the reactions are similar to this, then it doesn't make me inclined to continue to donate any more time or effort. There have been other recent posts here about the futility of criticising admin actions at ANI because of this "wagon circling" tendency, and I strongly sympathise with that sentiment. -- Begoon 23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree removing the archive.org links is disruptive but not vandalism. If the editor continues to remove the links, a block may be necessary to prevent the disruption until they engage on their talk page. Hard to swallow that TBF is holding a grudge by properly declining a bad AIV report, or by agreeing to avoid Begoon's reports in the future, the latter of which certainly doesn't seem very grudge-like. I'm glad Begoon brought attention to this disruption, but next time I'd thank him to employ fewer personal attacks. – Levivich 01:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, "you’re being a complete asshole in this conversation". That's not unexpected, I've seen you in action. Please keep your nonsensical views on who has made "personal attacks" to yourself (if keeping anything to yourself in a conversation of no concern to you is a concept you can grasp - which I rather doubt). -- Begoon 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's better, but I'd ask future posts to have even fewer personal attacks than that. But good start! – Levivich 01:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE discussion about User:Weelandlka

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

I would like to start a WP:COMPETENCE discussion about User:Weelandlka. This discussion is prompted not by a single incident, but rather a consistent pattern of making edits with poor English, and suppressing contributions that conflict with his/her political views. I have not personally had an extended discussion with Weelandlka about this behavior, but many other editors have over the course of several months. I'm unclear on what the bar is for determining WP:COMPETENCE, but I would appreciate it if you could review Weelandlka's behavior and determine if any action would be appropriate.

Discussion follows:

Frequently inserts incomprehensible text into articles

Weelandlka is a prolific contributor to Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, his additions are frequently in broken English which is hard to read, and sometimes completely unintelligible.

Here are a few samples from this week alone:

A debate erupted over conservative leader Andrew Scheer's handling of LGBT rights after the 2019 election, former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose is supported chorus of Conservatives members that wanted the party needs to take a clearer stand on LGBTQ. Source

Benoit Charette, the Quebec environmental minister describes people no longer have children as "too alarmists". Source

Jessie Brown from Canadaland noted that it could have given the Conservative party to cut CBC budget. Source

Weelandlka has contributed much worse before; these are just the examples I could find from his/her last few edits.

Weelandlka has been called out on this multiple times, by multiple editors: Link 1, Link 2. The comment in the second link is pretty representative:

I got several "thank yous" and even a written "thank you" on my talk page for reverting your additions. Other editors cannot understand what you are writing and, by their comments, are struggling to either fix or remove your additions.

Note also Weelandlka's comment that English is his/her native language, but (s)he just can't be bothered to make more coherent edits. Weelandlka has not substantively improved the quality of his/her edits since, which forces other editors to clean up afterwards (or just allow the quality of the affected articles to degrade).

Exhibits WP:OWNER behavior, violates WP:NPOV, and engages in edit wars

Weelandlka assumed ownership of the People's Party of Canada article, and took it upon him/herself to unilaterally remove any statements about the party that (s)he disagreed with, including ones supported by references from reputable news outlets including Reuters and the New York Times: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3.

Weelandlka has been warned multiple times for edit warring, both formally and informally: 3RR report 1, 3RR report 2, informal warning.

Other issues

Weelandlka has been repeatedly warned for inserting copyrighted material: Link 1, Link 2.

Weelandlka has also been warned for incorrectly marking edits as minor: Link.

Edit: Stephen Hui (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There is something amusing about an editor citing competence when they forget to sign their post. 2001:4898:80E8:B:4292:A23B:3173:1596 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Touché. :-) Stephen Hui (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC) (<-- original poster)

The original poster forgetting to sign is an unfortunate mistake of the type that nearly everybody (apart from me of course) makes, but, if Weelandlka is really a native speaker of English, edits betray a lack of competence in writing in any language. Even the first sentence on User:Weelandlka is not written in correct English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Holy moly. Looking at their contribs and their talk page certainly does not instill a lot of confidence. WMSR (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Especially not the way they have often summarised additions of several hundred bytes as WP:MINOR. Narky Blert (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Page stalker here. This user's contributions merit some extra eyes. I picked a random block add ] and despite some subsequent copy editing, the text is still awkward. See current incarnation David Frum#Immigration TimTempleton 23:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I get the criticsm that editors are making towards me. I always try to learn from them. For a while I will follow Misplaced Pages:Be bold and fix my mistakes. Just identify them for me. Weelandlka (talk) 03:28:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Weelandlka: Every text addition I've seen here has something wrong. I know you're trying to help, but with your poor command of English, you are forcing others to spend time monitoring and correcting you. Perhaps you should instead suggest the edits on the talk pages, and let others review and politely correct (if necessary) before adding. TimTempleton 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Belatedly figured out how to ping people. @Ahunt:, from my position mostly on the sidelines you appear to have had more interaction with Weelandlka than most (and I quoted you in the original post), so pinging you in case you want to weigh in. Stephen Hui (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for you ping! This editor and I had a conversation about this issue three months ago, when they started on Misplaced Pages. They indicated that the issue was due to editing in a hurry and so I encouraged them to slow down and edit more carefully, but it seems that the issue has persisted. I hate to take another editor to task for spelling and grammar and even typing skill, as mine is not always 100% either, but some editors may not have the basic minimum skill to contribute to Misplaced Pages. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I am probably going to take a break until this issue is over. I think I got a little carried away when making my edits that I forget about WP:COMPETENCE. Weelandlka (talk) 17:51:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, sadly, a block might be necessary until their English has noticeably improved. Even if they mean well, adding garbled English to articles is disruptive to readers and other editors. Sandstein 17:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I just want to know what do you mean by "noticeably improved"? I just want to know about the Language proficiency that an editor must conduct themselves in.Weelandlka (talk) 20:58:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean that you must show that your language and editing skills have improved such that your edits reflect a professional level of proficiency in English, and do not need copyediting and other cleanup by others. Sandstein 21:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani and JUSTDONTLIKEIT accusation

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

This editor has accused me of "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behavior" when I raised the concern that saying in Turkey#History, the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide" which is based on a comment by single U.S random politician is UNDUE. This is an unacceptable accusation and I have discussed this with him and asked him again and he said he still stands with this accusation. If the unfounded accusations continued then I predict a block. Just like calling an edit vandalism without sufficient evidence is a personal attack calling them JUSTDONTLIKEIT without sufficient evidence is a personal attack, they both assume bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment This user has already harrassed me and other users in the past and now they come here with this baseless report. I was not able to find any mention of personal attack here. Sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG case in my humble opinion. Merry Christmas to everyone.---Wikaviani 23:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I also want to add that this user keeps accusing other editors with JUSTDONTLIKEIT and in all cases there are no sufficient evidence(see also here). I really think this user should stop and learn how to assmue good faith because it is uncivil to accuse editors with these unfounded accusations. This should be the threshold to this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You have other editors joining in to make compromises. Go back to the talk page and work it out. 2001:4898:80E8:8:EA25:1123:3AE0:C63B (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute anymore. This is an issue of the long term behavior of an editor that should be noted. This isnt the first time this editor accuses me of JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and this is not the first time he accuses an editor with this unfounded accusation. He also said that he still stands with his accusation.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Justdontlikeit is just an essay. It is not a personal attack (although continued unsubstantiated use of it is disruptive). It is also not a good argument to use by itself when debating content, particularly in this case where valid objections have been made. Editors make bad arguments all the time so that in itself is not sanctionable. I don't know whether Wikiaviani uses it too much, some of the links above lead to other editors using it (e.g Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar and Talk:Operation House of Cards). In my opinion there is nothing to be accomplished here. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Aircorn, I know it is an essay. But it assumes bad faith and ruins the discussion he has used it against me at least twice and in both cases, I had valid arguments while he keeps repeating it in every next comment. I would love if an admin considered a warning. Obviously I am not asking for sanctions. I just need this disruptive behavior to stop so we can have real arguments not "I don't bluh bluh, I only see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" or "This is a typical WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also, he mostly uses it in edit summaries. But look for example in Talk:Qanat, he used it twice and in two comments against two editors (Alexandermcnabb and Nabataeus, no valid reason to cite JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And he still stands with his accusation that I only just dont like it. Like everyone who he disagrees with is JUSTDONTLIKEIT!.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Using WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT appears to be a serious problem that is happening frequently. An editor's objective arguments are being rejected by disruptive citing to this essay which assumes bad faith. There is also an editor below this thread who is also complaining about an editor who is like Wikiaviani, citing JUSTDONTLIKEIT every time an editor speaks with objective arguments. This issue was discussed multiple times in the talk page of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This should be dealt with once and for all, so Wikiaviani or any other editor don't just go and cite an essay that assumes bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you to take a look at your own behavior. You have been blocked 4 times in less than 18 months (3 times for edit-warring and one time for lack of civility if i'm not mistaken). Saying that i "keep repeating JUSTDONTLIKEIT in every next comment" is wrong, i have been editing here for more than 2 years and have more than 8000 edits, are you able to find thousands edits of mine with that sentence ?

As to the Qanat discussion i have been awarded a barnstar for teamworking by a veteran editor (Kansas Bear) ... I can make mistakes, just like everybody else, and this report of yours is useless, as other editors said above. I'm done here. best.---Wikaviani 11:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that this editor still accuses me that "I just don't like it" even after an editor interfered and said that the U.S. politician comment is UNDUE. He has not apologized or realized his mistake ​--SharabSalam (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not acknowledging the problem is a problem

