Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 30 October 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Benjaminkirsc reverting my edits to My Sims Agents, adding a copyvio back to the page in the process

Hello! This happened last month but I only noticed this now. Benjaminkirsc undid my complete rewrite of My Sims Agents, citing that the information I added was "unnecessary" and had "possible incorrect grammar". However, when they did this they failed to realize that the whole reason that I rewrote the page is because the version they reverted the page to is a fairly obvious copyvio, which was mostly unsourced, and was literally written like a sales pitch, because it was one. Normally, this would just be something that I would warn a user about, but I realized that they had been reported to ANI once before. I'm honestly not sure how they could miss that they were reverting the page to a version that was literally an advertisement. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Benjaminkirsc's edit since the last AN/I visit (I was hoping to see improvement), and while they've managed to stop swearing so much in edit summaries, they're still having issues with edit warring and civilly disagreeing with other editors (including a handful of undos with the edit summary "wrong," like Special:Diff/920805947 and Special:Diff/920805947. Their reactions to others on their talk page have some communications issues as well, with very brusque replies and no further engagement. creffett (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​FYI: the first dif you posted is of an edit by Zacharyalejandro, not Benjaminkirsc. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, oops, I always have trouble getting the right diff ID, it's probably the next diff. Thanks for pointing it out, fixed. creffett (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the copyvio is wrong Benjaminkirsc (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​So... then why did you revert back to it? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it was a problem Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​??? What? You reverted to a copyvio... because the copyvio was a problem? TheAwesomeHwyh 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposing indef block: I just took a quick look into their edit history and found these summaries showing some serious WP:CIVILITY issues. An where an IP user literally only added the number "90" to the article, which could've easily been a mistake, was reverted with the summary "WHAT WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Another, where another IP user added the wrong release date, was reverted with the summary of "YOU ARE WRONG!" Both of those edits were done after this AN/I report was filed yesterday / earlier today (depending on timezone). TheAwesomeHwyh 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not related thouogh. Do that somewhere else. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​I don't think you understand. This page is for all of your behaviors, not just the one mentioned in the section title. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can undertand what your saying but, this is talking about My Sims Agents. If you want talk about that, please let me know in my talk page. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​No, as I've already said this page is for everything related to your edits. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, you're missing the point. Having your attitude and competence repeatedly discussed on the noticeboards is NOT normal. How many editors are following your edits to make sure you're not going off the rails yet again? If you continue as you are, then sooner or later the community will decide that the value of your contributions is not worth the cost of watching out for, and correcting, your mishaps. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cabayi et al. Benjaminkirsc, you were warned about your behaviour especially the way you were dealing with vandals and others in edit summaries. You seem to have cut out on your "fuck" and stuff but some of your edit summaries still leave a lot to be desired. The fact that some of the examples highlighted don't seem to be clear cut vandalism is even more reason to be concerned. In this case , your edit summary was okay. However as I pointed out your edit seems to be wrong. Two of the most recent sources support Imagine Publishing as the publisher, so does the image of the cover in the article. If you are going around yelling at people for being wrong, there's a good chance you are eventually, if you haven't already, going to yell at someone when you were the one who is wrong. Think about that for a minute. Note when I reverted you, I did not see the need to say "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, THE 2014 SOURCE CLEARLY SAYS IMAGINE PUBLISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". It does not help you or anyone else. Not really the place for this but since I brought it up here, it seems Future plc acquired Imagine in October 2016. So the current digital only edition is I assume published by Future plc although it may also be published by Imagine depending on whether they maintained that as a subbrand which I don't know. This was after the print edition ended in April 2016, which suggests the print one was published by Imagine to the end, which is supported by the source suggesting to buy it from the Imagine store. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Good thing I didn't yell or curse there. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well you're still missing the point. You also still haven't explained why you reverted to a copyvio, so.... Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, your report begs the question, why didn't you tag the copyvio with {{copyvio-revdel}} to clear it out of the article's history? Why haven't you still? Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi I don't know, actually, sorry. I've done it now. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TheAwesomeHwyh. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block or community ban. The editor does not appear to understand they should not revert to copyvios and has shown little ability to understand the feedback they've been offered. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Very weak support for CIR block - it's pretty clear that this editor just isn't getting it, if you look at their talk page, responses here, and responses in the previous ANI thread. I'm reluctant to block here, but I'm not sure what other options are on the table when they just don't seem to understand why their actions are inappropriate, and I suspect that if nothing is done we'll be back here in another month or two. I'm kind of perplexed by this editor's actions, to be honest - usually in these kinds of cases it's not listening, but my read here is more "not understanding" than "deliberately ignoring." creffett (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a block of a few months to give the editor some time to mature? WMSR (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indef block. It seems like his MO is to do something bad and then refuse to understand the negative feedback. If you look at his talk page it is filled with final warnings for the same conduct going back several months, and his responses have been mostly glib one word answers or one-liners. There's no sign that he is really getting better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. I've sorta been keeping an eye on him for a while and have greatly noticed his refusal to work with others and deciding to ignore site policy. Him yelling at other users through edit summaries (and the occasional cussing) don't help his case either. Namcokid47 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support a REASONABLE-length block Near as I can tell, he's never been blocked before An indef block is a significant first block that isn't generally supported by precedent. Anything from up to a week is fine by me; otherwise, oppose. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't realize that he hasn't been blocked before. I can see your point about him not getting a block before, and frankly I'm surprised since I've seen people get in trouble for less severe misconduct and IDHT issues in the past. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I suspect we're dealing with a lack of competence due to youth. A block for a couple years wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing. WP has plenty of editors who were a pain in the ass but after maturing for a few years they became very productive editors. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Support reasonable block. I agree with Buffs, a permanent ban is a bit over the top. I've had limited dealings with Benjaminkirsc, so take my opinion for what it's worth. When he removed some info about a mobile port from a video game article (Special:Diff/918276204), I reverted and said he needed to use the talk page to explain his deletion (Special:Diff/918278677). Which he did. I explained his reasoning from flawed, and that was pretty much the end of it. So he is certainly capable of listening to others and taking advice. And I have no reason to believe he's malicious in any way. However, I'm inclined to agree with Blackmane, I do get the impression that he's very young, so a block of a few months/years might not be a bad idea. Bertaut (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: this is the talk page discussion Bertaut is talking about. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't see how a block of a few years (!) is that much kinder or gentler than a 'nuclear' indef block. If anything, it might be better to offer the guy mentorship or something instead of a block. If he's really just immature but could be contrusctive and in good faith this might be a better option. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, we did offer mentorship (and a run through the CVU course) during the last AN/I discussion, Benjaminkirsc didn't engage with the offer (as you can see from the above discussions, part of the problem is that they basically don't engage in discussions at all). creffett (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fair. The distinction between an indefinite block and a block for several years does sort of escape me though, but I'll defer to your judgment on that of course. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A block for several years expires automatically when the several years is up. An indefinite block doesn't expire ever, but must be removed based on some other condition (discussion with the blocking admin or a successful community appeal, usually), which can be a time of a few minutes or many years depending on the circumstances. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I would add that while time limited blocks automatically expire so may seem to be a lesser block and generally speaking, any block can be appealed; with a time limited block it isn't that uncommon especially with a long block like a month or more, that the is the block is expected to last the length of the block unless a mistake was made. (Sometimes, especially with edit warring and stuff, it's expected that the time limited block will be successfully appealed if sufficient reassurance of not repeating the behaviour.) When I supported a indef block, I explicitly intended this as a "indefinite" block and not a permanent one. I also didn't want a WP:cban, but a normal indefinite block which can be appealed to any admin. I was hoping some admin would share my views and impose one without much more discussion. (Technically, this discussion could be taken as "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community".) Although I do have concerns over their edit summaries, my main concern is they really have given no indication they understand or care about copyvios. If they give sufficient reassurances their block could last minutes. I mean it doesn't even have to be a block if they would properly engage with the discussion. What they've said so far doesn't reassure me they are capable of this at the time whether due to WP:competence issues or something else, but it could also be they're just ignoring the concerns since they feel they can. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block No reason to believe a short block would resolve the issues. Disruptive editors with clean block logs get indeffed all the time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support at least some form of action. I feel like an indef might be a bit too harsh for a first block, but none of my interactions with Benjaminkirsc have been particularly great (this was my first one, BTW). JOEBRO64 13:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support some form of action, as Joe says above. Here's another example of, at best, a miswritten edit note. To revert a months old redirect as "not notable" is difficult to follow. Been dealing with similar issues for months now, or repeated changes to infoboxes despite being informed of documentation and MOS, etc. Another example that I just found while reviewing is this claim that information is false while simultaneously removing the sources that show it's not. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Separate of this, I've just reverted yet another edit where he removed information as "false information" or similar such phrases that was either reliably source, or for which I could easily find sources for, and I've independently given him a final warning. If this thread doesn't block him, I probably soon will. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support block. I'm not sure how long for though - I'm reluctant to say indef for a first offence, but the entire impression I'm getting is that they'll just shrug off a shorter one and then carry on as they were - I'm seeing absolutely no indication that understand why others have a problem with their edits. A short block after this long at ANI also somehow feels punitive. So maybe an indefinite but explicitly not infinite block, allowing for unblock when they demonstrate an understanding of the issues. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

An unresponsive user?

Rahmadiabsyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An ip had tried to reach out to this user about adding some tv show's episode listing, on Black Clover (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). And I gave advice to say WP:CRYSTALBALL. But the ip went to talk to me about this user. That their mainly unresponsive on their talk page. On a concern that if adding a tv show's episode too early, it doesn't match the refs/ or sources it presents. Per WP:VERIFY. (Example; from last week, here and the ip's response and from today, this and the ip's second response.)