• Background: When I argued for removing a U.S. politician comment because it is UNDUE, Wikaviani rudely replied with an accusation of having no argument and that I just dont like it, saying "There is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors."(He also reverted me) note that I have had interacted with this editor before and he has made the same accusation against me.
• What shows that this editor has not even heard what I said and probably reverting because he is trying to harass me is that after an editor removed the U.S. politician comment because it is UNDUE he replied saying " Sounds good to me...", and I was like, wait WHAT?,... isnt this the same editor who said there is no UNDUE here and only JUSTDONTLIKE behaviors? I then asked him whether he acknowledged his mistake, he said "No. I agree with the compromise, not with what you said." The editor doesnt even know that the guy removed the U.S. politician comment which calls the Turkish intervention a genocide!. Any admin can see what happened in Talk:Turkey and see this disruptive behavior. I am asking either an acknowledgment or a warning so if this gets repeated again, this editor gets sanctioned because I am not going to waste my time with such accusations whenever I have an objective argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You had the higher ground. You are fast losing it. I suggest you let this go, because now it is not only going nowhere here it is disrupting legitimate discussion at the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I do feel that I have taken this issue too much but this is not the first time this editor assumes bad faith on me. Imagine that you were in my position, what would you do?. I do feel that whenever Wikaviani sees a dispute that involves me in his watchlist, he reverts me without even knowing what my arguments are and what the dispute is about. Now I will just wait for this case result and I will see if I can collect enough resources for a future case (hopefully there wouldn't be a future case).--SharabSalam (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: since you have not provided any diffs or other evidence of a policy violation, it appears that the only problem is that just you don't like what is being added to the article. 174.226.133.105 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I have provided diffs up there. I have said that the content dispute is now solved and that the UNDUE comment by the US politician is now removed(Which I have also removed here long before this dispute). The problem is that this editor accused me multiple times of having no argument. (see Talk:Qahtanite and Talk:Turkey) and that I am not going to tolerate being accused of having no argument and assuming bad faith on me again.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Links to articles and talk pages are not diffs. Linking to an essay when discussing a content dispute is not a policy violation. The burden is on you to provide evidence that a policy violation has occurred. 174.226.133.105 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, a different editor in that conversation brought up JUSTDONTLIKEIT first, and you replied to them without taking offense. When Wikaviani said JUSTDONTLIKEIT, you reacted with outrage. You continued bringing it up on that talk page, not Wikaviani. I don't see any personal attacks on you on that Talk page. The comment on Talk:Qahtanite (which doesn't read as a personal attack either) was from eight months ago, not really evidence of a pattern. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, the other editor comment was before me raising the UNDUE weight argument about the U.S. comment, the main thing I was protesting. The editor who I still have not forgotten that he accused me of JUSTDONTLIKEIT (and it is very unlikely that I forget that) accused me again of having no argument and of disruptive editing without giving any evidence or counter-argument. Also here when I said that this opinion is giving too much emphasis and that the source Times of Israel is used in a SYNTH/OR manner I got a response that also accuses me of trying to "discredit a source that" I "don't like" and that it is not my first time. I left that discussion and went upset by his hounding and his assuming of bad faith and didn't want to continue being accused. BTW in those time I was still new in Misplaced Pages and he wasn't.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, so eight months ago, Wikaviani said your removal sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and you felt like that was a personal attack? And when Wikaviani today said There is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors., you felt like it was a repeat of the first perceived attack? Schazjmd (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. WP:AOBF. These are basic stuff, didnt think I had to explain how that count as personal attack. And I said it is not these times only, I have added the other one in the Houthis article.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an allegation that you're editing in bad faith, it's saying the argument is weak. Schazjmd (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd Correction: It says that I have no argument and that my motivation was only that I just don't like it. And he keeps repeating that accusation against me. Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence, Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute.-SharabSalam (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I want also to underscore the fact that Wikavinai doesn't take my complaints about him accusing me of bad faith seriously and that he admittedly doesn't reply here because he thinks my complaint here is "useless" and "childish".--SharabSalam (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an allegation that you're editing in bad faith, it's saying the argument is weak. --JBL (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​Ok. I will ask since you choose to repeat a statement with no additional explanation. How is assuming that I just dont like it not assuming that I have a harmful motivation?--SharabSalam (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) From time to time, I make an edit that I think improve an article, but other editors don't agree. In some cases, when challenged, I have to admit that my preference for one thing over another is just a personal taste -- I can't explain it in terms of following the sources or Misplaced Pages policies. Other times, the edits I've made are to ensure an article correctly reflects reliable sources, or has a neutral point of view, or avoids original research, or .... All of the edits I'm describing are made in good faith; some of them could be described as JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and some could not. --JBL (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, so you are saying that whenever someone challenges with an abjective argument you would reply with "There is no here, just WP:JUSTDONTLIKE behaviors"?. This isn't just assuming bad faith it is also an accusation of POV pushing and it has been repeated multiple times against me by this editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is obligated to agree with you, nor to find your arguments convincing, nor to restrain themselves from telling you that they do not find your arguments convincing. None of this has anything to do with "assuming bad faith" or anything else, as you have now been told by three or four other people. Your insistence on this point casts you in a poor light. --JBL (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• In any case, the very next time this editor disruptively accuses me of bad faith, I will definitely transfer the issue to the Arbcom.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You have far more of a chance to get action here than Arbcom. They will decline. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I see nothing in this report that is sanction-worthy or even warning-worthy. all that you have been able to provide : few links where Wikaviani says JUSTDONTLIKEIT to you (last time was months ago, thus, WP:AOBF is irrelevant here). also, other editors said it above, JUSTDONTLIKEIT and assuming bad faith are two different things. i suggest you stop making fun of yourself and move forward.162.218.91.106 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User is consistently removing CSD tags on articles created by the user

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

S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello admins. User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib has consistently deleted CSD tags placed on articles that were created by the user and this has occurred on multiple occasions. Dr42 (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, if I see correctly:

• 2019-12-15, there was an edit-war about this at Khan Joynul.
• 2019-12-16, there was a discussion about this at User_talk:S._M._Nazmus_Shakib#Autopatrolled_granted. Courtesy ping Muboshgu.
• After the ANI report, Dr42 has reopened the discussion about the topic.

Dr42, has the issue continued after the discussion mentioned above? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the above incidents, but my primary concern, which is somewhat impertinent now because CSD was declined, was, as can be seen in the user's contributions, he frequently creates an article, it gets marked as CSD, and then undoes the action for CSD and invariably adds the edit summary of "if needs go for AfD (sic)". This has happened multiple times and felt it needed to be addressed. If not, then my apologies. Thank you for your help. Dr42 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It may well need to be addressed, Dr42; thank you for creating the report. I was just trying to get an overview, and to see if the user has continued after the warning. I'll leave the rest to those more frequently dealing with such reports. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have said it before on my talkpage. I have tired off seeing my stub articles deleted by user:RHaworth but they passed WP:N (see Narayan Rao Tarale, Jogesh Chandra Barman and Maya Rani Paul some of his deletion). So, I removed those. But, after addressing on my talk page I didn't remove any CSD. I am saying I am sorry for these incidents. I will not do again. After all, to err is human. Thanks to all.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A good way to avoid having stubs summarily deleted is not to create stubs. When you decide that an article is worth creating, work on it in userspace or draftspace so that it's well beyond a stub, and only then turn it into, or have it turned into, an article. (My own most recent article creation.) If on the other hand a subject doesn't seem worth more of your effort than what's needed to create a mere stub, this may indicate that the job is better left for some other editor, or not done at all. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, I erred in giving this person autopatrolled rights. I'm revoking it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance Muboshgu. Dr42 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

My take on this is to some degree S. M. Nazmus Shakib was caught by some over-zealous CSD'ing by Kitaab Ka Kida (now being guided by PamD) resulting in a entanglement where neither did particularly well. I warned S. M. Nazmus Shakib about removal of CSD tags and believe that was taken on board; I have some concerns he still wishes to winge about RHaworth behind his back and possibly to use autopatroller to avoid NPP scrutiny. I am minded Muboshgu maybe should be WP:TROUTed for only removing autopatroller rights when this hit ANI. Dr42, a relatively new user, seems per contributions to have take over a mini WP:IDONTLIKE of S. M. Nazmus Shakib's work and seems to have wished to goto ANI after being somewhat restrained by Espresso Addict. Both Kitaab Ka Kida and Dr42 have seen fit to clear their talk page. Stuff is ongoing at AfD's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khan Joynul and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adhora Khan and in a new section below.04:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible correction. As Dr42's contributions show edits in 2006 the above new user claim may be incorrect. Dr42's knowledge of policies certainly seem beyond that of an average 1 month user but there are valid reasons why this may be. I note the Dr42/M. Nazmus Shakib spat likely originated at the CSDing and detagging of Shyamal Kanti Biswas and frustrations that this might likely survive any attempt to send to AfD. Its also possible the Kitaab Ka Kida/M. Nazmus Shakib spat may have driven some actions on the Shyamal Kanti Biswas article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark its not mini. Even, he/she reverted my message from his/her talk page and I think he is using tags disruptively on articles created by me.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To assist peoples I gender identify as male though my locality at times I would not be surprised to be referred to as "you old woman". I am also regarded as not particularly tall though in excessive of 5 feet (150 cm). Please provide diffs of my alleged disruption in this matter if you wish to pursue it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits of User:Dr42

User:Dr42 is using tags without valid reasons. Please, see Adhora Khan (claimed paid article), Rina Khan (claimed read like a news article). Seems, the user has WP:IDONTLIKE on me.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As you can see in the thread immediately above this one, I have raised several valid concerns that you removed CSD tags from articles that you created which is not in line with WP rules and regulations. After reviewing other edits, I and several other editors have noted concerns about the articles you've created, which are mainly stubs pertaining to Bangladeshi actors. I've no problem at all with the creation of well-sourced articles. However, when an article lacks notability and does not conform to WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and other rules, guidelines, and other miscellany, I will raise those concerns when and where I may. As one can gather from your talk page, I am not the only person with these concerns. My editing is not an incident necessitating the attention of admins. Your removal of CSD tags and other tags, however, is an admin issue, which is why your autopatrol rights were revoked (see above thread). Again, this is nothing personal -- it is a matter of policy. Dr42 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dr42 Please don't claim that you are following policy when you are obviously not. Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct towards editors:

Re: User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib - The user is consistently claiming that I am making personal attacks when I am simply making policy-based decisions to tag and evidence-backed decisions to edit articles. He keeps claiming that I am making personal attacks (WP:IDONTLIKE) on multiple pages and in multiple articles and discussions when I have exhibited no malice or inappropriate behaviour towards him. I am uncertain as to how he reached these conclusions, but as other editors have remarked, he must stop removing CSD tags on articles that he has created himself, and he must be civil to other users, something that is not happening at this moment, and thus I am requesting assistance from admins. Thank you. Dr42 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing my message from your talk page (you have reverted thrice, did you do according to policies or according to WP:IDONTLIKE) and stop your WP:IDONTLIKE activities. I have said twice I would not do anymore (on 16 on my talkpage and today). Why you are mentioning again? And you are putting distuptive tags without valid reasons.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your disruptive message was removed from my talk page because you've placed the same message all over wikipedia claiming that "I don't like you". My policy-based tags and votes on articles that have been nominated for deletion should be respected. I have treated you with respect and would ask the same of you. Your numerous stub articles that do not meet WP:GNG and WP:N are the issue here as well as the fact that you blatantly violated WP policy by removing CSD tags on multiple articles that you created -- not you personally. I would encourage you to edit and enhance your existing articles so they aren't prone to deletion discussions. However, I would kindly ask that you stop attacking me based on my policy-based edits and relevant contributions that are in line with WP's rules and regulations. The tags I have placed are completely relevant to the articles and I've placed them with discretion and forethought about why they meet the criteria for the tags. Thank you. Dr42 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have created 400+ articles. You claimed among them numerous articles don't meet WP:N. Name the articles' name here. There are administrators, they will judge my message was distruptive or not. I will not revert again from your talk page as I respect WP:3RR rules (but you have done thrice. Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib: Users are allowed to remove almost anything from their own talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK. There are limited exceptions but your warning certainly does not qualify. So, Dr42 is allowed to remove it. There is no question of a 3RR issue for Dr42. You, on the other hand, are disruptively restoring a user talk page post that has been removed. Stop doing that. Meters (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: I have stopped as I respect WP:3RR after reverting twice (I don't know WP:OWNTALK, free to say). See his activities, its clear about his intention.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Meters. As I've assured the relevant user moments ago as he continues this onslaught whereby he invokes "WP:IDONTLIKE" pertaining to every post about me, I've replied thusly: "If you're going to continue to use the WP:IDONTLIKE excuse, at least understand what it means. As it says in the essay, "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like"." I have, with every edit and tag I've contributed, done so with justification, corroboration, substantiation, and in line with policy and regulations. You, on the other hand, are seemingly stating that I've resorted to saying "I don't like it" or one of its variants. I've provided well-constructed logic and reason to my contributions pertaining to your articles just as I have across all of the other edits I've made on WP. This has nothing to do with you personally. This has to do with your articles -- especially this one, which merely consists of four sentences." I would at this point ask that some administrative act be initiated as I've treated this user with nothing but respect and he is continuously being uncivil towards me. Dr42 (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Dr42: continues this onslaught whereby he invokes "WP:IDONTLIKE" pertaining to every post about me

What a coincidence! I also have a problem with an editor who keeps saying "JUSTDONTLIKEIT" see above section LOL!.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam what fun! We both felt the pain today. However I am optimistic that these issues will dissipate sooner rather than later. Good luck to you my friend. Dr42 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec)It's not a question of 3RR. When someone has removed a thread from their own talk page, do not restore it. Not even once. If it was a warning, removing is taken as sign that they have seen it. It it's a post then they are obviously done with the topic. Meters (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dr42 please put the names of numerous articles that didn't pass WP:N. Did you use it for attacking me?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

For the last time, this has nothing to do with you. The articles I've seen where I am questioning the notability of the subjects involved are Adhora Khan, Pramod Khanna, Khan Joynul, and perhaps a few others. Each of these articles is a stub, and they lack significant content. Your interpretation that I am "attacking" you because I am raising the concern that these individuals may not meet WP:GNG is flagrant and without merit. I am merely participating in the dialogue pertaining to the notability of a subject which is my right and privilege as an editor on WP. This has nothing to do with you. Even if I saw an article created by Jimmy Wales and questioned its notability, I would raise that concern if it was a valid, well-founded concern that I felt needed to be raised. This is not personal. This is professional. Stop interpreting my completely reasonable and permitted use of WP as an attack against your participation or existence. This is my final word on the subject. I kindly request that an admin intervene and review this user's conduct. Dr42 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You have said before numerous and now perhaps few others. Khan Joynul, Adhora Khan are on AfD. It doesn't mean these are not notbale (see AfD discussion. But you put CSD tags on that articles despite of having AfD discussions on two.). And Pramod Khanna produced a film see (Pramod Khanna enters Dabangg 3 to play brother Vinod's role) and later acted in film where he appeared in a significant role see that released today see (Vinod Khanna's brother Pramod Khanna to play Prajapati Pandey in 'Dabangg 3'). Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser request

{{Checkuser needed}} for User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib for the following reasons: - vandalism, potential sock puppetry, disruption to Misplaced Pages, and bad-faith potentially paid editing that all seems to revolve around the Bangladeshi film industry. Dr42 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib has also engaged in policy violations including removing CSD tags from articles that he himself has created. Dr42 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Further info: S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Dr42 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, I can confirm that at least one article that was deleted was re-created by the user without going through the appropriate process. Dr42 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Dr42 claimed vandalism (When I vandalise Misplaced Pages?), sock puppetry (speechless), distrupion of Misplaced Pages (when?), paid editting (speechless again). I have said about CSD tags removal twice (here and on my talk page). For your kind information I usually created politicians, dead people articles and India releated articles. Film people are few among my article creation (among them mostly I created India film people). And in his allegation mentioned here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khan Joynul the deleting administrator (RHaworth) himself voted for keep who deleted earlier (I have mentioned

@Dr42: A request for checkuser requires evidence. You appear to be a party to this dispute, and we need to see that there is evidence that would convince an unbiased observer that there is something to investigate. Your link to an article that they have re-created was an article that they had created previously, and is not evidence of socking. You can re-instate the checkuser needed template if you have evidence in the form of diffs linking this user to another account. ST47 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: Under CheckUser: Grounds for Checking, it states that vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing are valid reasons. The relevant user has engaged and admitted to removing CSD tags when he knew he created the articles and should not have done so. In addition, he reverted my talk page back to edits he made for a total of four times. He is consistently invoking WP:IDONTLIKE when I am merely voting on the merits of the deletion proposals. The user is also spamming wikipedia with article stubs of non-notable individuals that have little-to-no sources from reputable news entities. The sock argument is the least strong, but I think the vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing have ample evidence based on the links I've provided in this post and in the above posts. I bear no ill will toward the user, I am simply concerned about the vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing that has continued for some time now. See user talk page, specifically here, here, here, here, and here. Dr42 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} for User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib for the following reasons: vandalism, disruption to Misplaced Pages, and bad-faith potentially paid editing that all seems to revolve around the Bangladeshi politics and the Bangladeshi film industry. See above for evidence. Dr42 (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, these pages were deleted and these were happened when I was reletively new user and I don't know then notability guidelines and policies of Misplaced Pages. After that see User talk:Mkativerata about solve of our edit warring on Mahathir Mohammad. It was done then as I have used WP:3RR by mistake as I don't know then. Later, the edit war was solved. He often claimed paid editting without no reason. @Dr42: claimed I am spamming Misplaced Pages. Did the user know notability guidelines? Did the user know members of state legislatures are nnotable? Or it was uses by him for hharassing me. Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dr42: None of this is evidence that the user is violating any element of WP:SOCK. ST47 (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: I agreed, but as I mentioned, there are other reasons under CheckUser: Grounds for Checking, and those reasons are vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing. If those aren't valid reasons then perhaps they should be removed because the way that it reads currently, it doesn't state that it has to be an exclusively sock puppet-based argument. Either way, the only thing that matters here is stopping the rule breaking. If you have any additional ideas or procedures by which I can solve the problems that this user has presented, they are most welcome. Otherwise, I suppose we can just move on with the hope that the user will stop any vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing. Thanks for your assistance. Dr42 (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have said on talk page and even there that I won't remove CSD tag again. Did you notice Dr42?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Dr42, I’d suggest you stop advocating for a CheckUser unless you can identify clear sock-like behaviour, preferably with demonstrative diffs. I agree that there are some problematic issues relating to policy, and possibly even some evidence of paid editing (given the dearth of rather obscure subjects). But these are dealt with in other ways, such as (for example): mentoring/topic bans, and disclosures, respectively. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing AfD template from article

Progress4weegies (talk · contribs) has now three times removed the AfD template from Langshot, despite being warned twice not to do so again. PamD 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly believe they have also appended the name to local business addresses on Google Maps to present as evidence of notability after the AfD process began, please see the discussion for details, apologies if not relevant to highlight here. Crowsus (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

They are still at it - removing the AfD template here again, and has now resorted to blanking the AfD page. I've issued another warning, if they persist in disruptive editing, maybe a short block is in order? Isaidnoway (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 1 week, which should put it past the close of the AFD in question. If they agree to stop their disruption, they can be unblocked early by myself or any other admin in case I am not available. --Jayron32 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note this editor has done this on multiple articles, and in addition to what Crowsus noted above he makes this comment on his own talk page (unsigned) in discussion: "Can I just say, I am employed by those businesses in Langshot to develop their Business district BID." So apparently all of this is a promotional/COI effort with no declaration. JamesG5 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RTG and RDMA

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

RTG asked a run-of-the-mill, albeit vague, question at RDMA about a week ago. As this is a vague and ill-posed question, several mathematicians, including myself along with @Joel B. Lewis, Double sharp, CiaPan, and Wikimedes: gave several answers for different formulations of the question. But it soon became clear that RTG would never be satisfied by any answer they could get at RDMA, and after Double sharp agreed with me that all reasonable answers were already given, and RTG still displayed a misunderstanding of everyone's answers, I closed the discussion, which RTG promptly proceeded to edit war over; after JBL endorsed my closure by restoring it, RTG proceeded to open Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Battleground, where two uninvolved editors (@Deacon Vorbis and Jayron32:) agreed that continuing the discussion would not be productive, thus rendering the close proper. Throughout that discussion, RTG was consistently incivil, with e.g. SHOUT'ing and casting aspersions of "tag teaming" as well as (also without evidence) "harassment" and "wikilawyering", and (see WT:Reference desk#Battleground) battleground behavior – all the while ignoring the fact that a rather strong consensus has formed that the RDMA discussion had outlived its usefulness. On top of this, they made this POINTy addition to the tag team essay, which I almost want to say was made in bad faith; archive templates are often used on this page to resolve sections, after all.

This behavior is toxic. Archiving RDMA sections that have outlived their usefulness is a common practice, so I didn't think it would be so controversial here (and probably wouldn't have done it had I known what would follow). My goals are:

• RTG respects the consensus, drops the WP:STICK, and makes no further edits related (construed broadly) to that particular RDMA thread;
• RTG commits to conducting himself in a more civil and collegial matter;
• and failing either of those, RTG is blocked.

That I will be spending a good ten minutes on ANI notices here, and the amount of diffs presented here, should give a good indication that RTG has gone far beyond the threshold of WP:IDHT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I endorse everything Jasper Deng has written. I would be happy to comment further if requested but do not have ANI on my watchlist, so please ping. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know why this is here. RTG has not edited RDMA to undo the close since they were told to stop doing so. They are discussing the matter and presenting their side of the case at WT:RD as is proper. While I disagree with their side of the argument, I find that they have done nothing worthy of a sanction, and certainly not worth starting an ANI thread. There has been no recent disruption to deal with; they're probably a bit overearnest, and can (and has) been reminded to tone things down a bit, but I find nothing I would block or ban them for. --Jayron32 14:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For me, the POINTy additions to the tag-teaming page and the continued heckling at the ref desk talk pages was what brought me here. If RTG stops all such editing, i.e. makes nothing new beyond the diffs above, then yes this would need no sanction (hence the "failing").--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I hadn't noticed that. I agree that that is a problem, and RTG would be well advised to never do anything like that again. --Jayron32 15:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The discussion at WT:RD I feel is proper. What I feel is improper is this sort of WP:POINTY behaviour, which indeed looks pretty bad (claiming "However, the template is used across the site as a tool to manipulate and prevent active discussions" just on the basis of one discussion you've just been involved in never looks good). But since there is discussion ongoing at WT:RD, I have just added to that discussion another attempt to civilly explain why it is that this problem keeps cropping up when we try to answer RTG's question. So we can wait and see how it turns out from there, as I rather agree with Jayron32 that we have a problem stemming from over-earnestness, that does not warrant a block at this stage, only some advice to be paid attention to. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see why this is here except to prevent me from discussing what transpired.

• Explain why it is vague.

• I got assurance from a genuine ref desk contributor the answer was, it just means 2D. The question I asked was, "Please tell me, is the Euclidean plane the concept of two dimensional space only, or is it the concept of 2D space + something else?"

• Jasper Deng "closed" a discussion? Yes after taking the piss out of me for days having me ask the same question many times over and responding every time with technical terms and reference to other disciplines of maths and on and on and on... A real bullshit teasing causing trouble on the ref desks saying stuff like, oh maybe he's trying to read Science Direct (science what?), "If you actually have a question you want answered..." , "I am telling you (again) that you have not articulated a question..." ,

• If the Euclidean plane is a 2D plane only with no need for fancy description, why didn't any of the so-called helpers point out this response as unhelpful... "The properties of Euclidean plane appeared very interesting to me some time ago, so now I tried to follow this thread - alas, could not find a sense of humor in it. And not only a sense of humor, but actually little sense at all. What a pity, it could have been an interesting talk..."

• And on and on and on...

• In the end I wrote, "Is it not the case, that Euclid simply formalised concepts like up is up, down is down, and describing anything unusual or complex relative to that, is the opposite of describing Euclidean geometry..?"