Before, I had a concern about this user because of WP:SPLIT concerns and that the user may have been reading from wikia/ fandom without adding sources about a new tv season. Or that wikia/ fandom falls under the rule/ guideline WP:USERG. Then starting from here (note; In the edit summary I might have been irritated. Because leading up to the split, I kept having page notices from this user.) In which I supplied the WP:SPLIT or WP:COPYWITHIN. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Another issue that the ip had a concern of, on my talk page: Is that, is there a language barrier for Rahmadiabsyah for not replying. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a comment, when I started the concern a week ago. Detailing that, what if you add something too soon. But no one knows if the content is verifiable until the show has aired. Then until it does, I am thinking that Rahmadiabsyah to stop adding it. But since then there has been no answer from the user. Until today. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tainted-wingsz - Does the response from Rahmadiabsyah here resolve your problem? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't really ask a user to stop. But they're sort of still unresponsive. And maybe answering vague messages, then who knows. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To 38.142.216.106, it felt like a weak response. I was thinking that the ip 99.203.50.212 earlier wanted to know where can the episode's be found at. Other than here; But in the last two weeks Rahmadiabsyah was silent on replying to the ip. Because every Monday the ref or the tv's schedule updates and it sometimes may tell the episode's name in advance. But in the past it only shows what date is it airing at. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

For the message, I still kept looking. If you go to here; and press the; ブラッククローバー it will show you the episode listing and on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or a little later. That's when the tv schedule has been updated. (That would show the new episode's name in an one week advance. And the episode that's airing later at night.) Then a few hours before it gets updated, Rahmadiabsyah was adding the name to the episode in. So right after I removed it. From that until the tv schedule was updated, is this WP:OR? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a little hard to prove. If it's not Monday anymore? The main point is. What if your adding something and it could wrong. As some tv show didn't go in chronological order. That's one reason to wait. Which I think you wish for Rahmadiabsyah to follow. But, if there not very responsive and doesn't edit much. So since there's no action taken for the moment. Then let this be. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Short opinion

Question, I have a lingering thought. Since Rahmadiabsyah does edit and adds the next episode title. Then the IP may repeat this, removes it, and tries to ask Rahmadiabsyah again. And they don't reply swiftly. So what do we do with the user then? Unblue box (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If I wasn't clearer earlier ago, I was digging more into this. If it's around Monday at 15:00 (UTC) and until the show; Black Clover has finished airing on Tuesday at 9:55 (UTC). There is a short timeline where you can find the next episode's name. But during that time what happens if it doesn't say anything about it. Then in the last two weeks the IP removed Rahmadiabsyah's edits because the ref, doesn't tell what is the next episode's name and the IP remove it. Then asked Rahmadiabsyah, about this inquiry. Before the show's tv schedule has been updated on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or later on. Then it raises a question of mine, if Rahmadiabsyah doesn't edit often and doesn't reply to messages when the IP had a concern about this two weeks ago. Is the user being unresponsive and what do you do with that? Nor if this editing pattern would continue. Then next the IP went to Tainted-wingsz about this concern. Since he is one of the main editors on Black Clover. Unblue box (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblue box, Users are expected to engage in communication per WP:CIR. If a user refuses to engage, report them here, and provide as evidence all attempts to engage with them. Often those users will get a short block to get them to engage, and if they don't talk, the blocks get longer and longer.

As a side note, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here in general, perhaps something got lost in translation. Are you saying that Rahmadiabsyah isn't engaging? What are their problem edits? Captain Eek ⚓ 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to get at, well summarize the above messages. That there is a way to find the tv show's episode, but there's a chance that it can be wrong. Then since Rahmadiabsyah isn't responding, that apposed a problem. As the IP tried to talk on here, in the relating edit and this second edit relating to this. Leading up to the ani notice. Then after those edits there was a vague answer from Rahmadiabsyah. So the IP and Tainted-wingsz tried to explain this to Rahmadiabsyah. Then after still no answers from them. Unblue box (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Note, I fear that when it's Monday. This might happen again. If Rahmadiabsyah added the new episode's title again and 99.203.50.212 removes it. Then this problem drags on into a third week. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. If there's nothing else going on, but it leaves WP:CIR concerns that's left now. Why did it take two weeks for Rahmadiabsyah to reply? I still wonder if we should just "wait and see" next? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel if I'm premature here? Rahmadiabsyah just added some stuff to here and I still wanted a reply. Is the person ignoring what's going on for almost three weeks now? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from here Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

In a lengthy message from 99.203.50.212 they suggest that, if Rahmadiabsyah still doesn't reply because of WP:CIR. It's clear that they edit, but doesn't reply back. Can we try two days giving Rahmadiabsyah a break. Then thereafter is up to anyone's guess. Unblue box (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "エピソード ブラッククローバー|テレビ東京アニメ公式". TV Tokyo (in Japanese). Retrieved October 22, 2019.
2. "TV Tokyo timetable". TV Tokyo (in Japanese). Retrieved October 22, 2019.

Arbitrary page break

Could y'all help me clearly understand the issue? As far as I understand it, Rahmadiabsyah has been adding episodes of a TV series before they air, which would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Rahmadiabsyah has not responded to this conversation, but continues to edit. Have they continued making edits to Black Clover? Are there any other issues you have with them? Captain Eek ⚓ 20:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Their last edit was to this. So everything is a yes. Then for the other issues is no. Unblue box (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion here is to close this thread with a formal warning to Rahmadiabsyah to not add unsourced material, or material that violates WP:CRYSTAL. If they decide to ignore that, then they should recieve escalating blocks. Captain Eek ⚓ 19:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Hopefully, this will be resolved now. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Changing from support to any block. I just saw the edit by Rahmadiabsyah. When I switched to using a laptop. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm quite in support too, but Rahmadiabsyah just earlier edited again. Unblue box (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Block: If this is the start of the proposal to block or any of the suggested offers. I see that Rahmadiabsyah has some sort of issues that isn't helping themself. Unblue box (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Block now: Rahmadiabsyah's most recent edit and lack of response clearly demonstrates that they are WP:NOTHERE (point 7). — MarkH21 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Block: For WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Tetsou TheIronman

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

Tetsou TheIronman keeps adding incidents that don't meet the inclusion criteria to terrorism-related list articles. The inclusion criteria per a recent RfC says To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism". Their edits don't meet those criteria, since they almost never are notable. I didn't check them for the "described as" criterion but at least this incident didn't meet any of the criteria.

Tetsou TheIronman has been warned several times on User talk:Tetsou TheIronman#October 2019. His additions have been reverted with an explanatory comment . It should be clear to them that their additions don't meet the inclusion criteria. Sjö (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Tetsou TheIronman evinces one of the strongest cases of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. I've explained the RfC set criteria to them countless times, and they've claimed to understand, and that they will cease inserting inappropriate entries. Then the second they think nobody is looking they go right back to it. A topic ban from Terrorism related articles would be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

is an example of them promising to improve their conduct in September. They did not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)hey i think there should be changes in the criteria, because i have made editions with reliable sources and they are deleted (for example an incident in Mexico in November 2015), I consider that these editions are arbitrary and go against the global principle of Misplaced Pages:What "Ignore all rules" means and the use of common sense

As evinced by the unique way Tetsou TheIronman signs their comments, there's also some WP:CIR going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tetsou TheIronman: There was a long discussion at the RfC, but as far as I can see you didn't take part in it. That would have been the best time to make that argument. As it is, there is a consensus about the inclusion criteria, based on Misplaced Pages principles such as WP:V. As it says in the links you posted "Ignore all rules" is not a carte blanche and in case of conflict what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus. When several editors disagree with you,, and when there is an RfC about what incidents to include as terrorism, the consensus i clearly against your edits.

The "list of terrorist incidents in X" still has many incidents that are poorly sourced, non-notable or undue, and not always described as terrorism by the sources. There is an ongoing work to clear the articles of those incidents and the last thing we need at this point is somebody adding more of them. Sjö (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Precisely, what we have here is not a reasonable case of WP:IAR but rather a single editor who wants to go about doing things the way they had before a bunch of editors noticed what was going on in this article set and set about improving it. These "list of terrorism incident by month" articles were vast clearing houses of WP:SYNTH. And the criteria Tetsou TheIronman prefers are WP:SYNTH criteria - they take incidents not described as terrorism and then apply another organization's standards for what is a terrorist incident, filtered through their personal judgment, to determine whether these meet list criteria. This is the exact opposite of the consensus decision that came out of the RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk) Right, I will no longer make editions or past, recent or future incidents, my intention is never to be "non neutral" or "vandalize" the section, we better leave this for peace, I will also be carrying out other projects in Misplaced Pages in spanish so I will refrain from posting here (in the English version). Also when the change of criteria does not participate in it for external reasons, so if you make a modification in the future, I would be happy to participate in it, as long as I am notified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsou TheIronman (talk • contribs)

IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray

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

At various articles, especially medical articles, and especially with regard to the leads, IiKkEe makes unnecessary stylistic changes that often leave the text in a less accurate, simply inaccurate, and/or sloppy state. It's not unusual for these edits to not align with Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. It's not unusual for IiKkEe to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. And this includes articles that are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. The editor can make many edits in a row, which, in addition to usually needing to be reverted or tweaked, can take up a lot of time when reviewing the changes. And the editor's content is sometimes unsourced. As seen here, here and here, the editor has also been known to edit war just to retain their edits. The editor has gotten a bit better about this over time, being more willing to go to the talk page to discuss, but it's not enough. Discussion can consist of the editor wanting their way, and then editing the article in some other problematic fashion if they don't get their way.

To get right into this matter, see the examples below.

There are a lot of other examples of IiKkEe's changes that leave articles in compromised states, but I focused on the examples I reviewed and some that are mentioned on IiKkEe's talk page. This Potassium article example is another from IiKkEe's talk page. IiKkEe can be polite enough when interacting with editors, but being polite isn't enough to negate editing/competence issues. Furthermore, as indicated by this section on IiKkEe's talk page, IiKkEe has a tendency to thank editors via WP:Echo and go right back to editing disruptively. I've experienced this with regard to IiKkEe and other editors whose edits were riddled with issues. It can have the effect of seeming antagonistic even when it's not meant to be.

IiKkE's editing reminds me Anthony22's editing, except that Anthony22's problematic stylistic changes mainly concerned biographies. He was recently "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Misplaced Pages." Original thread on that is seen here. I'm not sure what the best remedy should be in IiKkEe's case, but if the community decides that he should refrain from editing medical articles, this should be broadly construed to include anatomy and sexuality articles since they often overlap and IiKkEe has edited problematically at some anatomy articles (such as Nephron) and questionably at a few sexual topic articles thus far. I just know that something needs to be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Like Flyer22 Reborn said, there are many more examples of this behavior. Here are just a few that I've seen over the last 2 weeks:

• Here they changed "usually involves" to "is" purely for being "more direct", but had to be reverted because it ignored that sources vary.
• Here they removed "typically" in the 1st sentence, which caused it to be only about the female genitalia and making it contradict the 3rd sentence about the anus.
• Here at Oral sex they changed the 1st sentence significantly by changing "or" to "and". It went from saying "(including the lips, tongue, or teeth) or throat" to "including the lips, tongue, and teeth; and the throat".
• At the same article, they changed "female genitals" to "vulva", which had to be changed to "vulva or vagina".
• IiKkEe then, because they wanted the terminology to be "comparable", changed the sentence from "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the vulva or vagina, while fellatio is oral sex performed on the penis" to "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the female genitalia - the vulva and vagina - while fellatio is oral sex performed on the male genitalia - the penis and scrotum". Thus, they again made up their own definition for fellatio. They were rightly reverted. I also replied to them on the talk page.