• It has been said before, it is not possible to drop a stick someone else is beating you up with. Being unable to discuss what has happened on the ref desks will not be possible from me. I have only discussed it in one place outside the relevant section, and that was the talk page of the ref desks to suggest that the archive template should never be used in an active discussion as to do so is purely disruptive. Is that opinion going to be on trial here? Well I won't be able not to state that either. As for any kind of harassment or disruption or tag team teasing people I consider ignorant for fun... I for one won't be doing any of that. ~ R.T.G 15:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What you have at the end is still very hand-wavy, but has the general idea right that Euclidean geometry is kind of the way you expect things to be. We already explained in various ways in our answers what concepts are the key ones, particularly those of length and angle (so not quite "up is up and down is down", as there is no "up" or "down" on the plane, only "left", "right", "forwards", and "backwards"). I wrote before you wrote your last comment there that I agreed with Jasper Deng that you couldn't get a better answer at that point; if I'd been quicker, I might have given the response I just did. That's more or less the best sort-of-correct explanation that we can give: I don't think we could give any further answers that didn't just repeat the ones we gave (which this already mostly does), so I think the discussion was stopped at about the right point. Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sharp... I am being accused of being too vague here, but look at what you just wrote. Can you not just bite the bullet, like the rest of us have to? Hand wavy? I couldn't get a better answer? Do you want me to embarrass the contributor who did answer the enquiry? I think the quote was something like... "Yes, it's a 2D plane" ... Is that too... vague for you? ... Seriously, I've got to drop the stick around here, or something. ~ R.T.G 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@RTG:: This battle will go away if you walk away from it. I understand that you didn’t start it. You asked a pretty straightforward question that amounted to “what makes the Euclidean plane Euclidean?”. Three hostile responses from @Joel B. Lewis: poisoned the environment and led to the battle. You didn’t get the answers you hoped for (or you got some answers that were over your head and a lot of hassle in addition to the answers you were hoping for), but this isn’t worth fighting to the death over.

It seems to me that it would be best to just let this fizzle out on the RefDesk talk page. Actual resolution may prove elusive, but things may die down after everyone has had their say and gotten a few last words in.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It sure does seem like this is a long term issue with this editor, who's talk page seems to be a long history of edit warring and refusing to back down, as well as a user page full of broken English. Perhaps a language barrier is the problem. 2001:4898:80E8:B:FA4C:76B8:5D80:9C5B (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No it's not, thanks. In the last ten years my talk page shows 2 blocks for "edit wars". They are both about protecting my own talk page posts. I've edit warred on the site. It's not an issue. Anything else? ~ R.T.G 10:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you willing to concede that your edits to the tag teaming page were inappropriate?--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jasper, much to your disappointment, I cannot see the point in discussing anything with you. Here, for instance, you claim there is an inappropriate problem, yet you do not explain what that problem is. ~ R.T.G 12:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

See above, where I and others refer to WP:POINTy changes to Misplaced Pages:Tag-teaming by you, which were the immediate reason for bringing this here (as opposed to just letting the RD talk page discussion go ahead).--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jasper, you've invoked WP:POINT so many times now I've gone along and read it... Among other things it says, "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." Making edits with which they do not agree...? And you believe that I do not agree with my proposed addition to the tag team essay? That in fact, my only experience of the archive template is directly related to you, and that you can gag me because you fear... ~ R.T.G 12:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• I looked at enough of the original RDMA discussion and the timesink on talk and the history of WP:Tag team to see that there was a real problem. @RTG: Please do not encourage people to waste their time. The reference desks are a strange place where people cannot do the obvious, namely stop talking when a discussion is unproductive. That requires some consideration by the instigator who should have understood that volunteers had given a reasonable set of replies and thanked everyone for trying. Spreading muck on the talk page and tag team essay is not helpful. My advice is that this should be closed. Feel free ping me for further thoughts if there is more after the customary 24-hour venting period. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I'd be fine with that if @RTG: makes an explicit commitment to that end, in addition to understanding why WP:POINT applies here and dropping the subject of this particular RDMA thread entirely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • You know that's not going to happen. People are not required to grovel here. What I'm saying is would someone please close this. Then there is a period of 24 hours or so when anything goes. After that, if there is an unprovoked problem, ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Johnuniq: You know that's not going to happen I don't think so, because RTG has a history of this kind of combative behavior (see his block log) and this needs to end; thus I oppose closing the thread until someone more patient than me explains to him why POINT, CIVIL and STICK apply here, and something along the lines of "lack of response will be interpreted as acknowledging and agreeing to what has been said" has been said here. It's not groveling for him to have to understand policies and guidelines that apply to him anyways.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
        • You should have seen this movie before—disruption occurs but not enough for a block to occur; a report is made at ANI; the disruption that led to the report stops. That is a good result as far as the community is concerned. I understand the frustration but the only diffs I noticed above related to the current issue. RTG's block log shows a 24-hour block 9 months ago and a 31-hour block 9 years before that—they are stale and do not warrant a sanction or forced-feeding of policies and guidelines. Perhaps you missed the subtle message in my comments—as an admin, I'm making an offer to investigate and take appropriate action regarding any similar issues in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• That policies and guidelines don't apply to me? A human with a pointy stick is the deadliest beast on this planet. "Lack of response is a..." Jasper... are you pinging me? ~ R.T.G 07:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editor

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

A new editor James The Bond 007 (formerly Gumshoe97) has been persistently creating messes in their very short Wiki career.

• Tagging an FA for A1, A3, A11, G11 - their response as to why was that it was a test and to insult me
• tagging this a1, a11, g11
• tagging this a1, g11
• edit warring here
• move warring during a dispute
• telling editors to "keep their nose out of this dispute"
• reopening an SPI (incorrectly) based on the dispute where they edit warred and were told not to do so.
• a variety of incivility and personal attacks here and on the creators talk
• reverting a uw-paid notice by Yunshui with no explanation and only gave one once they were warned with the reasoning of "accidental"
• following this request up by going around to a bunch of people's talk pages and editing them.
• ridiculous requests for page protection
• hat collecting - (not technically a hat but just to give some more background on the nothere nature of this editor)

I could continue but in the short month that this user has been here they've made several dozen errors and seem to generally lack the competence and maturity to edit. It is a waste of other editors time to clean up after someone who thus far hasn't contributed positively to this project. I don't know if the solution here is an indef or a very lengthy block but I believe one of the two needs to happen. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I should have added "and I'd propose an indef" to the last sentence. Praxidicae (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed this too(thanks Praxidicae for bringing this up), and have been tempted to issue a NOTHERE block. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they are contributing anything useful and are in fact just wasting other editors' time.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a block is appropriate, i just think Praxidicae should leave me alone, i am a new user, and she keeps bugging me, and I told her to stop, and she doesn't listen, all I ask her is to stop, and please don't block me, I beg you, and she threatened to get me blocked, and all my edits are assumed in good faith, so please don't block me. --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And now you've removed not one, but two comments in this thread, in support of a block and disrupted my talk page Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I do not think that James The Bond 007 is the same user that I originally blocked them as a sock of, I nonetheless have started to seriously regret lifting the block I placed on their account. I would support a WP:CIR block in these circumstances. Yunshui _水 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• First off, if they were granted any permissions, such as rollback, then remove them. Otherwise a block is inappropriate (they're not punitive) as they've already had quite a clear message delivered already. However any repeat should be a long block. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

a block is completely appropriate given how many warnings they've had and their repeated "accidents." Please see the lengthy history of this user and feel free to ask an admin about some of their deleted edits. Praxidicae (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't warn-and-block for the same edits. Well, clearly we do, but we shouldn't. Blocks aren't intended as punishment. If they're really so incorrigible, WP:ROPE would have blocked them for their next event. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I decided to block after the disruption pointed out by Praxidicae. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

An edit which you've just tagged as "ec", and where Bond's could equally as well have been an edit conflict. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not just that edit conflict, it's a pattern of incompetent and disruptive editing. Whether it's CIR or NOTHERE, it's a good block.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

They didn't just EC. Look at the actual diff, they literally edited a comment as their own and removed another. That's not an EC. Praxidicae (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a two minute time window. That's certainly possible as an ec. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't even understand what would make someone think that's not an EC. It looks like an obvious EC to me. – Levivich 15:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• It seems they were adopted by DESiegel about a week ago Curdle (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• The editor had some personal information oversighted from their user page, and the oversighter pointed the editor to WP:GFYE. It may be a fundamental WP:CIR issue due to the editor being too young to edit productively at this time, but if so, that should be handled with a bit more gentleness than has been displayed so far. I think the adopter should have been notified and may want to handle this (thanks, DES, for signing up for the role!). – Levivich 15:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I want to state now that I have seen the ping, and intend to review the above comments and diffs more thoroughly, and respond here as soon as possible, surely withing 24 hours.. It seems that I should have been more closely monitoring this user's edits than I was. I was actually planning to deliver a cautionary message today based on a communi=cation that I received earlier in the week. Please do not close this thread just yet. I would like a chance to reveiw and address this. I am not yet sure if i can in good conscience argue for an unblock, but I hope to be able to make that case. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to decline the unblock request, and after seeing this user earlier, I'm not surprised at the block. Blocks are not punitive, and this one isn't. The problem is the ongoing disruption, and I see no hope that the disruption will not resume once they are unblocked. They simply may not be ready to function here at a constructive level. Despite the hype, not everyone is. I eagerly await User:DESiegel's opinion. Perhaps User:Andy Dingley could assist DES in mentoring. -- Deepfriedokra 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Just noting that I did decline the unblock request. I do agree with Levivich that given the apparent age that this suggests a level of care that might not apply in other situations. At some point, even if not now or the next few years, this editor really might be a productive editor and I wouldn't want to close that door definitively. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Having communicated with this user before, I think the only real issue is their age, which leads to incompetence. It might be best if they come back in a couple of years once they have gained a little bit more maturity and then try to edit Misplaced Pages productively. Happy Festivities! // J947 17:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Problematic editor

This user continues to add unsourced info to music related articles despite a multitude of final warnings. Given they like to remove any negative messages from their talk page such as warnings (which they are of course allowed to do) it does make it seem as if it is always a first time offence. As such I added the "old warnings" tag to the top of their talk page so that other editors are aware of the prior warnings but one only needs to hover over the diffs on their talk page history to see the removed warnings for failing to reliably source. I personally warned them here, made another personal plea here but after Magnolia677's message today, their continued unsourced edits and their complete lack of communication with other editors regarding these issues have brought this here. Examples of recent unsourced edits can be found here, here, and here but one only needs to hover over their contribution diffs to get the bigger picture. Please could an admin remind this silent editor about the importance of collaboration and reliably sourcing their edits, thanks. Robvanvee 15:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

On Dec. 20th I asked BetterThanNothing this very detailed question about the source of an edit, but received no reply. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocking now, with any unblock contingent on communicating with others and demonstrating understanding of basic sourcing policy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Blade. Robvanvee 18:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul sachudhanandam - UPE

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

• Paul sachudhanandam (talk · contribs)Report timed out at AIV.Paul has churned out a succession of promotional & copyvio articles about non-notable subjects, SRM transports, Mr. Sridhar Vembu, Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd (AFD), Toplace, a recreation of his 2015 autobiography Paul sachudhanandam , and Draft:Anandmurti Gurumaa (twice, for an article which has been repeatedly deleted, discussed, and then salted).He has been cautioned about his conflict of interest and asked to make proper declarations Special:Diff/915985175, Special:Diff/916139071, Special:Diff/917975863, cautions which he has deleted rather than respond to, Special:Diff/916156302.He has used a sockpuppet, Charlie degreen (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), to remove tags on his behalf. Challenged with an {{uw-agf-sock}}, Charlie disappeared.His recreation of Draft:Anandmurti Gurumaa, previously deleted as Anandmurti Gurumaa as probable UPE, his upload of File:Anandmurti Gurumaa.jpg "Personally sent to me" within 18 hours of the deletion of c:File:Anandmurti-Gurumaa.jpg, his job as an SEO (revealed in his U5 deleted userpage and his LinkedIn page), all make it clear he's indulging in UPE, possibly as a meatpuppet of Seokochin, or more likely given the range of articles he's created, just as the next hired keyboard picked up by Anandmurti Gurumaa to do the job. It's plain ol' UPE, undisclosed paid editor. Cabayi (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

IP talk page abuse

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

207.172.72.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looks like this CheckUser-blocked IP is abusing their talk page access. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Access revoked. Widr (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks

31.205.18.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Unbridled personal attacks by IP on Talk pages and edit summaries even after being told and warned not to continue to do so. Gotitbro (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The user above has wrongly made a claim when he clearly has been indulgding in pov pushing on many articles he has got warnings from several editors who have all complained about his bias he keeps removing sourced information on the article Distillation among others based on spurious accussations of vandalism etc when they are clearly sourced. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Both of y'all are going to have to produce some diffs and make a case explaining the nature of the problem. Idle assertions without evidence are not useful. --Jayron32 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The article you mention is exactly where you made personal attacks (1, 2), elsewhere and your edt history is filled with them; not to mention that you have been hounding me all over the wiki. And then going on to do the same (1,2, 3) on the Talk pages of other users. Gotitbro (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliant Motors

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

Could someone please cast an eye on Reliant Motors? An editor there, Starbug22, has been insistently inserting original research and otherwise unsourced material. I'm probably a bit too involved. --jpgordon 04:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done --TheSandDoctor 04:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Joloimpat / 173.66.144.28

I received a query at

User talk:Guy Macon#Joloimpat

about

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

and

173.66.144.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Previous ANI discussions:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#User:Joloimpat

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#

In the Editor incommunicado (for 7 years) thread it was suggested that an admin email him, an idea that I still think has merit. Elizium23 repeatedly asked "How's that email going?" with no response, and eventually the thread was archived.

Joloimpat does appear to have logged out after an edit to Philippines at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games and then started editing as an IP from then on. All the same issues still apply; no "smoking gun" extremely disruptive / blockable edits, a bunch of edits that really do need to be discussed, zero communication or collaboration for years. I can see how frustrating this must be for Elizium23.

So my question is this:

How's that email going?

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Fairly sure the answer is no where, unless Joloimpat has provided an email address via some other means which seems unlikely since as I understand it, part the problem is they haven't really communicated at all. I'm surprised no one has pointed this out before, unless it's only a recent development.

AFAICT, Joloimpat does not have an email set (or maybe has disabled the ability to send them emails). You can tell this by the absence of an "Email this user" under tools to the left when visiting User:Joloimpat. Or since Special:EmailUser/Joloimpat doesn't work. For further confirmation since for whatever reason that link doesn't work this way, but if you type in Joloimpat username in there, it says "This user has not specified a valid email address." (I'm not sure if this definitely means they didn't set an email or someone who disabled email will show the same.)

Feel free to test Special:EmailUser/Nil Einne or my username Nil Einne or user page just to confirm how things are when you can email a user. (You can even email me if you want, although I'll probably ignore it.)

Note AFAIK there is no real way to only allow admins to email you. So any autoconfirmed editor can test this completely, perhaps unless they happened to the prohibited from email that particular editor. (And I've never interacted with this editor before now AFAIK.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I was sure I saw an "email this user link" back when this first hit ANI. Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Misplaced Pages...

The IP has had two blocks, and neither caused them to break their silence. I don't see anything else that can be done here.

BTW, I also found Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Joloimpat/Archive No idea if the Joloimpat on facebook and twitter is related. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

So I do not know what prompted Joloimpat to log out and re-commence editing via IP on December 11/12, but if the EmailUser capability disappeared at the same time, this is very suspicious. I have satisifed myself to the question of whether he reads English, and I believe he can read/write it just fine. So I do not know why he chooses not to discuss, collaborate, reply, or otherwise communicate, but I am not sure how Misplaced Pages can sustain an editor who absolutely does his own thing without doing any of those. What happens next time I need to discuss one of his edits? Talk pages don't work! Elizium23 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: It's possible you did. I don't think there is any way we can know if there lack of email is a recent development short of someone actually having a saved copy of their user page or having sent an email. However I'd be reluctant to trust anyone's memory of this (even myself) given I think we all agree it's the sort of thing easy to mis-remember. (If there is something very difficult to mis-remember e.g. if someone wrote out an email in the box but then decided not to sent it, I'd trust that.)

@Elizium23: I agree if the email did suddenly disappear it's very suspicious, but in absence of good evidence for this as per my earlier comment, I don't think we can really consider it. As for the IP editing, this is also somewhat suspicious. OTOH, they've been editing with both the IP and account for so long, that in the absence of better evidence (e.g. do they always suddenly start to edit from the IP whenever they are getting a lot of attention) the possibility that they were simply logged out somehow can't IMO be ruled out. And maybe once they are logged out they don't bother to log back in unless they hit a semi-protected page or something.

Personally while not an admin, an editor who does not communicate is what I consider bad behaviour but not blockable behaviour unless there's an actual problem arising from it. If an editor is causing problems, then they should be blocked. E.g. if you ask an editor to stop doing X and there is a justifiable reason for it, and they don't stop, then they should be blocked. If you ask an editor to stop doing X and you have no idea if they are going to stop because they don't say anything, then I'd personally give them some minimal leeway if the behaviour isn't too severe. If they seem to stop, as shown by their edits, then I'd put it down as annoying but accept it.

If they continue with the behaviour, or perhaps if they modify their behaviour but are still causing problems as shown by their later edits probably because they didn't understand what they were being asked to do, then I'd likely support a block. With an ordinary editor, in such cases two way communication should hopefully allow us to change the behaviour but it's very difficult if they're maybe reading, but never responding. (If someone is willing to continue to try and deal with the editor, I'd generally suggest we should let them, simply we shouldn't expect anyone needs to.)

I appreciate it can be frustrating when we have no idea if the editor is going to change. And maybe because the behaviour isn't something which shows up on every edit, it's hard to know if it's continuing for a long while. But to some extent, even if an editor says "yes I will stop" or whatever, they can continue anyway so that always applies.

And I'd say this applies even to more content type issues. If the editor changes something and you don't agree with it, you can revert or change it. If the editor doesn't revert or change it back, then meh whatever. It's frustrating that you can specifically explain to them why their change wasn't an improvement at least with some indication they actually took on board what you told them, but if it doesn't continue, it's probably better to just accept it.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

TVC 15

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

TVC 15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sigh, seems that I am here again with another case This time here Talk:Jihad Watch#Neutral POV Required

So a new editor started a discussion about NPOV saying that we should remove anti-Muslim from the lead. And then the conversation developed and TVC 15 and I joined the discussion and TVC 15 started edit waring removing anti-Muslim content regardless of many editors objecting that. Today, he came again and edit warred, I and other editors reverted him. I disscused this with him in a very civil way. I gave him all the solid reliable sources that support anti-Muslim. Then after TVC 15 had no arguments he started arguing that there is no proof that Jihad Watch is anti-Muslim and cited one of their latest reports saying that Jihad Watch cited its report from the BBC, is the BBC anti-Muslim?. This is the Jihad Watch article and this is the BBC article. I told him yes, the BBC doesnt say anything about them being Muslim while the Jihad Watch puts it in the title as "Muslim gang" with such a horrific title. And I said imagine if newspapers started saying Jewish or Christian next to any crime happens by those allegedly Christians or Jewish.

nearly 100% of the UK "grooming" gang rapists have been Muslim, and some read from the Koran to justify raping infidel girls of any age.

reminds me of when the previous POTUS claimed the Islamic State had nothing to do with Islam, even though its Muslim caliph had a PhD in Islamic studies.

Blocked for 2 weeks. And I think that is rather on the lenient side. El_C 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I dont know if I should say this but don't his comments count as WP:RACISTBELIEFS? And shouldn't racists be indeff blocked per WP:NORACISTS?--SharabSalam (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This user has been here since 2006. They have been blocked once, in 2008, for 3RR. So I wasn't inclined to immediately indef. But if another admin feels that I was, indeed, to lenient, they are welcome to do so (I have no objections).El_C 15:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I have indeffed the user for copying the provocations I removed onto their user talk page. El_C 15:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Arminden and WP:ERA violations

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

I am currently in a content dispute with User:Arminden @Alexander Jannaeus. However, upon investigating this editors contributions, the editor was secretly changing era-styles in articles per WP:ERA. Arminden has been marking these changes as either as a minor edit with not edit summaries, no edit summaries at all, or a false edit summary. Now I know this editor has been warned before, but I don't know where. The editors stealth behavior in the edit summaries show how aware they are about changing era-styles though. And this editor has been registered since 2011/2012 and should know the rules concerning WP:ERA. I don't have a full list since this is a recent discovery for me, but the editor contributes mainly to articles related to Israel, Judaism, and articles relating to the Middle East.

• 07:19, 21 December 2019
• 06:56, 21 December 2019
• 1:57, 20 December 2019
• 11:33, 19 December 2019
• 07:25, 19 December 2019

Now Arminden did correct some era-styles that were wrongly changed to BC/AD. However, I don't think the editor knew what the original era-style was to begin with. Just simply convert BC/AD to BCE/CE. Thoughts on the matter? I personally don't think warnings will do any good, especially when the editor has been on Wiki almost ten years. Jerm (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I restored or tried to anyway but was reverted twice. Arminden left me these edit summaries basically admitting these changes with out the need for consensus here: & . Jerm (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: I appreciate the warning you sent to the editor. I just want to let you know though Arminden made some valid corrections as you stated, the editor is not entirely honest with their edits and edit summaries. Arminden's behavior is also somewhat WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any editor willing to restore/revert Arminden's era-style changes I listed above. I already fixed Battle of Gadara, but I'm tired of reverting this editor. I've been edit warring with Arminden @Alexander Jannaeus for nearly week, and I'm so tired of the reverting. Maybe an adim could do a full protection until Jan. 2 2020. Jerm (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't examined the ERA issue and have no comment on it. I'll just say that Arminden is a tireless producer of content that is almost always of high quality, so to call him/her NOTHERE is simply ridiculous. Zero 23:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you're responding since Arminden was canvassing by pinging you and another editor. And you already commented about the content after you were pinged. Jerm (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The advice I gave to both of you was "Time to stop reverting and start forming a consensus!" and you are not less responsible than Arminden for your failure to follow this advice. Zero 00:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Irresponsible? In my second revert here, I urged the editor to start a discussion under WP:BRD and not the edit summaries. That didn't happen. Instead, I get manually reverted with this lovely edit summary telling me I have an ego issue. I sent my first warning template basically stating to the editor he needs to remain friendly. In this revert, Arminden removed spacing on the section headings which I reverted with my edit summary on the grounds of MOS:HEAD after I started a discussion at the articles talk page. Progress was being made until Arminden no longer responded after my message. Now this is where things get really good. Arminden decided to make this edit. And in this edit, he removed sourced content that I had previously added, decided to manually revert/remove the spacing on the section headings again, and added three tags. All of this in a single edit, and then leaves a bogus edit summary that doesn't specify any of these changes. Kind of like the false edit summaries Arminden is leaving behind while secretly changing era-styles. Then the editor had the audacity to message me on my talk page accusing me of WP:OWN then lie about how that edit was just improving poor grammar.