Again, these are just a few very recent examples from just a few articles that IiKkEe has edited. This editor seems to put their own subjective and often poor style opinions ahead of sourcing and common usage. This results in problems, as explained by Flyer22 Reborn.

As shown by her examples, this appears to be an ongoing problem over many years. IiKkEe should have learned better by now. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Flyer22 Reborn thanks for raising this. I share your concerns. It is not clear if IiKkEe actually reads the sources in question or simple changes text to what they personally feel is better.
• In this edit they changed correct text to first "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (under 13 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI) and over 15 as moderate or severe TBI)."
• Than in this edit they changed it further "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI), 9-12 as moderate TBI, under 9 as severe TBI)."
• There is NO such thing as a GCS of greater than 15. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

They are one of a certain type of difficult editor, who just tinkers carelessly or beyond their capacity. They have been around since 2014, very rarely engaging on their talk page. This pattern suggests English language competence may be a factor here. A widescreen topic ban may well be the only remedy. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I was mixed up with the Anthony22 issue a month or so ago and I agree that it's a big issue. In this case, it is even worse since he is making a flurry of small but significant changes to articles that alter the meaning (often making them inaccurate). This type of edit is hard for a user who is not a subject matter expert (e.g. someone like Doc James) to patrol since it is not overtly vandalism. It wouldn't be a big deal if this user was responsive on the talk page but he isn't -- like Anthony he just does whatever he wants and leaves it up to others to clean up after him. If this user is willing to be more responsive and to stop making such changes without discussion, I would be OK with letting it go but so far he hasn't been. 73.128.16.15 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the editor continues to edit articles while making no response to the complaint here, I've blocked them for 48 hours. Any admin can lift this block if they become convinced that User:IiKkEe can and will change their editing behavior to answer these concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing this, EdJohnston. I wouldn't state that IiKkEe is as unresponsive as Anthony22 usually is, considering that IiKkEe is significantly more open to responding on his (or her) talk page, but I don't see that IiKkEe's behavior will change at all. Like you noted on IiKkEe's talk page, they continued editing while concerns were being expressed in this thread. And IiKkEe's response indicates that IiKkEe still isn't willing to comment in this thread. IiKkEe stated, "Who are you? Who do I discuss this with? I assume with an objective administrator assigned to look into the accusations, not one of my accusers. I am not familiar with this process." So IiKkEe appears to be stating that this case is in administrators' hands alone. Also, one does not need to be familiar with the process to take the time to respond in an ANI thread about their problematic behavior. Once the 48 hour block expires, IiKkEe will keep on editing the way they have before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• After a discussion at User talk:IiKkEe#ANI, I unblocked IiKkEe so they could respond to the issues raised here. I suggested focusing on a small number of key points. IiKkEe has asked for "a few days" which seems excessive to me, however, there should be a response before further editing occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering that threads on ANI are archived after a certain timeframe, IiKkEe's responses should come before this thread is set to archive. Either that, or it will continue to need a new comment to keep it from archiving or it should be tagged with User:DoNotArchiveUntil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Added DNAU template to keep this alive until discussion takes place. If there is no response from the user within a week, then we should probably move on to an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sca and an 'enemies list'

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

Colleagues, This may only be a minor point, but I have twice asked Sca to remove what can only be seen as an 'enemies list' from his talk page. I had a minor disagreement over the renaming of the 2019 Grays incident article (and the applicability of WP:TITLEVAR in using the British term term "Lorry").

The following day I went to his talk page to apologise if I came across as terse, when I saw the message "This page, and its archives, may not be edited under any circumstances by users Fgf10, Wakari07, Davey2116, Nfitz or SchroCat". (Looking in the history, "this edit added me to the list which, at the time, included The Rambling Man, Fgf10, Wakari07, Davey2116 and myself. A subsequent edit removed TRM but added Nfitz to the list in his place - Nfitz also countered Sca's position on the Gray's title, and appears to be the only interaction between the two of them, but I haven't gone through the full history). I politely asked Sca (from my own talk page) to remove the notice, but he did not. I left a message on his talk page repeating the request, but this has also been ignored. (For the record, that was only my second edit to that page, the previous one was a 'Happy Christmas' message in 2015). I have no desire to post on that page again (aside from the necessary ANI notification).

I believe such 'enemies lists' are frowned upon (as seen with this matter) for being polemic in outlook and uncollegiate in spirit. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

We tend to respect that editors can request someone else not post to their talkpage. Making that request should be sufficient on its own, without documenting it at the top of the page. Sca, if you ask someone not to post there, the burden is on that person to remember, and if they do it anyway then you can bring them to ANI. So no particularly good reason to keep such a list, it seems. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't even realised I'd been released from the dreadful guilt and harassment. But nevertheless, I saw it much more as a reflection of Sca rather than a reflection of the people he considered "banned" from his talkpage, so I never really thought twice about it, despite Sca feeling fine with interacting with me and mentioning me many times and in many places across Misplaced Pages. Having been removed from the banned list, I can now rejoice in my new-found love of Misplaced Pages! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Basically User:Sca lost an argument over WP:ENGVAR and is now going to throw their toys out of the pram.In light of their approach, is there any reason you'd want to post there; after all, discussion takes place on the talk article page. Which will soon, of course, be getting moved to its new title. ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason I'd post there at all, which makes it all the more bizarre to ban me from the page. The only reason I went there in the first place (and saw the note by accident) was to apologise of coming across as terse. I don't think that message would be welcome now! - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat recently has posted argumentative comments in reply to my posts about legitimate editorial subjects, particularly those related to the Grays Incident – especially on the Grays talk page. Upon reflection, I concluded any further interaction with SchroCat would be counter-productive and pointless, and added him to those users prohibited from posting on my talk page – this, in order to obviate possible future use of said page as a forum for argumentation on his part.

For my part, in the interest of harmony, I hereby undertake not to post on SchroCat's talk page or to engage with him elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. (I would welcome a no-contact order affecting both of us.)

Regarding TRM's comment, he and I formerly had an unpleasant history of conflict, but in recent years he has mellowed and we've had no disputes of note. Indeed we occasionally cooperate at WP:ITN/C. I'd been thinking for some time of removing him from the do-not-edit note on my talk, and did so coincidentally with adding SchroCat.

The do-not-edit note is by no means an "enemies list," as SchroCat polemically asserts. It is solely an effort to avoid fruitless argumentation. (Other users listed there reflect serious past conflicts.)

My ideal for WP users/editors is collegial harmony. – Sca (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly about the lorry deaths, only about the lorry deaths in the past 12 months or so. Ditto for Nfitz. These weren't "argumentative comments": they were disagreeing with someone who decided not to bother with our guidelines. Ditto for Nfitz. Considering we operate in entirely separate spheres of interest, the offer of "a no-contact order" is laughable. Just take the enemies list off your talk page, as I've asked and others have advised. It's uncollegiate, unco-operative and completely unnecessary. I know you don't want me to post on your talk page: I get that, and considering the only comment I'd made on your talk page before that note was a Christmas message, I don't know what you were trying to prove. If your aim is "collegial harmony", as you claim, in what way is "A stupid, annoying comment" an example of that? - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "collegial harmony" is facilitated by you displaying such a list. As for a formal interaction ban, I get the sense that such a remedy would be premature at this time. But I also get the sense that this will be informally subscribed to, anyway. El_C 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little baffled on this, as I don't even recognize the name of User:Sca. Digging deeper, we had a brief, and I thought civil and thoroughly forgettable exchange the other day at Talk:2019 Grays incident about not needing to change titles of British articles to not use British English. The exchange was pretty much me saying why, him responding that 75% of the world don't understand what a "lorry" is, and me pointing out that most English speakers live in Asia, and know what a lorry is, and tagging them to ask how they get 75% - to which there was no response. Obviously this can't be about that, as I don't think I've ever looked at their talk page before, and can't find any edits by myself ... can User:Sca tell me what previous encounter I've forgotten - I'm not finding much, but "Sca" isn't the best search term. Sorry to have to ask this - but I do have some memory gaps from the 2015-2017 period, when I was having some health issues - I have no doubt it's me that's forgotten! Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• The text is unhelpful in a collaborative community, and it is factually incorrect. If one of the named editors raised an issue concerning Sca at a noticeboard, policy would require the editor to post a notice at Sca's talk—there is no such thing as "under any circumstances" at Misplaced Pages. Regardless of that, posting an enemies list is a violation of WP:POLEMIC and the text must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• By longstanding practice the community has made it clear that editors may, within reason and with obvious exceptions, tell other editors not to post on their talk page. While I discourage the practice in all but the rarest cases as it creates a road block to communication, sometimes I acknowledge it is the lesser of evils. (Full disclosure, over the years I have asked two editors not to post on my page.) Obviously there are going to be exceptions as noted above. If there is an established rule for how to go about this I'm not aware of it. But to my mind, posting a list of the excommunicated may not be the best way. I'd suggest a polite note while pinging the other editor and letting it go at that. On which note, I have always interpreted such requests as a defacto severing of diplomatic relations and that is not a one way street. On the rare occasions when I've run into editors who tell someone to stay off their TP and then turn around and continue to post on the other's, I have made my disapproval known. As for this specific case, whether or not Sca's list is a good idea may be debatable, but I'm not seeing a convincing argument that anything here is actionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• IMHO the list should be removed as per POLEMIC, Given some noticeboards explicitly state notices must be given it sort of makes Sca's notice void/invalid, List should be kept off wiki imho. –Davey2010 01:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• As others have said, it's generally accepted that when someone asks another editor to stay away from their talk page, this should be respected with reasonable exceptions like compulsory notices. The editor 'banned' should remember the request and if the persist on violating it, they're likely to be sanctioned for it. Since it's not a formal interaction ban, if an editor barely engages with another and forgets about the request after a year and violates it, the editor who made the request can just remind them if they still wish it to be in place. It's not necessary to include any sort of notice on the talk page listing the editors, and such lists should be removed given the problems they cause.

  As has also been said, if you want an editor to stay away from you, you should stay away from them. This includes not posting on their talk page except in cases when it would be acceptable for them to post on yours. And limiting any discussion of them or their behaviour. On your talk page, you should basically never discuss the editor, not even obliquely. If someone else brings them up, remove it or at least tell the person who brought it up you will not discuss it and ask not to post about the editor any more. On article talk pages and similar, discussion of user behaviour is often off-topic anyway and while there's some tolerance of it when it's directly relevant to disputed content, it's problematic to do so when the editor cannot discuss your comments of their behaviour directly with you. On noticeboards like AN, you can mostly post like normal. Although you may want to at least tell people you banned the other editor from your talk page. And you should harder than normal to ensure your comments have some relevance to deciding what to do about some situation.