No @Zero0000:. Your friend is a liar. You can't form consensus with someone who decides to bail out of a conversation, lies in the edit summaries, lies on personal talk pages, and manually reverts so no one would notice. And do you even take the time to verify the massive content Arminden adds, meaning does the content added stay true to the source or sources. And he constantly adds massive content almost everyday. Jerm (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ubcule harassing ThaddeusSholto

Ubcule created Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) with an unnecessarily vague description that would include virtually any combination of Sherlock Holmes, Holmes, Watson, Doctor Watson, and/or Dr Watson. I removed that as it is far too general so he reverted it and started a discussion on my personal talk page instead of the article page. It seemed to me that the logical solution was to create Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) so there would be two. Ubcule didn't like that solution so at that point, Ubcule decided to drag this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) by naming me and asking for others to chime in and when I pointed out that was not the correct venue he claimed he didn't want to discuss it with me even though he named me directly.

Then he cut and paste the contents of my talk page to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) and when I reverted it and asked him to start a new conversation instead of pasting my words to yet another venue, he did it again. I asked him to stop harassing me and he replied that he didn't think it was harassment and then took it to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard seeking others to agree with him. The solution there was to start a new conversation on the article talk page which I did.

So Ubcule once again cut-and-paste the entire conversation from my personal talk page even though I have asked him multiple times to stop doing that. I removed it and cited WP:TALKNO, WP:SHOUT, WP:MULTI and WP:TPYES. So he did it again.

He also posted the same message to numerous people's talk pages asking them to assist him. , , , , and . This is blatant WP:FORUMSHOP and harassment as I have asked him to refrain from posting the exact same conversation in multiple venues and he is doing it immediately afterward. I was interested in discussing his issues with the disambiguation page but I am really failing to see good faith in his actions. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that the comment I posted elsewhere on the Administrator's noticeboard was written before I became aware you'd posted this. (The evidence being it's unlikely that I'd have been able to write all that in around a minute after you posted it).

I had warned you the first time you removed my comments that I would treat any further removal as vandalism, and did so. Ubcule (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: Various points:-

• You accused me of reposting the entire discussion here. I did not. After you'd complained that you didn't like *your* comments being reposted, I reposted my own comments, minus yours . Regardless of whatever rights you have (or think you have) over your talk page, or over your comments, you do not have the right to police where I repost my own comments. This crossed the line into vandalism and was why I reported you.
• What you characterise as "attacks", "harassment" and "insults" are not necessarily so just because you call them that or because you think they are. I have disagreed with you- and there is no need to apologise for that- but legitimate criticism is not an attack, even if you want to take it that way.
• I am not an expert in dispute resolution and finding the appropriate venue is not always straightforward. Particularly when the other person has repeatedly criticised this and shown no interest in being a part of this, but has done nothing themselves to resolve the issues- quite the opposite. You repeatedly cite links to guidelines and policy, but do nothing useful to resolve the issue yourself. I have acknowledged that there may have been better venues, and was happy to hear suggestions from an unbiased observer; you are the other party in an increasingly acrimonious dispute, which is why I'm not paying attention to every guideline-citing shortcut link you spew out.

As Robert McClenon noted when he closed an attempt by myself to resolve the dispute, "This is a difficult case because User:ThaddeusSholto is making it difficult".

Perhaps you skimmed what I'd posted, didn't like that and assumed *I* was insulting you? No. His words, not mine.

Ubcule (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:ThaddeusSholto removing my comments from discussion page

(Note; the following was originally written and submitted before I realised ThaddeusSholto had near-simultaneously posted above (a minute or so prior). I don't have a problem with the discussions being combined (), but I want it to remain clear that this was posted entirely separately as a fulfilment of what I said I'd do here.) Ubcule (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC))

User:ThaddeusSholto's behaviour has crossed the line from (supposedly) policing the rights to their own talk page and where their own comments can be reposted into removing my own comments from a discussion thread at an article talk page and repeating this behaviour even after they were warned that I would consider this vandalism if it happened again.

To cut a long story short, I'm in a dispute with User:ThaddeusSholto that I initially tried to keep civil, but which has become increasingly impossible and crossed into a personal dispute.

See here, here and various other linked pages for the background.

This may not have been the ideal place to post some comments regarding the dispute between ourselves but finding a venue to resolve these issues has become exceptionally difficult because of Thaddeus' own conduct. How do you even begin to conduct a discussion with someone who feels this is acceptable?

They've repeatedly called my attempts to move their comments from their own talk page to the article talk page as "harassment". Regardless of whether or not this is acceptable, it's not harassment. I've asked them to report me if they consider it "harassment", but they haven't done so- they just keep throwing these accusations out there while failing to back them up.

Note that when ThaddeusSholto removed my comments, they characterised them as "insults", after already having accused me of "attacking" and "harassing" them.

As Robert McClenon noted when closing my attempt to resolve the dispute at the dispute discussion noticeboard, "This is a difficult case because User:ThaddeusSholto is making it difficult".

Apologies if this isn't a great summary of the case; the tl;dr issue here is that ThaddeusSholto is deleting my comments.

Ubcule (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

DRN Closer's Comments

I will comment briefly on my close at DRN. As I said, it was my opinion that User:ThaddeusSholto was making it difficult, but was not completely over the line into unacceptable conduct. I disagree with User:ThaddeusSholto's allegation that User:Ubcule was harassing them. Ubcole was attempting to transfer the discussion from a user talk page to an article talk page. At least, it looked to me like an attempt to move the discussion. Thaddeus instead erased the discussion. That might have been just barely within the bounds of talk page guidelines, but it looked to me like it was making it difficult to discuss. In any case, it certainly was not harassment.

If the two editors are willing to begin discussion on an article talk page, then this thread can be closed and they can be allowed to discuss. If they can't agree on where to have this discussion, then a topic-ban or interaction ban may be necessary. I advise them not to make that necessary, because I advise them to resume discussion on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the first I am seeing of Ubcule's comments here as they failed to notify me that they tried to report me here. I did attempt a new conversation per your instructions then Ubcule cut-and-paste a long diatribe filled with bold shouting and attacks about my intentions and editing and having nothing to do with the actual disamiguation page. On that basis I removed the attacks as they weren't germane to the article itself. If Ubcule wants to discuss why one disambiguation page is better than two without needlessly attacking me then that would be fine. It would be nice if the forum shopping would end as well because I have been having this same discussion for days now. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please point out where this edit contained "bold shouting and attacks about intentions and editing", because I can't see that anywhere? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see the bolding or do you disagree that they are aimed at me/my intentions? As am example, right at the top after bolding "we have already had what would otherwise be considered an exhaustive discussion on this topic" he claims he is forced to post all that stuff again "due to your behaviour". That whole first section bolded "Background on discussion and disagreement" is about how Ubcule disagrees that he has been harassing me and why he was justified to engage in the behavior that he engaged in. None of which has anything to do with the content of the article. It is my understanding that article talk pages are for discussion of the content of the article not other editors. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that they were aimed at you personally or your intentions. The bolding was an understandable action to counteract your previous refusal to take any notice of what was being said to you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

To my eyes it literally remarked upon my actions and intentions (e.g. using quotes around "solution" repeatedly denoting that what I offered was ridiculous.) I didn't refuse to take notice of what was being said to me I have had this same conversation for days now. He just wants his way or nothing which is why he keeps forumshopping to get it. I see no logical reason why there shouldn't be two different disambiguation pages for two different titles and Ubcule hasn't offered any reasoning against it other than because it is the way I wanted it. That is literally the extent of his argument "Thaddeus' proposed "solution" of making redirect Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) into a dab page in its own right] appears to be organising things the way you wanted in the first place." Because it was my suggestion it is automatically not valid I guess. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is nothing personal from me - I have no idea who you are - and I can see no reason to suppose that it is anything personal from Ubcule. All I can see is that that editor has explained to you that disambiguation pages exist for the benefit of readers who may not be such diehard fans as to know exactly which version of "Holmes and Watson" or "Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson" or whatever else might be appropriate, so a combined disambiguation page makes perfect sense, but you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge that there might be something in that. Just stop interpreting everything as a personal attack and recognise that other people might have a different, good faith, point of view from yours. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you. His tone and outright accusations of doing things in bad faith illustrate a personal side to his comments to my eyes. It shouldn't be that difficult for him to discuss the content of the disambiguation on the article talk page instead of needing to constantly reiterate what he feels about my edits or intentions. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My replies to various points raised above:

• @Robert McClenon: Thank you for your input here and my apologies if I gave the impression I was dragging you into this or pulling you onto my side. I quoted you because I felt it was useful to have someone from outside observe- without prompting- that ThaddeusSholto's conduct appeared to be making things more difficult despite their assertion that I was the one to blame. (This certainly shouldn't be taken to mean I assumed you agreed with everything I said).
• @Phil Bridger: Thank you for your input too, and yes- that's exactly my reasoning. Disambiguation pages are for people who don't know what they're looking for and should be written from that point of view, not for those who are already experts. As I noted already, our guidelines suggest combining variants of names. Even if ThaddeusSholto disagrees, their assertion that the two are completely different, not "similar"- or however it's expressed- is a matter of opinion and not the cast-iron fact they want to present it as.
• @ThaddeusSholto: The quotes around "solution" were there to indicate it was you- and not myself- that considered it such. I strongly disagreed with your assertion that this was the case, hence the quotes.
  • It should also be noted that this paraphrasing and summarising of your response (where relevant) was only necessary in the first place because- according to you- having your comments reposted elsewhere constitutes "harassment".
    • Again, no sarcasm intended- you are the one who considers that harassment, not myself.
• @ThaddeusSholto: I apologise for forgetting to notify you that you'd been reported here. When I submitted my initial report, I realised that you'd near-simultaneously- one minute prior- posted an entirely separate comment covering your half of the argument. That made it necessary to update mine (and respond to yours) for clarity, and it's clear that I got distracted there. That obviously wasn't your fault, and I accept responsibility for the error. (The two sections were later combined by a third party).
• @ThaddeusSholto: You used this comment to suggest I was violating AGF. I have already requested that you clarify your intent with dragging up those edits- and their relevance to the discussion at hand- if they weren't intended as a personal or ad hominem attack on myself. You still haven't done so.
  • You also attempted to accuse me of "edit warring" in those cases, even though a cursory examination of the situation makes clear the edits in question were a single reversion/re-addition of something that had been removed a while back. This is not Misplaced Pages's definition of an "edit war".
  • I'd like it to be noted that since I first attempted to resolve the matter by posting at the Village Pump (whether or not that was the right way to go about it), I refrained from making any immediate reverts to any of ThaddeusSholto's edits to the disputed article pages themselves- and have still not done so- in favour of waiting for the matter to be resolved. As I previously noted, odd for someone you seem keen to accuse of edit warring... and yet you seem keen to paint me as the one making personal attacks and not AGFing.
• @ThaddeusSholto: @Robert McClenon: The use of bold text(!) is generally to highlight relevant parts as I realise I can be longwinded.
• @ThaddeusSholto: You complained about my posting the "background" context on the article talk page, but the two didn't exist in isolation. Your refusal to allow the original discussion to be moved made it essentially to resolve its problems using the dispute resolution noticeboard without starting a "new" discussion on something we'd already discussed to death. I wasn't about to spend ages rewriting every single thing I'd said, nor maintain a false pretence that the discussion had arisen from nowhere.
  • Yes, some of the more interpersonal issues raised might have been better resolved elsewhere, but knowing where and how to separate them out isn't the easiest thing. (As it turns out, we're discussing them here anyway).
• @Robert McClenon:; You suggest that we might be "willing to begin discussion on an article talk page". We have already done so. Unfortunately I'm in the position where ThaddeusSholto seems to consider it acceptable to remove my comments from the discussion (which is why I first posted here). Unless I'm willing to get into a revert war- something I've intentionally refrained from- it's not obvious what I can do about that. What is your suggestion? I'm not willing to have my comments held ransom to what ThaddeusSholto considers acceptable, particularly as they consider what I'd consider innocuous behaviour as an "attack", "insult" or "harassment".
  • The reason I attempted to get third party input was because I felt it would be useful to have the (neutral) input of those not personally involved to give their unbiased opinion and help resolve the matter. Whether or not I went about this the right way, ThaddeusSholto's accusations of "forum shopping" belie the fact that I made far more effort than they ever did to resolve the dispute in good faith than they did. Repeated criticism of having posted in the wrong place, but no constructive suggestions or attempts to do so themselves. Ubcule (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ubcule (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You didn't request that I clarify my intent with "dragging up those edits". You literally said you wouldn't explain it because you felt I brought them up in bad faith. Even in this long diatribe you try to pretend that you have only tried to get other opinions when the fact is I told you that WP:3O or even WP:RFD were the proper venues you said you didn't want a third opinion. I repeat you said you didn't want a third opinion and now you are claiming that is what you wanted all along. You also pretend that you never made accusations about me acting in bad faith and right there above you said "I made far more effort than they ever did to resolve the dispute in good faith than they did." You have harassed me with accusations and avoided actually attempting to use proper channels the whole time. As we speak I started a discussion on Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) over seven hours ago and you aren't participating in it at all even though someone else has joined in. It is difficult for me to believe that you actually desire to find a resolution that doesn't boil down to you being right and me being wrong. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: I beg your pardon?

Let's get this straight. You were the one that had been removing my comments from that discussion- the very reason I reported you here.

Yet now you're trying to present yourself as the one taking the high road, attacking me for not participating in a discussion where you'd been actively deleting my comments and- by implication- only permitting discussion on terms that suited you?

Not only that, but you're happy to talk with one of the people you attacked me for inviting in the first place with your repeated protestations of "forum shopping"?

I'm not sure I can give any of that the response it deserves while remaining civil. Ubcule (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ubcule, User:ThaddeusSholto - Either agree here to discuss on a talk page without preconditions and without arguing about past wrongs, or the community will decide what sanctions to impose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Ironically, I saw this after I'd posted to the article talk page where I (hopefully) sideskipped all this drama in favour of resolving the issue.

The one thing that bugs me is that this will come across as a response to your threat, rather than the fact that I appreciated Certes' constructive input- which is exactly what I'd been after in the first place- and that since I was the person who invited them in the first place it would have been entirely unfair (and pointless) to involve them in this mess.

Anyway, whatever. Ubcule (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

How to Start Dialog, maybe

I said that the principals, User:Ubcule and User:ThaddeusSholto, could begin discussion on an article talk page, or it might be necessary to have sanctions instead. Ubcule wants to know how discussion is possible when Thaddeus erases attempts at discussion. That is a good question, and it is only possible if they both, starting with Thaddeus, state their desire to have reasoned discussions on an article talk page. A good place to make that statement would be here in response to this post (since we know that the deletion of material from WP:ANI is disruptive). If the parties want to discuss, they can agree here to start discussion at an article talk page (or at a user talk page). If they don't agree, and continue with the arguments as to who started it, then the community can decide who started it and how to stop it from getting worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

See above. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I did exactly what you asked in the closing of the WP:DNR report, I started a new conversation over seven hours ago at Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) and have participated throughout the day there while editing other articles. I desire, and have the entire time and I feel that I have made it clear, to discuss the content of the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Situation under control?

Although the past couple of days' bickering over this relatively minor dispute were unfortunate, it appears the issue is now being reasonably discussed at Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). Given his overall record of Sherlockian contributions to the wiki≥ I know that ThaddeusShalto has acted in good faith throughout, and although I have not encountered Ubcule before I am prepared to assume the same of him. Unless the talkpage discussion goes badly awry, which I hope it will not, I am thinking that we might consider this thread resolved? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Email address visible

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

On Special:Diff/749298870 and Special:Diff/931857879 at the end of the series of capital letters, a valid email address domain is visible. Is it the right way to revdel these as if it is real, some stranger could email the visible address which came from User talk:106.51.234.119. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm Did you miss the large red banner when posting this? In any case, I'd guess it's just someone without much privacy knowledge posting their own email address in the public. – Frood (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisions deleted. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did, I missed that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Oversighted. --TheSandDoctor 01:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent block of User:James The Bond 007

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

Please see the section #WP:NOTHERE editor above, which I wish had been left open for this comment and possible responses. I apologize to the community for not having responded as soon as I had planned to. I was actually engaged in writing a long message to that user when the aboce thread was closed.

I have now posted at User talk:James The Bond 007#Your actions, a possible unblock, and procedures going forward. In this long post I identify a significant number of edits that were unacceptable or un wise; I outline what this user (JB) will need to do to formulate a plausible unblock request, and I propose a set of restrictions that this user would agree to in the event of an unblock. I just posted this minutes ago, and there has not yet bveen any resposne. I did notify the user by email.

I belive that JB (as I will call this user for brevity) is an enthusiastic, inexperienced, but well-intentioned user. Note that I hgave had zero off-wiki communiction with JB, and I have no evidence not available to any Misplaced Pages editor (except that I did see some content now protected by oversight.) But i do sugest that we AGF here.

I think that JB wants approval from other editors. I think that JB is overly prone to lash out in anger when critizized. I think that JB has been bitten a bit, particuarlly in this edit this edit. Note that the "vandalism" complained of here was leaving a religious Christmas message/card on another user's talk page, apprently in an effort to reach out positivly. JB did not react to this well, but then many would not. JB did eventually apologize in this edit

In general when JB truly understands that an action is not acceptable, JB apologizes and does not repeat the misbehavior, but JB has not always grasped problems as soon as should be the case.

I belive that JB has the potential to become a positive contributor here. There is a problem with maturity, but I think with careful instructiuon that can be overcome, if JB remains willing as has been the case. I call to the community's attention this edit.

I undertake to provide such careful instruction if JB is willing to accept it.

I ask the community to consider that an unblock may be appropraite if JB makes a proper unblock request (which has not yet happeend, but I think may); that it might be appropraite to unblock JB without a lapse of years. I ask not for an unblock decision in this thread, but for an explicit authorization for a reviewing administrator to consider an unblock without being bound by a decision to block in the previous thread. In short I ask that the status be considered "blocked by one admin", not "blocked by community decision at ANI".

Finally, I am pinging those involved in the previous thread here, or possibly otherwise involved with JB.

@Praxidicae, Pawnkingthree, Yunshui, Andy Dingley, 331dot, Levivich, Deepfriedokra, and Barkeep49: @J947, Tinjaw, David notMD, Mike Rosoft, Blacephalon, Primefac, AlanM1, Bradv, and AddWittyNameHere:

I ask all to consider their actions carefully, and to please read my post on JB's talk page, linked at the start of tjhis post. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is great, thank you - I've been peripherally aware of this user, they've appeared on my watchlist quite a lot. We really need a better process for taking enthusiastic but ultimately incompetent young editors and turn them into decent contributors. -- a 20:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I do believe that in addition to (or perhaps caused by) immaturity problems, there is also an impatience problem that needs to be overcome for JB to be able to productively edit Misplaced Pages. That said, I do wholly believe he wants to be a productive editor, and while he has certainly been disruptive all the same, I'd absolutely be fine with this being considered a "normal block" rather than "community block" where unblock procedure is concerned. (That said, I was not involved in the actual ANI discussion, so my opinion should probably be given reduced weight here) AddWittyNameHere 20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've CheckUser blocked after running a check based on concerns brought to me by another CheckUser. There is too much going on in the IP data here for all of it to be just a conincidence. The best avenue of appeal at this point in time is the Arbitration Committee, and yes, I'm sorry that this happened after DES put time and effort into this, but there is a lot of stuff going on here, some logged out and some involving other accounts that means that it does need the review of people who can see the full picture. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni I find that hard to accept, but I knmow that there are log entries that I cannot see. I do want to remind all that editing logged out is not the same as editing using another account, unless the clear and obvious intent is to avoid scrutiny, and that not all use of multiple accounts is abusive and thus block-worthy. But not knowing just what edits (if any) were made on other accoutns or logged out, I cannot evaluate them. Tony you suggest an appeal direct to the ArbCom. Hypothetically, if a user abusing multiple accounts openly admits this, shows underestanding of it as a violation, and promises not to sock again, can not any checkuser pass mon an unblock request, or must things still be done via AbCom? DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 01:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel it wasn’t just edits or accounts, and some of those actions are what concern me here. I went ahead and forwarded the data to ArbCom after reblocking because I knew you had put a lot of work into this, so they can review my conclusion without the need for JB even to appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for trying DES. Misplaced Pages is hopeless. – Levivich 20:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As far as process: I understand the immediacy of the block in this case – the user was clearly on a tear and needed to be prevented from doing further damage. However, I believe such a block should be temporary (other long-term contributors have occsionally gone off the deep-end and been given a time-out) when the user has been "officially" adopted by another user in good standing (especially an admin), as in this case, until that adopter has had a chance to weigh in on his charge. That seems to be within the spirit of "adoption", and would have been a good idea in this case. Since David is willing to put the (literally) hours in on this, I think it's the right thing to do for all concerned to allow it. The adoptee may very well be unable to be coached, but in this case at least, I'm not yet convinced. As long as the adoptee is willing to follow direction and be monitored, I say both adopter and adoptee should be given the opportunity, in keeping with the best principles and optimistic nature of the project. —— 01:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Puffery of the career of Eddie Rubin, drummer

One person has been edit warring to promote and puff up the reputation of deceased jazz drummer Eddie Rubin. The biography of Rubin was created by ExtraMoldyCheese, 23.241.123.228 and 204.140.185.228, representing one person. This person has repeatedly pushed up Rubin's involvement with Johnny Rivers, for instance changing the headliner name of Johnny Rivers to "Eddie Rubin & Johnny Rivers Duo" which is ridiculous. After suffering through four months of this, Ghmyrtle and an alert IP editor at Special:Contributions/2601:983:827F:3080:0:0:0:0/64 have grown weary of the antics. Is it time to block the Rubin promoter? Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

.... and not forgetting this unsourced claim.  ??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was pure nonsense.