  For the user who was 'banned', it's more complicated. We don't want editors to escape sanction or scrutiny simply by 'banning' people. But at the same time, given a desire to disengage, if the discussion seems more needling than useful scrutiny, this is likely to be taken more harshly than normal. Ultimately since it's not a formal interaction ban, the editor who issued the ban is free to remove it if they feel they want to engage more directly with the editor 'banned' over their concerns. (Again, game playing like persistently 'unbanning', saying something, than 'banning' again is likely to be perceived poorly.)

  I would add that while I think many of us can understand it coming up once or twice, if you've felt the need to 'ban' 6 people from your talk page, there's a fair chance this speaks more of you than of them. In addition, even if you do ask someone to stay away from your talk page, it's generally expected this arises because of actual disputes you've had on your talk page such that you don't welcome further communication there. Rarely I can imagine it arising from dispute on the other editor's talk page. It arising from disputes you've had in other places seems something that would be very rare. If it's happening a lot to you, again maybe consider what this reflects on your editing here.

  Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we've all seen people banned from talk pages, because of what is said on each others talk pages. Not sure that's the issue here. I've ran the interaction tool, and some other searches, and the closest that Sca and I have ever come to each other before a brief and civil exchange yesterday on a mainspace talk page, was that we both posted on the same Admin's talk page, 2 weeks apart, in September 2006, in two different threads. Surely simply and politely pointing out an error in assumption in a forgettable discussion on a minor style issue, during a rename debate, isn't worthy of being banned from someone's page, you've never looked at before. How is that not a violation of WP:5P4 - unless it's some case of mistaken identity. This is a collaborative project, and blocking collaboration on trivial issues doesn't work. At the same time User:Sca has a 15-year long unblemished block history (the one block appearing to have been erroneous) - so I can only assume that this isn't typical. I remain baffled on how I got swept up in this (and how I've never encountered Sca in 15 years - presumably we edit in different circles). Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Apologies for being late to this discussion. As I'm one of the users on the "enemies list" I was curious as to what caused me to be put on. I found that I was added to the list on January 9 of this year (although I did not find out until today). I interact with Sca solely on the ITN/C board, so given the timestamp it appears that this discussion, on whether to post a coup d'état attempt in Gabon, was the one that earned me this coveted distinction. From the fact that Wakari07 was added at the same time as me, I surmise that the exact exchange in question is:

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

• Comment Incidentally, where's the "systemic bias" crowd? They're everywhere when we're trying to post the James Comey firing or the Kavanaugh confirmation or a freaking government shutdown (18 days and counting), saying we wouldn't post a corresponding event from a small African country. But now when there's a coup attempt in a small African country, there's no one saying we wouldn't not post a corresponding event from a Western country. What gives? Davey2116 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Davey's user page is blank. What gives? Sca (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sca: that's not an argument, and I think you know that. Wakari07 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Personal user pages are optional. Not creating one doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment on talk pages. If Davey2116 is a newcomer, you should know not to WP:BITE them over not doing something that's not even required & has nothing to do with the discussion. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This "user page is blank" business was some sort of long-running slightly-bizarre joke played by Sca on several ITN/C frequenters. (See this cryptic message left on my talk page.) I've always interpreted it as some good-natured fun. Regardless, it seems to be a small thing to be banned from his talk page over. Or perhaps Wakari07 and I were banned simply for our support for posting the ITN item, while Sca opposed it; but then why were we singled out among all of the !supports?

The thing is, none of the interactions I've had with Sca at ITN/C, including that one, seemed particularly negative or uncivil. In my estimation we've agreed and disagreed on ITN nominations in roughly equal proportion, and we had that hilarious exchange on the spelling bee, months after I was banished from his talk page. So it baffles me that I've been one of just four to six people on his banned list, this whole time. I haven't had occasion to leave a message on Sca's talk page (and I do not foresee that I will) so in practice whether I will be removed from the list or not makes no difference. However, some explanation would be appreciated, just for closure's sake. Davey2116 (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

My, my, 1,800 words in response to my 200. You-all are wearing me out. (I can say it that way 'cause I once lived in Kentucky.)

I'm going to remove Wakari07, Davey2116 and Nfitz from my do-not-edit note, although I suggest that Nfitz and I agree to avoid such terms as "complete nonsense" in future exchanges. I'm also going to remove the phrase "under any circumstances," which I had borrowed from a friend, Hafspajen, who had been subjected to harassment by certain users. (Alas, "Haffy" is no longer active on Wiki.)

Re Fgf10, we haven't had any interaction since I listed him in my my do-not-edit note three years ago, and I prefer to keep it that way.

Similarly, SchroCat will continue to be listed for the time being. If SchroCat and I avoid unpleasant arguments elsewhere for some time, I'll consider removing him.

Happy Halloween. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you should take account of all the above neutrals saying how inappropriate the list is, regardless of who is on it, or your motivation in putting them on there - 1,800 words in response to your 200 should be an indication that you are not acting very well here. You seem to be displaying signs of WP:ICANTHEARYOU; maybe you should read through the thread again to see just who says it's a good idea to have the list.

I cannot remember ever having had any negative interaction with you, except over this one article, and that is fairly minor (My memory may be playing me false, but I cannot remember any). Are you that thin-skinned that you have to create a divisive and disruptive list just because someone says the better path is the one that it guideline-compliant, despite you disagreeing with it? Delete the list in its entirity please: I have no intention of interacting with you or of posting on your talk page: I promise not to send you a happy Christmas note again, which was the only time I posted except to ask you to remove that list. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

p.s. Please remove the YouTube link from your thread above and from your talk page: the material is still in copyright, I think, so it fails WP:LINKVIO. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Complete nonsense" might not be the best phrasing, but it was in context to the other user I was replying to. Though I remain unaware of how you think that 75% of English speakers don't know what a "lorry" is, given that there's only 1 or 2 nations, that don't use the word. Or why your are ignoring the very clear WP:TITLEVAR policy. Not sure why not simply express concern rather than making polemic personal attacks. Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oooh I'm on an enemies list? I'm deeply honoured. I have no clue why I would be on there, but given Sca's normally abrasive and unhelpful behaviour, I'm sure it was for a good cause, probably an attempt to counter systematic bias on my behalf. Not bothered in the slightest by being on a such a childish and pathetic list, in case anyone is wondering. It did make me laugh, so that's a postive, I guess. Fgf10 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well there is a notable precedent for seeing enemies where there are none  :) ——SerialNumber54129 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is perfectly acceptable to explicitly list editors who are not allowed post on your talk page (indeed, it's preferable to randomly saying "I thought I told you last time to STAY AWAY!!!!!!!" out of the blue, like some people I could name have done). Additionally, the term "enemies list" being applied in an ANI header and OP comment, without any apparent inline clarification of what it is (I had to click the diff), is misleading and needlessly inflammatory, and activated my PTSD from this incident (where a disruptive editor claimed that an SPI draft I was working on constituted an "enemies list", despite his considering himself to be my enemy and not being on it...) -- can we just auto-boomerang editors who use words like "enemies list" for list of people forbidden from posting on a talk page, obvious SPI drafts, etc.? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Given the overall tenor of this thread, I'm sure you know the answer to your question. Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I've never heard, User:Hijiri88 of having a list of people who can't post on ones talk page, when the majority of the people on the list have never posted on either party's talk page ever. Are there other examples? Though, we are probably hitting the "move on" stage of this discussion ... Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I briefly placed such a list on my talk page (or considered before stopping halfway through...). The list would have almost certainly included Beyond My Ken, who at that time had only ever posted on my talk page twice, and GoldenRing, who had never posted on my talk page, due to my then-ongoing conflict with both of those users on ANI. People can forbid others from posting on their talk page for whatever reason they wish, and unless serious evidence of bad faith is presented, there should be no question of sanctioning editors for doing so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one is stopping people from requesting not to post on their talk page and no-one is asking for sanctions. What is being asked for is the removal of the list, which tend to be frowned upon for being uncollegiate and divisive. POLEMIC is the guideline. (And COPYVIO for the removal of the copyright violating YouTube link here and on the talk page too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it somewhat muddies the waters by bringing up copyright (as you have done twice). A lot of editors are not familiar with the blanket ban on linking YouTube videos that are presumed to violate copyright, and it is basically unrelated to the point of this thread (which is to get Sca to remove the so-called "enemies list", with the presumed consequence of not doing so being a block). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one is talk ing about a block except you: that should be set aside as being a rather silly step to take and one I would not want to see happen. Sca should remove the list from his talk page. While he is doing that, he should also remove the COPYVIO. Yes, there are two slightly separate points, but there is no water-muddying going on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one is talk ing about a block except you You come to ANI to request blocks. Bans and other restrictions are traditionally sought at AN. Unless an OP explicitly states that the administrative action they are looking for is a "warning" or a "post this on this person's talk page because I'm not allowed to", it is assumed that what is being requested is a block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"You come to ANI to request blocks": nonsense. You come to ANI to have situations resolved. It has been resolved here to the satisfaction of most with no blocks or punishment - an ideal resolution. There is no other forum to have problems like this resolved, and not everything needs a big stick to end it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is not an "enemies list" (as Sca said) does not mean it does not violate POLEMIC. In my reading of the guideline, inclusion of an "enemies list" (or a "please do not edit my talk page" list) does indeed violate its spirit and should ideally be removed. Also noting, ofcourse that there is no rule that states that editors cannot edit another's if asked to or that an editor cannot ask other editors to not edit their talk page. This is borderline POLEMIC but is there really something that needs administrative action here? The easiest resolution would be for Sca to remove the list and just ask these editors to stay off their TP via email (or something). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd think getting a random email telling one to stay off a talk page that one has never visited before would be far worse than having a note at the top of page that one has never visited before. The former seems agressive, while the latter seems passive. Nfitz (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I's agree that an email would be worse. A ping or a brief message should suffice, rather than an enemies list. In this particular situation I think people now know where everyone is. The only thing left is for Sca to remove the list from their talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest resolution be for Sca to stop imposing talk page bans over content disputes that didn't even involve their own talk page? Lepricavark (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It probably would, but I think there is a difference between keeping an open list (which goes against the guidelines) and a desire not to have conflict brought to ones own talk page (which I think may have been his intention - at least that is my take from his first response in this thread). There was absolutely no danger of that in this case, but I think it's not unreasonable that people would like to avoid interaction on their own talk page if possible. (I realise I may not be phrasing this terribly well, but I hope you get the gist, at least). - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that this is a non-issue. Any editor can ask another editor to stay off their talk page (or any page), the implications are meaningless as there is no hard and fast rule that states you have to abide by it. It's not in the spirit of a collaborative environment but nothing here would have had any real difference in the working of the world really. Time to close this up and move on, imo. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• My explanation is here and I think this resolves it if Sca accepts my edit. Jehochman 13:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done The following request was posted on the talk pages of SchroCat and Fgf10:

"In relation to my ANB case, I hereby ask you not to post on my talk page. Thanks."

– Sca (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Jehochman et al., are we going to prohibit do-not-edit talk-page notes Misplaced Pages-wide? – Sca (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage instruction creep, but I would give the same advice in any parallel situation. The best way to handle it is the leave the other editor a communication which they can read and delete. Jehochman 16:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think that is the answer User:Jehochman. I don't want to be emailed, or pinged, or messaged on my talk page, by someone I've barely remember, nor had any negative interaction with, to stay off a talk page I've never looked at. I'd much sooner they leave a note on their talk page, which is merely odd - rather than messaging me, which surely violates WP:CIVIL. If there were previous issues sure - but most of the people on this list, weren't even aware of it, or what had lead to it. This seems far worse to me, than making the list on the talk page - for which there doesn't seem to be any rules against. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• If you'd like to be on a list on Sca's talk page, by all means he can put you on such a list. The issue I'm addressing is if the person on the list objects to being talked about on a page where they are expected not to reply. Your position is unexpected, but if you like it that way, fine with me. Jehochman 17:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Your position is baffling, primarily because you can't restrict anyone for anything on a say-so basis. Sure, you don't want to be notified in anyway but if they wish to, they still can. It does not violate CIVIL's letter (maybe its spirit at best) to tell another editor to stay off any page, it's just meaningless - because you would be under no obligation to do as I asked. CIVIL would be if the way it was said was particularly uncivil. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• What's baffling? 3 of the 5 people on the "list" were not aware of it, had never been on his talk page, thought that everything was civil, and would have no reason to be aware of the "ban" ever. Ska and I have both been editing here for about 15 years, without ever encountering each other before - and I didn't even know who he was, when I was alerted to this thread. Personally, I'd have preferred if I'd never known about it - and I don't think encouraging Ska to start notifying people rather than keeping his quiet list, is going to help - it's more likely to cause more negative interactions - and potentially complaints about unnecessary warnings. Really though - I think this discussion can be closed as without any decision, as there's not much to be done.. Nfitz (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder to all concerned parties, none of the above time-sink happens if Sca had not issued a few wholly unnecessary talk page bans for reasons that weren't even related to Sca's talk page. As I understand it, Sca had a firm yet civil disagreement with these editors. That's not a reason to ban someone from your talk page. This is hardly collaborative behavior and we shouldn't be encouraging it. Lepricavark (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wish I could be someone's enemy... *kicks rock sullenly* HalfShadow 00:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)    Done Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey HalfShadow, you're sitting alone, want to be enemies? It's like elementary school all over again! creffett (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I kick puppies, grow a long, greasy mustache and laugh wickedly while I stroke it? I take my fun where I can find it. HalfShadow 02:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, this kind of IDHT behaviour over the copyvio links has me a little concerned. He replaced the link I removed with a different one that might be okay (Gounod died in 1893 so his work is all presumably public domain, but I see no reason to assume that recording is, and I'm not sure about the legality of uploading copies of legitimately purchased commercial recordings of public domain music onto YouTube). But this one is still live, and he has shown no intention of removing it. I can't remove it because I'm pretty sure I'm also on his ban list right now. The ban list issue appears to have been resolved by User:Jehochman, but given that it happened on ANI, has been going on for months, and shows no signs of stopping, I think we really should also demand a statement from Sca that he understands why what the YouTube links were inappropriate and that he doesn't intend to do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Well aren't we all wasting a lot of time on this? Sca, if I ever found a reason to post on your talk page - not that I see why I would, or think I actually evenrhave - I will most certainly do so. Anyway, If Sca wants to feel persucuted or whatever, let them. Not for us to worry about. Shall we close this nonsenes and all go back to ignoring Sca? Fgf10 (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Siihb at Talk:Steve Huffman

• Siihb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steve Huffman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Siihb filed a thread at DRN for dispute resolution on Steve Huffman. In looking at it, I saw that User:Siihb was using the talk page as a forum rather than discussing, and was ranting about censorship, and was also making conduct allegations about User:opencooper who was addressing Beutler requests for edits because of Beutler COI, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steve_Huffman. I closed the thread at DRN. User:Siihb asked me at my talk page to re-open, posting a long screed. They and User:MarnetteD began quarreling on my talk page, and I hatted the discussion. I then went to Talk:Steve Huffman, and cautioned User:Siihb that I did not normally pay attention to an editor who posts at length but erases messages from their own talk page. Siihb replied with a diatribe: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Steve_Huffman&type=revision&diff=923143003&oldid=923081524&diffmode=source

I would also take incident with the statement of me quarreling on your talk page. I simply asked for the thread to be revisited and Marnette chimed in with insults in the exact same way they are on this thread. Siihb (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am neutral. I tried to look at a dispute, and was insulted by Siihb, and am finished with this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Siihb has been using talk pages as a battleground including making lots of accusations without a shred of proof. Ponyo has tried to explain things to the editor but has been ignored. I apologize to you Robert McClenon for the posts on your talk page. I was just trying to leave you links to some relevant talk page threads to save you some time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD - Apology accepted. My real issue was with User:Siihb, except that I wasn't interested in re-opening the dispute anyway. As I tried to caution Siibh, they are acting like an editor with an open mouth and closed ears, and should listen to Ponyo. They are the user who owes me an apology, but I don't expect it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, yet again, users making negative comments about me. Once again, as I did on your talk page Robert, I will ask that we focus on the actual issue here. The issue is over formatting on controversial/negative issues relating to the subject. Matt Lauer's page has a scandal clearly broken out as a separate heading, However, on the Huffman page, editors (specifically opencooper) choose to remove an edit breaking a major news incident out as a separate heading. If my DRN wasn't formatted correctly thats fine. I will re-file. The issue, which has received 0 attention, and 10000+ words of posts deflecting, is that this article for Huffman is not in line with similar articles (such as Lauer). Which of the two is correct. If you want to beg off of help for the incident because I was insulted, you should recall that you insulted me first by suggesting I wasn't worth listening to because I engaged in fully allowable wikipedia behavior (removing talk from my talk page), and pointed out you had done the same. Does anyone at all want to get back to the actual issue or should we all keep wasting time and energy about a simple heading for content that was already on the article and sourced, well before I even joined wikipedia. FFS.

Siihb (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It took me all of 5 minutes to see that Siihb clearly has no intentions to productively edit the encyclopedia with other users, and has mainly engaged in POV pushing. I'm all for a NOTHERE/tendentious editing block until an admin is reasonably assured that this user can productively edit in a collegial manner without any battleground mentality. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've edited numerous other articles and had no issues until this article. I am happy to follow whatever required rules are necessary to get this article consistent with Misplaced Pages rules. I opened the DNR because opencooper reverted the edits I made to bring the article in line with Misplaced Pages rules and consistent with other wikipedia articles. After they reverted edits and pulled in other users to do the same, I held off and submitted the DNR. Yet again I ask that this article be brought in line with wikipedia rules and be made consistent with other wikipedia articles. Siihb (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The actual issue is that you don't understand how Misplaced Pages works and haven't taken a second trying, even after many users have tried to link you the relevant policies. As others have mentioned, you have a battleground mentality which is why no one wants to engage you, especially as you tend to act like you're in some holy war. I recommend dropping the stick and learning how the encyclopedia functions first. Case in point, you went to Rhiannon's talk page laying in on them, where they explained to you that prior to their edits, there was zero mention of the topic you're all up in arms about. You just come off as someone lashing out at everyone. I also somehow became a target when all I did was help Rhiannon make proper COI edits out in the open. But you're probably just gonna get back to making "threats" about going to the media and repeat ad nauseam. Opencooper (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You reverted an edit I made to bring the article in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines which clearly were quoted repeatedly. After I undid that and found myself in an edit war, I brought the DNR and asked for assistance. My DNR was poorly formatted and was correctly closed, and so I engaged Robert asking for him to give another look at an article that had had edit wars over this very subject in the past well before I ever joined Misplaced Pages. The article has multiple edits made by you on behalf of paid editors. When I see an editor reverting edits in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines, and that same editor was used by paid Misplaced Pages services, the entire process smells. I will continue to present within wikipedia boundaries that the Steve Huffman page needs the comment modification controversy broken out as a separate section. This is consistent with Misplaced Pages rules and in line with other articles such as Matt Lauer. I do not need CONSENSUS to bring an article in line with standards. I submit that your revert of my edit was incorrect and I stand by that statement. Siihb (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Message for Siihb about Anger

User:Siihb – I have looked over the exchanges at Talk:Steve Huffman and DRN and my talk page and here at WP:ANI more than once. You want to get back to the original actual issue. You also say that you see a lot of users getting angry. I don’t know what the issue is about Steve Huffman, and am not able to determine that. I see that you are angry. It is very obvious that you are angry. I do not see other users being angry. I see that you are angry at and about User:opencooper because of some edits that they made for a conflict of interest editor who had requested the edits. I don’t know what was wrong with those edits. I don’t know what the controversy is about Steve Huffman, because all I can see is that you are angry.

I didn’t close the DRN thread because of a formatting issue. I closed the DRN thread because you had not tried to discuss the issue with the other editors, because you were just expressing anger. That is why I closed the thread, and your anger is why you are having so much difficulty editing about Steve Huffman.

User:Siihb – If you know how to stop expressing anger, stop expressing anger. Try to discuss without expressing anger. If you can take a break from Misplaced Pages, take a break from Misplaced Pages and express anger at your refrigerator. If you can’t stop expressing anger in Misplaced Pages, an administrator will block you to keep your anger out of Misplaced Pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've repeatedly made clear the issue, both on the DRN, on your page, on the talk page of the article, on the admin thread we are on, and yet here you are saying and I quote "I don’t know what the issue is about". If you can't see the issue at this point, why are you still making repeated personal attacks against me on multiple pages? I will refile the DRN correctly and then we can all wait for to see what reasoning is given then for not bringing the article in line. If you have nothing to contribute about the actual article that is in violation, please move along. We already have several other individuals attempting to muddy the waters and do not need yet another. Siihb (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Siihb - I am not making personal attacks on you. I am pointing out that your anger is interfering with your communication of your concern about content, and you are personalizing everything that everyone says. Just to show that I am not engaging in personal attacks, I will restate what I understand. What I do understand is that you have a content issue about Steve Huffman, and that User:opencooper reverted the edits that you made, and that they were acting at the request of a Beutler editor who has a conflict of interest, and that User:MarnetteD may agree with them. What I don't know is what the disputed content about Steve Huffman is, and that is why I said that I don't know what the issue is, and you are expressing anger so much that I don't know what the content issue is. If you refile at DRN, I will leave your filing alone (unless it is defamatory or otherwise requires immediate action) and will let another volunteer deal with it. However, you will have to state a content issue, because at DRN, we discuss content, not contributors, so that complaining about User:opencooper will be useless at DRN. If you have a clearly stated conduct issue about User:opencooper, you can state it here or at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Just venting anger isn't doing you any good, and is likely to result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing a lot of words and no solutions to this issue. Surely your assistance has been productive. Siihb (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page use

Just a note that Siihb is currently misusing using space for WP:POLEMIC purposes. Opencooper (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the discussion above about maintaining an "enemies list" on user space. The consensus seems to be that a user page like this discourages collegiality and should be avoided. It is fine for users to ask other users to avoid posting on their talk page (outside of posts required by policy, such as ANI notifications) but maintaining a list of enemies, critics, or other individual users being held up for censure is discouraged. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I see through your attempt to obfuscate the issue. Please stay on topic and bring any personal disputes to the proper forum. This is in regards to the Steve Huffman controversy edit revert that you did without discussion. You and the others have now made personal attacks on every single place I have made legitimate Misplaced Pages changes or complaints in the proper forums. Please cease your incessant and borderline harassing behavior towards me. I've made my positions on the issues clear and request that we keep the focus on the issues. Siihb (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve removed the personal attack in user space and strongly suggest that if Siihb restores it, they be blocked for disruption and personal attacks. @Siihb:, you are pounding your head into a brick wall - you don’t get to unilaterally decide that you are right and everyone else is wrong. If your proposed changes do not have consensus, they will not be implemented. Leveling accusations and personal attacks at your opponents ends only one way: with a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to the SIIHB user page. Currently you yourself have a personal attack against you HIGHLIGHT on your user page as well (Things I have been called by vandals "Tree-hugging liberal pansy"). I would request that you stop modifying the page tied to my user without consensus. If you'd like to make a change to my user page please use the talk page to reach a consensus first. Thanks and have a great day. Siihb (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to have consensus to call other users "disingenuous" - that's a simple violation of our policies and guidelines. If you put it back again, you will be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not a violation to document my user opinion on a subject (These three editors). The individual you are replying to has identical reminders of their own interactions they dislike. If you persist on haranguing me and nitpicking my user account I will seek resolution from all involved and request the page be locked from your edits. Siihb (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is a violation. This is not a webhost where you get free space, Siihb. I have found temporary resolution by blocking you for personal attacks and disruption; whether you should be blocked indefinitely per NOTHERE could be decided by editors here. Word of advice: it is not a good idea to piss off everyone and defy an administrator who's giving you good advice on how not to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The accusations of paid editing continue. Most tiresome. MarnetteD|Talk 05:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD - Well, there really may have been an issue about conflict of interest editing, except that User:Siihb was so busy raging that they couldn't frame the issue clearly. User:opencooper was acting as a neutral editor, making requested changes by a Beutler paid editor, presumably being paid by Steve Huffman. User:Siihb had some issue with those edits, and thought that they were not being properly neutralized and were still favorable to Huffman. They could have had a legitimate case, and that was probably what they originally wanted to discuss at DRN. I closed the dispute request at DRN because Siihb hadn't been trying to discuss the issue, only to vent anger. There still may be an issue. I don't know if there still is an issue. I know that Siihb didn't state an issue that I thought was ready for moderated discussion, and it appears that Siihb isn't capable of stating issues objectively because they can't separate fact from anger. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis RM. I know I've never been paid in anything other than barnstars and my editing is not disingenuous. As to the specific content issues I think Ponyo's statements here User talk:Ponyo#Controversies on user biographies are well said. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

An unblock request waiting for three days

See User_talk:Tatzref#ANI. Maybe it was malformatted. As I wrote on his talk page, while I cannot access the original content, seems to me like he should have gotten a warning, not an indef block. Suggesting that an off-wiki site should out an editor, while there is no proof one even knows of WP:OUTING, should merit a warning, yes, but hardly an indef, IMHO. PS. Also, if Tatzref lost temper a little, it is worth considering that he was subject to some off-wiki harassment like someone impersonating him to suggest he was posting on StormFront, see last paragraph here. Nobody identified who tried to frame him, but a few weeks ago User:Icewhiz got indef blocked for offline harassment of which I think Tatzref might have been one of the victims. I'd advise Tatzref to cease pointless speculation on whether there is any connection between those incidents, but I don't think he did anything warrant an indef (he didn't out anyone, nor did he harass anyone on or off wiki, did he?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

He should be aware of it, as he was made aware of it by an admin in a couple of different places, but continued making them. He also cast aspersions on a bunch of editors regardless of fact, and his sourcing - to nationalist authors like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, and antisemites Mark Paul and Gilad Atzmon - is some of the worst I've ever seen. Tatzref is not here to WP:BUILDWP, and should not be allowed anywhere near it. François Robere (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if he was aware of it, and it is hardly clear, suggesting on wiki that a policy should be disregarded is hardly a crime. If I were to say that any policy is wrong and should be changed, do you think I should be indef banned? Ridiculous. After all, that's how we create and change our policies. Now, if I - or him - where to violate it, it would be another thing. But the point is he did not violate it. To be banned for suggesting that a policy should be violated is not far from punishing thoughtcrime. And as for his sources, this is irrelevant here. You can take it to WP:RSN. You could even take it here to propose a community ban if you think it would have a change. But he wasn't banned for any issues with sourcing, but for violating WP:OUTING, which IMHO he clearly didn't do, since he didn't out anyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You've made a similar argument for PB, so you should see how it can apply here.

Tatzref was warned by an Admin, then did the same thing three more times. His net contribution to Misplaced Pages is negative. There's no reason an admin would consider this twice. François Robere (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"Even if he was aware of it, and it is hardly clear, suggesting on wiki that a policy should be disregarded is hardly a crime. If I were to say that any policy is wrong and should be changed, do you think I should be indef banned?" -- I know nothing about this situation, but I'm going to point out that suggesting that a policy should be changed and suggesting that it should be disregarded are two entirely different things. --Tkynerd (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

LG-Gunther and sock tagging

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

LG-Gunther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I won't name any other names here for the purposes of WP:DENY, but my beef here is that said editor, while he may have meant well, kept on tagging sockpuppet accounts of a certain long-term abuser even though that did more harm than good, i.e. unwanted attention from said LTA. I've already filed an MfD request before, using this as precedent; problem was that I didn't word it right enough to merit a delete consensus. And even if I did make a successful MFD, I'm worried that LG-Gunther would disregard the consensus and (unwittingly) tag the pages regardless despite the troll craving for such attention. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@LG-Gunther: please leave tagging to checkusers and SPI clerks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@LG-Gunther: As mentioned above, tagging users should be left for others—please do not do any more tagging such as the 16 pages in the last five weeks. The most recent of those have also been tagged for speedy delete. I would support deleting all of them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: yes will be delete as sock of User:My Royal Young accounts and otherwise should to delete. LG-Gunther :  Talk  09:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: sure thing i got using these delete as WP:MfD for delete as sock of User:My Royal Young

LG-Gunther has now gone off to MfD nominate about 30 user pages they had already put the sock tag on, see page creation log. I've asked them to stop doing that, but would it be possible to batch close the MfDs, which fill no function and just clog up the process? --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather consolidate it to a single MFD and be done with it as there's no point with keeping and/or tagging sock account pages as, well, socks given the attention it is soliciting. To be honest LG-Gunther, while he has the heart and willingness to help, has some difficulty with policies and whatnot. I'm not going to spite or ridicule him for this though; I just wanted to be a bit frank and set things straight about this ordeal. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to procedural close the ones at MFD and have LG-Gunther and Blake Gripling work directly with SPI clerks to do the appropriate tagging or speedy deleting if appropriate? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the articles in question. I'm not sure if it needs to be proc closed and updated separately, or they can be handled en masse here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Heneralemilio (I attempted a proc close on this one)
• User:Alfonso Calabarzon
• User:Yesterdayistoday
• User:Van3AIing Oreo
• User:Yoshi is a Homosexual Dinosaur
• User:Last Yoshi Goes to Edit War
• User:Finger Your Butt
• User:UsedforVendilism
• User:OnlyUsedForVendelism
• User:IDidUsedForVendelism
• User:LoccoPocco
• User:OneTopicSpree
• User:MariachristinaFall
• User:HarleyDude69
• User:Indian or Jew?
• User:WhenDatHotlineBling is copying MRY
• User:Rayboythemaster
• User:WhenDatRoyalBling
• User:Xandermydude
• User:Bimboy77
• User:Terabyte bios settings
• User:Vadebal77
• User:Maxsun motherboard bios settings
• User:Gigabyte motherboard bios settings

I have two brief comments. First, I would like to thank User:Blake Gripling for bringing this MFD mess to the attention of admins and SPI clerks by posting it here. Second, I would like to suggest that User:LG-Gunther may need admonition or mentoring, or, unfortunately, a competency block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing i thing so that using as Since September 18, 2019 as Personal Attack to me as Sock of User:My Royal Young and clearly like even violently everything. LG-Gunther :  Talk  19:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• What a mess. Since when does WP:DENY say to create dozens of pointless MFDs. I've deleted the 24 userpages listed above, which consisted solely of sock tags and MfD tags (and in some cases vandalism), under a combination of G3 and G7. I've also deleted/removed the MfD nominations as they are moot. I'm having some trouble parsing Lg-Gunther's comments here, so I can only hope that they understand not to tag socks that someone else has already blocked without tagging, and that they will seek advice from a more experienced editor if they ever feel the need to create a large number of XfDs, as grouping related pages into a single nomination would have been less disruptive. Another admin can feel free to close this as resolved if they don't believe that any further action is needed. ST47 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple disruptive behaviours

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

This is in regards to the varied and intractable disruption caused by User:Baburjahangir:

• Continual unsourced changes to articles and removal of sourced content in spite of several warnings.

• Very likely used a separate IP account in order to make edits (based on the similarity between editing habits), in spite of warning. The IP in question is User:223.185.31.203.

• Created a string of articles which ranged from non-notable to down-right false. These were solely composed of unsourced infoboxes which contained images of completely different individuals and events. All have been (or are in the process of being) speedly deleted.

• Added infoboxes to existing articles which were not backed up by sources and/or contained unrelated images.

• Repeatedly blanked articles and replaced them solely with infoboxes, again containing irrelevant images.
  Alivardi (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the mobile diff links in the post above to regular diffs for readability. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

_Any_ features mention in Retrospect (software) turns article into PR "advertisement", claims Guy

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

Here's the relevant section of the Retrospect (software) Talk page. For those of you who insist on diffs, here's one, but the difference part—not the lengthy "latest revision" part—leaves out a a few preliminary comments in the relevant section (because old sections of the page had been archived immediately before the starting point for the diff, so a diff that went any further back was really unreadable).

Dirk Beetstra stated Guy's peculiar non-WP-established definition most clearly: "Just to pile on: the 'standard features' and 'editions and add-ons' in this version just do not show why they have to be in the article, verifiable existence is not an inclusion standard, it should be relevant (and for thát you need independent, reliable sources showing that relevance). As it stands in that version, it is just an indiscriminate collection of information. You will have to show specifically why a certain feature is so special, not just that it exists. Listing features and add-ons here is just promotional material (even when not written with a reason to promote). (and yes, I do note that a lot of other similar articles have the same indiscriminate material, and that should also be removed)."

Farther down the section Dirk strengthened their non-WP-established definition even further: "DovidBenAvraham, I have just one answer: I challenge the statement that the features are special, it is to you to show that they are indeed special. That is what is reflected in all our sourcing policies and guidelines. Mere existence alone, even if verifiable, is not worth mentioning. I can believe that some of the features are 'special', but you'll have to show that they are special. That also likely boils the list down to a smaller size, and that is probably better worked out in prose than in a list-like format."

Dirk was most specific about the definition when he stated still farther down: "... but you keep on pushing these features into the article which strongly suggests that they are special. WP:V: '... and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations' .. our challenge is that they are not worth mentioning, if they are to be included one needs an independent, reliable source to show that they are somehow special. That is also in line with WP:LSC's 'criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.'" The problem with WP:V: is that that entire article doesn't say anything about inclusion implying that an item is "somehow special". The problem with WP:LSC is that it states "For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses."

In my last version of the article I did a reduction in features sections to "special"-only—meaning not usual in consumer backup applications. I also eliminated any cites of a 2009 TidBITS article that Dirk thought had a conflict of interest, because it offered a discount for Retrospect ordered through that website. Lastly I eliminated all first-party feature cites, even though these were to Retrospect Inc. user documentation—and IMHO those should be allowed under "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products , employees, finances, and facilities."

However the real focus of this ANI is Guy, because from 12 September 2019 on he did very substantial actual deletions from the article. His first Edit Summary notation for a deletion was "There is clear consensus on ANI and elsewhere that the level of detail here is excessive, the content promotional, and the sources lack intellectual independence (press releases / publications by Retrospect." Guy's next principle-driven Edit Summary notation (embedded within a couple of deletions of extensive quoting—which I had put in to guide a reader—in extensive second-party source articles) were "rm more PR". His last pair of principle-driven deletions were from this later article version which I had created; the Edit Summary notations were "WP:HOWTO". "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not"; does anybody see (I've made it easier to answer that question by not giving you a diff) any "instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something" in the "Standard features" and "Editions and Add-Ons" sections Guy deleted?

What was bothering me was Guy's motivation for an evident antagonism to any features sections in the article, and for his refusal to explain his peculiar non-WP-established definitions of "advertising" and "PR".. Because on 12 September 2009 he added a ref in the current article's lead to this 2003 😗 review of the Windows variant of Retrospect, I had a hunch Guy had prior personal experience with the application—and that experience motivated him to create his own intentionally-inadequate features paragraph. Lo and behold, Guy delivered a "smoking-gun" confession on the article's Talk page (linked-to in this section's first paragraph) about 2.5 hours ago. "Yes, I would have reverted it is not seen as a significant player, and Misplaced Pages is not the place to fix that." Can anybody see a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV?

What do I want to be done to Guy (Dirk hasn't actually done any editing of the article; just the making of comments). I could probably insist that he be punished for WP:Vandalism; the "malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages." But I feel merciful towards a sinner who has confessed. I'd be happy if Guy is simply banned from directly editing the article. Here's the latest version I've written]; I've obviously gone a long way in satisfying Guy's and Dirk's legitimate complaints about the "Standard features" and "Editions and Add-Ons" sections, which I've reduced to about 0.66 screen pages from 1.2 screen-pages (for 3 features sections) on 12 September 2019. I'm willing to make further size-reducing edits if Dirk and Guy can convince me on the article's Talk page that my latest version (which I posted and immediately reverted at Dirk's suggestion) violates any real Misplaced Pages definitions they can give me links for. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman! EEng 12:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Can anybody see a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV?

Nope.

Also, perhaps you should use more-generally understood definitions of "smoking gun" and "vandalism". --Calton | Talk 13:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Calton, what I quoted in the last paragraph of my 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) comment is the definition from WP:Vandalism. As to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, see my forthcoming reply below to Guy. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

what I quoted in the last paragraph of my 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) comment is the definition from WP:Vandalism

You quoted the definition: you either showed no understanding of it or, worse, are deliberately misapplying it to malign an opponent and win a dispute. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @DovidBenAvraham: Among your many transgressions, you failed to notify Guy or Dirk. Another user notified Guy, and I just notified Dirk.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing the notifications, Bbb23, and my apologies to Dirk and Guy. I pulled a 10-hour over-nighter writing this ANI—because I had promised, went to bed at 9:30 a.m., and only remembered the notifications when I woke up 3 hours later. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue how we cannot get that a sentence like "Retrospect is sold with varying backup server capability levels, called "Editions", with non-expiring license–codes that cover one major version" (my bolding) cannot be interpreted as 'promotional'. That one sentence can be heavily toned down to "tq|Retrospect is available with different backup server capability levels<full stop>}}" (and probably even further). Then we have '"Add-Ons", which activate additional backup server features via Edition-linked license codes, may also be purchased" (again my bolding) with standard capabilities like "backing up to multiple single tape drives simultaneously or to a multiple-drive tape library". In the features: "Backup destinations: Termed Media Sets—can be on any of the usual consumer storage media, tapes or WORM tapes—with barcoding, or CD/DVD discs." .. what is so special about 'usual consumer storage media, tapes or WORM tapes .. or CD/DVD discs. In DovidBenAvraham's own words: "Kissel describes them in two single-screen-line sentences", that is what this should be reduced to, at most.

As far as I can see, JzG knows what they are talking about.

Note: you pinged me, but did not notify me on my talkpage, as is requested at the top of this page (thanks Bbb23). --Dirk Beetstra 13:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I originally stated on the article's Talk page, Dirk Beetstra, that I was going to delete any mention of Editions. However I later discovered a problem, described by my friend as the 2004 Dantz-Development-originated "soak the presumed rich installations" pricing strategy. Because Dantz already had many tens of thousands of "poor installation" customers, EMC and Retrospect Inc. have continued to offer the US$120 Desktop Edition license—a bargain my friend and I take advantage of. All Edition licenses except the most expensive one come with a maximum number of "client" computers, while the Desktop Edition license—and only that license—gives you free "protection of Windows systems NTFS open files". So I left in a minimal two-line explanation of Editions. As for tape drive backup destinations, that feature—much less with barcoding—is so unusual for consumer backup applications that the 2019 Kissell Online Appendixes don't even have a column for it. Kissell does have a column for CD/DVD, but unaccountably left it blank on the Retrospect Desktop line; therefore I left in a specific mention of those two backup destination types. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham, again. I had a consumer tapedrive in my computer 20 years ago, in the time before DVD burning and large harddrives and memory cards and RAIDs were normal. You can buy those things, you know (though, are they still used?). My company archives email and network backs up my harddrive. I backup pictures from my iPad to the cloud. You base your comments on incorporation in a table (an erroneous table as you confess). Come now with a reputable secondary source that states that Retrospect is the only piece of software in the world that can do that on Macs and I will grant you a one-liner for that. But not 80% of the article on it. Dirk Beetstra 03:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

My basic question in this ANI, Dirk Beetstra, is where is this "only piece of software in the world that can do that on Macs" requirement stated as a Misplaced Pages rule? Nobody has been able to link to it, and I think it is a piece of editor folklore that is convenient for "interceptor pilot editors" trying to keep out "spam". You can't buy a modern tape drive for less than US$1500, because "By 2014 LTO had become the primary tape technology." AFAIK the only other Mac backup programs that can write to tape storage media are Tolis BRU and Archiware P5; both of these are substantially more expensive than Retrospect, and have tape capabilities because they're oriented towards media producers (you can't backup your two-hour movie to any available portable HDD). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: that has been pointed out to you, I challenge the point that these are features worth mentioning. You cannot show me that that feature is something 'special', it is commonplace, especially now you state to me "... the only other Mac backup programs that can write to tape storage media are Tolis BRU and Archiware P5", meaning that it is not unique (and there may still be more).

And there it is again .. "... both of these are substantially more expensive than Retrospect ...", again a promotional statement. Who cares that the others are more expensive, that is not encyclopedic. We are not a sales site or a price comparison site.  --Dirk Beetstra 08:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, It may be true that most other products will no longer write to tape, for much the same reason they don't write to Bernoulli drive or clay tablet. The only time I hear about tape in my professional life is in the context of how to get rid of it. I have a huge stack of legacy format drives and tapes in my graveyard of IT, including DLT and autoloaders, various LTO generations and even some Travan if I can find it! Guy (help!) 11:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Again? How many venues is this you've tried now? The fact that I used Retrospect (as I presume do you, given your zeal to pad this article out) has zero relevance. What, you think I had a bad experience and hate it? Nothing could be further from the truth. I loved it. I don't use it now because I'm not a twenty-something running branch office Mac networks, I am leading year-long migration programmes involving hyperconverged virtual infrastructure, Oracle appliances, AIX and such. I have worked with Retrospect, BackupExec, NetBackup, Tivoli, Networker, Veeam, CommVault, Crashplan, Mozy, Avamar - those are just the ones I remember. Guy (help!) 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Trout for DovidBenAvraham for what looks like a bad-faith ANI report and the accusations of vandalism (please take a moment to review what is and is not vandalism around here). JzG's actions look entirely reasonable to me and I agree with the citation of WP:NOTHOWTO (and would add WP:NOTCHANGELOG to the list of policies in play here); there's no need for detailed listing of product features unless they are the subject of significant third-party coverage. The mere mention of a feature, especially one which is standard in backup software, doesn't necessarily merit coverage (I'd suggest that WP:ROUTINE applies here). Further, whether or not JzG has used the product before is irrelevant, and your "smoking-gun confession" is nothing of the sort. NPOV would apply if JzG were trying to bash the product in the article or cherry-picking negative reviews, but I see no personal bias or POV in their actions. creffett (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

My "bad-faith ANI report", creffett, was based on my feeling that Guy must have antagonism to the Retrospect application to have used a 2003 pre-enterprise review as his only reference—quoted at length—to its features. He denies any antagonism, and in my current charitable mood I think that—distrusting TidBITS because he was too busy to discover it's not a blog (a question I have dealt with in a RSN topic archived here in my only other venue), Guy went back to the only publication he felt he could trust. So last night I felt justified in quoting the definition of WP:Vandalism, but I now think that I should WP:AGF on Guy's part. As for WP:NOTCHANGELOG, creffett, you'll find no changelog in my latest or earlier versions of the article; here and here are "Exhaustive logs of software updates" in the WP articles for competing enterprise client-server applications. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham, you probably have no idea how many people have tried to ram wads of spammy content into article based on the claim that because they argue a source is RS, so everything mentioned in that source should be in the article. You are violating MPOV. And WP:IDHT. And WP:STICK. And WP:NCR. Guy (help!) 22:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: block DovidBenAvraham as an inveterate and long-time timewaster

DovidBenAvraham, you have been arguing about the article Retrospect (software) and its sourcing for a number of years, I saw on your page. I noticed an interesting comment of yours from 2016, showing a basic misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's sourcing principles: apparently you believed then, as now though with more frills, that if there are no secondary sources, that means you're justified in basing an article on primary sources. "When I tried to enhance the article, I ran into the fact that there are no modern secondary sources other than one short Macworld review by Stuart Gripman" (your italics) "As I've said in my third paragraph above, I can't do much about the "Primary sources" issue because there essentially are no secondary sources." Your conclusion that you must use primary sources because there are no others is erroneous. The correct conclusion is that if there are no secondary, reliable, independent sources, Misplaced Pages shouldn't have an article about the subject either.

You were immediately told so by an IP user: "If no reliable and third-party sources exist for a subject, it should not usually have an article". But you don't seem to have heard it at that time, three years ago. You probably never clicked on their link; or if you did, you never wrapped your head round it. It's a very good "explanatory supplement" link. Try clicking on it now. Guy, speaking from his extremely long and wide Misplaced Pages experience, explained it to you more recently, after you had tried to explain the policy to us all on ANI. I congratulate Guy on his patience in responding to your long-time, long, repetitive, and bludgeoning insistence on your own views on our sourcing policies on many talkpages and noticeboards. I'm considering blocking you as a timewaster. Guy and Diannaa and the other people who have been trying for years to educate you about Misplaced Pages policy and practice should be freed to use their time better. What do people think? And, DBA, I have one question for you that I hope you will consider: why are your posts on talkpages and noticeboards so much longer than everybody else's? (As well as generally being more numerous than everybody else's.) Bishonen | talk 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC).

• As proposer, I support an indefinite block of DovidBenAvraham for wearing out the patience of the community. If this seems harsh, as a secondary proposal, I suggest limiting DBA's input on noticeboards and talkpages to something reasonable, because, currently, just reading all of it is exhausting. (I would not limit their article edits.) Say, no more than four posts in any 24-hour period, and no single post longer than 500 words. For comparison, their opening post in this ANI section is 1,222 words long. I mean four posts altogether anywhere, not four posts per individual page. Please say "Boo! Censorship!" below. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC).

• Boo! Censorship! A topic ban would be sufficient. But I am by now distinctly weary of this. As Bish notes, just reading it all is exhausting. And I say that as one who is notably prolix. Guy (help!) 18:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Changed tack. see below. Well, I'd also probably prefer a TB:but I acknowledge, what from? Just this article? Making accuastions of NPOV? Spamming and/or pushing their own demi-NPOV?! So I can see that a bock is just simpler. And a topic ban that is sufficiently complex that it consumes editors' and admins' time to the same degree that they did before they were Tbanned seems otiose.Long and the short of it, I guess ablock until DBA can demonstrate that they have read, understand and can work under the both the policies they have been repeatedly reminded of and that they cite (albeit mistakenly) themselves. ——SerialNumber54129 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• As a counterpoint to the verbosity of DBA: if ((wc -w DBA_talk_posting) >= 100) then DBA_talk_posting > /dev/null. Cabayi (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant to prevent any good-faith editor from contributing, but support block until DBA can show firm determination to stop wasting the time of other editors – see for example this thread, 26 posts totalling almost 40k, all because somebody made a mistake. I've no talent for succinctness myself, but here I'm reminded of Ogden Nash (or perhaps one of his imitators?) on Augustus John, something along the lines of: "Augustus John, goes on and on, and on and on, and on and on and on". It's not OK to do that here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Bish's secondary proposal; an indef is always an option. Miniapolis 22:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I guess that a topic ban from anything backup/archive related would be a good thing. Maybe learning how sourcing works on other articles maygive them the possibility to one time return to the subject that they do seem to know quite a bit about (if you know that there are no secondary sources ...). Some restriction as to how to communicate might be a good thing as well (drop the bolding and cut the length). --Dirk Beetstra 04:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nah, I support a block, still does not get it that 'but this is the cheapest piece of software that can do the trick' is not encyclopedic. Serious WP:IDHT or WP:CIR issues. --Dirk Beetstra 08:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block or backup-related topic ban per Bishonen's arguments. I don't think the secondary proposal is sufficient and it might be too complex to monitor. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support block so DBA can take some time to read up on our basic policies.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - At least unless he is willing to study Misplaced Pages policy and develop a stronger understanding of the rules. Accusing an editor of vandalism for what is, at most, a content dispute is already a personal attack; filing a lengthy ANI case in an attempt to win a content dispute goes beyond personal attacks and into the realm of forum-shopping or deliberate manipulation of the process. I would not support a sanction if he showed any signs of understanding why he is getting a backlash. But as written, he doesn't seem to get it IMHO and I think we will back here again and again. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block until some clue is obtained. Ordinarily I would suggest starting with a topic ban, but after reading this, it became clear that it's not the topic that's the problem. --Calton | Talk 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support block for the IDHT issues, also for personal attacks - accusations of vandalism and the statement But I feel merciful towards a sinner who has confessed don't engender a feeling of collegiality as far as I'm concerned. I'd support a TBAN but agree with SN54129 that the issue is too nebulous to effectively define a TBAN. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as written and Question This seems kind of harsh to me, though I'm not certain how often this user brings notices to ANI (if more than once every couple of days, then that's excessive, I'd say). What about an alternate proposal whereby an administrator, or a long-term editor, takes the user under their wing in a forced mentorship arrangement whereby the user in question is forced to read through the key editing policies and the escalation procedures? It seems to me that the user may not even be aware of article Talk pages, how to initiate an RfC, how to initiate an edit request, peer review, or some sort of process, so he just reverts edits instead of discussing them consistently (which is inconsistent with WP:BRD). This forced mentorship arrangement could, and perhaps should, be accompanied by a 30-day ban (provided such ban still allows for the editor in question to complete quizzes on the material covered in the policies) and a very stern, written warning from an administrator that continued recidivism will most likely result in an indefinite ban. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure your alternative suggestion is realistic, Doug Mehus. I do believe you'd have to force not just DBA, but also some admin/long-term editor, into the arrangement you describe. We probably don't pay them enough to do it willingly. Mentors are hard to come by, especially for such a Herculean task (quizzes? seriously?). Bishonen | talk 17:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC).
• @Dmehus: If anyone needs that level of overseeing, then surely there is an lack of understanding as to what we are actually doing here? ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: and @Serial Number 54129: Completely agree a willing admin or editor to mentor DBA will be hard to come by. I'm too busy at the moment with real-life things, but if you wanted to shorten the proposed indefinite ban to, say, 6 months, I'd be willing to take DBA under my wing for, say, 30-60 days, following the conclusion of his shortened (albeit not insignificant) 6 month ban. I see potential with him, and the key policy for him to review seems to be WP:CIR, as well as WP:BRD and other policies previously cited. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: ^^^Does you credit. But remember indefinite does not mean forever (or whatever it is, I paraphrased): DBA's block would actually expire the moment he could convincingly demonstrate understading and appicability, etc., of policy—which could, theoretically, take a week. And, less theoretically, could certainly take less than six months. ——SerialNumber54129 18:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus - I really like your idea as an alternative approach. DBA has been around for 3-4 years, so he really should have been able to pick up some of the norms around civility within this time. His willingness to try and set up another user with a bogus vandalism charge and his view that editors who disagree with him are 'sinners' is really worrisome for an experienced user who should know better. However, if he's willing to turn over a new leaf and participate in a mentoring program in good faith then that would change my impression of him. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

38.142.216.106 Thanks. And, for clarity, the 6-month proposed ban could be shortened pending a willing admin/editor being willing to take DBA under a 30-60 day forced mentorship arrangement sooner, and, of course, I'd be willing to take over as assuming mentor at the 6 month mark (from today). Speaking to a larger issue, I think a lot of these incidents, edit warring, repeatedly going to ANI and such stems from a fundamental breakdown in our new member welcoming committee protocols and we might want to raise some sort of revised protocol to help try and stem off these sort of problems. Skimming through some of the linked correspondence, at the root, I see DBA as cordial and complimentary in his replies to other editors and admins (the copyvio ANI thread, for instance). So, I think he's fundamentally a good person, but the problem stems from a lack of understanding of escalation techniques and to policies. He may not even know about DR, the Teahouse, or even the Village Pump. He may not know about RfCs and how they can help promote an Edit talk page discussion. All of this could be solved with a mentor, who could also tell DBA to "stick to the facts" in any future ANI incidents he raises. We don't need a 3-page, single-spaced exhaustive treatise, but rather just the key facts; sentence fragments are fine. (And yes, I realize the irony of me reminding DBA of the need for verbosity.) Doug Mehus (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Less verbosity, surely? Cabayi (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi, Where did I say less verbosity? I'll correct immediately as I meant more. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I am no longer sure that this mentorship would be a good idea... ;) 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Changing from "Vague moan regarding DBA's behavoir" to "WTF isn't this guy blocked already?!" This discussion has being going on some days, and DBA has had examples of his spamming / COI / PoV—whichever it was at the time—raised mutlipe times, but does he stop? No, and more to the point, he continues with the same behavior even now, as JzG's link shows. This is no longer in the realms of "all he needs t do is convince us, etc"—we're now in deep WP:IDHT territory, and that pretty much precludes the liklihood of a basic reading of policy being sufficient.In other news, can an uninvolved admin wrap this up? a) much of the discussion has become generalised rather than focussed on the original question, and b) since the behaviour that caused the thrad is on-going, the question is one of policy. Cheers, ——SN54129 17:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. I'm too exhausted after reading through all of this to be verbose, so I'll just say I'm also of the "WTF hasn't this guy been blocked yet. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block; Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a sales flyer