Looks like Bbb23 blocked one IP and the registered account for violating WP:MULTIPLE. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/128.97.164.144 for precisely the same behavior. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that new user Burnukk has started editing the article now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably related to ExtraMoldyCheese, but it's difficult to say for sure. There's a sock farm built around that account, too, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sthatdc

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

Sthatdc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is claiming that text in Chronic Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a copyright violation. To date he has failed to convince anyone of this, or even articulate it credibly.

He has 153 edits at last check and is recently returned from a 24h block for edit warring. Today's edit is, unsurprisingly, exactly the same as the one that led to the block. Apparently, we are all either illiterate or trolling.

I think a WP:TBAN is in order until he has learned how Misplaced Pages works. Guy (help!) 01:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I second that emotion, but a longer block first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or one more block followed by a topic ban On the outside possibility that Sthatdc really did find a copy/paste copyright violation and is for some reason unwilling or unable to say where he found it, I did a thorough search on half a dozen phrases that he deleted. The only copies I found were the usual mirrors of Misplaced Pages. I believe that the copyvio claims are a stalking horse for an attempt to push a fringe POV. (Stalking horse: A thing that is used to conceal someone's real intentions. Originally referred to a screen made in the shape of a horse behind which a hunter stays concealed when stalking prey.) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Modified 02:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This user accused me of pushing a fringe POV, when all I did was copyedit an article to improve it. Included in that was rewriting the opening sentence so that instead of presenting non-free text copied and pasted from a source, it consisted of text written by me and freely licensed. That is after all the core aim of the encyclopaedia. Now you have the weird spectacle of people denying that there is copied and pasted text. The non-free text has been repeatedly restored, and is currently in the first sentence of the article once again. The user pretends not to be able to see it, and has also refused to explain what "fringe POV" they believe I am pushing. I suspect that they simply feel a strong sense of ownership over the article. Sthatdc (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody "pretends not to be able to see it". We simply can't see it unless you say which text is non-free and where it is copied from. Why are you so reluctant to do that? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Read the first sentence. You see the bit that is screamingly obviously copied and pasted from a source? If not, you are illiterate. This is as if you were asking me to point out where the Sun is in the sky, claiming that you could not tell where it was. I am reluctant to play along with your trolling, indeed. Sthatdc (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean the attributed quotation of a part of one sentence? --JBL (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

If it were an attributed quotation, then it would say "according to person X" or something like that. But at least you are able to see the non-free text used in violation of the free text policy that I am referring to. Sthatdc (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

So that's a "yes", you mean the fact that the sentence has a quotation in it, together with the source from which that quotation came. No wonder you're on your way to being blocked. --JBL (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block In the light of the above comments I would support an indef block rather than just a TBAN. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow! That's what you think copyediting an article, and understanding that non-free text cannot be used at will in a free encyclopaedia, should be rewarded with? Amazing. Sthatdc (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No, but it is what repeatedly calling people illiterate trolls should be rewarded with. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Several people have called me that, as well as absurdly accusing me of "pushing a fringe POV". I assume you want them indefinitely blocked as well. Sthatdc (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Leaning indef - Given the last (2) line(s) I'm now inclined to feel we're being trolled, unless either Sthatdc or another editor can indicate why that isn't the case (go ahead and humour us by telling us anyway, even if you think it obvious), in which I'll reconsider the original proposed sanction Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Which two lines? Your assumption of bad faith is remarkable. If you think I have tried to make the encyclopaedia worse, do indicate how. Sthatdc (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• ’’’indef’’’ Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Well that was well argued. Sthatdc (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I know. Thankfully you are doing all the hard work for me. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• CU-blocked. Bbb23 has CU-blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC).

Joseph Rowe

A month after his block, Joseph Rowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still tweaking and refining his insults, adding things like "an administrator who shows more objectivity than either or ", "a fallacious and seemingly willful misunderstanding", and "long and pointless screed"

Might I suggest revoking talk page access? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere between 50% and 90% of all problems encountered with blocked editors can be solved by taking their talk page off your watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean "exactly 100%". If a blocked user bitches in a forest, and no one is watching their talk page, does it lead to an ANI thread?--Jayron32 03:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I somehow missed that part of Misplaced Pages's policies where it says that personal attacks and incivility are allowed if the victim is able to unwatch the page where they occur. Could you point me to the policy or guideline saying that? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Revoking talk page access takes less than a minute. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat by Here come the Suns

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

Here come the Suns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

involved editors Huldra, Zero0000

After I reverted an editor who removed a lot of context in the Khalida Jarrar and threatened to edit war the next day, (it wasn't a mistake that he broke the 1rr) he immediately went and reverted my edits in Battle of Al Hudaydah indiscriminately.

This editor has a history using the editwaring in a gaming way. For example i removed content that I saw was poorly written and he reverted me and then I reverted (I made one revert) he went and filled a report against me saying that I broke the 1RR and I didnt then he said I reverted a 2 years old edit () so I laughed and self-reverted user:Bbb23, said something like, I shouldnt have self-reverted because I wouldnt have been blocked. And today this editor waits until the next day so that he reverts although he had no established consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to admit to following me around to an article you have never edited before, revert me under false pretense (I did not remove any content, I just moved it from the lead to an appropriate section), and then come here to complain about tit-for-tat. It is also amusing for someone with a block log full of blocks for edit warring to come here and complain of edit warring. Perhaps WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

And I'll also not the dishonesty in claiming Bbb23 said wouldn't have been blocked for that edit warring report, when in fact he simply marked the report as 'no action' because you self reverted - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Here come the Suns (talk • contribs)

Here come the Suns, he said I'm not sure they needed to do that for a revert of something that was added two years ago . And now you are trying to do the same game after you sent a warning template in my talk page. And threatening to revert the next day. You dont seem to have interest in collaborating with other editors. You just want to win an edit war. --SharabSalam (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That's quite interesting, because when I first stated editing , some 5 years ago, I was blocked by Bbb23 for doing exactly that - reverting something that had been in the article for years - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Here_come_the_Suns&oldid=611603821#June_2014_2 . I even used the exact words he used when he blocked me, when I explained this to you : "How do you think that content got there, if it wasn't added by an editor?" Here come the Suns (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Here come the Suns, nope, I had almost all Palestinian related articles in my watchlist though I don't edit there because it is a dangerous place to have disputes in. Yesterday, I saw your comment in the edit summary when you threatened that you would revert the next day and I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me. So I waited until your revert.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not threaten anything, certainly not to edit war. Since that page has a 1RR limitation, I said I would abide by that restriction and make any further edits after 24h had passed. And had you bothered to look at my edit, rather than blindly reverting it, you'd have seen see it was different from that edit that Zero and Huldra had objected to, and simply made the article conform with WP:LEAD - leads need to summarize article content, not replicate it, and not introduce material which is not in the article body. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

But I do appreciate the honesty - "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me. So I waited until your revert" - in other words, you were playing tit-for-tat, and admit it openly, yet come here to complain. WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?Here come the Suns (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, nope. As I said I saw your edit summary and I remembered for the time you gamed the editwar with me. I most certainly didn't agree with your whitewashing removal of content. And then you went and edit warred in the Battle of Al Hudaydah.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove any content, which you would have known had you actually looked at the edit, instead of blindly reverting it. You words are the up there for all to see : "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me. So I waited until your revert" . Here come the Suns (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You removed the part where it says that she was released from Israeli detention, after an international campaign on her behalf and the amount of time she was imprisoned and how much she paid etc. I waited for your revert because there was no consensus and you added a provocative comment in the edit summary and you also had a history of playing games with editwaring . You still wanted to continue to edit waring. After my revert you immediately went to the Battle of Al Hudydidah as a part of tit-for-tat and reverted my edits and edit warred.-SharabSalam (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't. All those details, and more, appear in the section titled "Administrative detention and trial", which you would have known, had you actually looked at my edit rather than blindly reverting it. Your words speak for themselves: "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me. So I waited until your revert". You had never edited that article, you did not participate in the discussion between me and other editors, you were lying in wait, to avenge the fact that you had to self-revert your previous edit war. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, You removed a notable event from the lead section without establishing a consensus. I revert you and then immediately you went to the Battle of Al Hudaydah article and edit warred. I waited for your revert because of your edit summary and because I know you that you only want to win an edit war not to win consensus. The edits you made the next day were totally unacceptable whitewashing and removals from the lead paragraphs.

After I made the reverts you immediately went to the Battle of Al Hudaydah article and edit warred there.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove anything, all the details are in the article. I made the lead conform with WP:LEAD - provide a summary of the events. You blindly reverted that, and explained you motivations thusly: "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me. So I waited until your revert". And just so that we're clear, when you say "I gammed(sic) that edit war" - what you mean is I reported your edit warring. That's not "gamming(sic)" - that's seeing to it that you edit as required by wikipedia. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, the motivation was that you have removed a context that is needed and the lead should cover notable events like that she was released after an international campaign on her behalf as per the summary that I gave. It is not wrong to be aware of your disruptive past of gaming the policy. Also, you haven't answered my question, why you went to the Battle of Al Hudaydah article and edit warred? saying that I didn't participate while I did and you didn't. Also, stop misquoting me. I waited because of your edit summary and your past with articles in that 1rr area.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that after I reverted your disruptive edit that removed notable events from the lead you went to an article that I edited in and started editwaring in it. Being aware of your disruptive edit wars and your provocative edit summary is not wrong, it wasnt the reason that I reverted you. Also, I didnt edit war in that article. You made a report accusing me of breaking the 1rr although I didnt and then after a while you said I reverted a 2 years old edit and that this count as revert.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Listen you two, we don't really want ARBPIA to spillover at ANI (and I would ban it from AN3, too, if I could) — take it to AE, if you must. El_C 05:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

El C, could you please see what happened exactly? I reverted this editor because he removed a content that was notable and should be included in the lead I was aware of his disruptive gaming of the policy, his provocative edit summary and of the discussion that was taking place in his talk page. He after that he went to the article of Battle of Al Hudaydah which I recently editted and reverted my edits and edit warred.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sukhpreetkaurmylove and Flykites

• Sukhpreetkaurmylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Flykites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

These two seem related, both making tons of rapid-fire nonsense edits to their user pages and bad edits to articles on India topics. Sukhpreetkaurmylove's first non-userspace contrib was to the Teahouse, asking "How i can become administrator on Misplaced Pages". Three days ago, Flykites created User:Jaswindermehra13 (the user page of a seemingly abandoned account with two castecruft edits 21+ months ago), containing profane Indic script, which had to be revdel'd. Whatever all this is, it's WP:NOTHERE. —— 08:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

They might be related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Punjabier. I think they're gaming extended confirmed. I'm still sorting through the data, but I'll update the SPI case with my results. (In the mean time, feel free to revdel/delete whatever is needed...) ST47 (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's Christmas (Planetshakers album)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/It%27s_Christmas_(Planetshakers_album) This article without relevance meets the criteria for quick deletion. Thank you very much. Jeanfrank25 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Block for 46.120.198.142 please

A garden variety SPA IP with "I wish Palestine didn't exist" syndrome (or Palestine (region), for that matter - they aren't picky.) Currently wading through natural history but also handy with section blanking and plain wish fullfillment . Variously warned, didn't stick; no interest in anything else. I don't think there's much to salvage here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. I didn't even bother invoking ARBPIA4's expanded scope, and just blocked for disruptive editing. El_C 17:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards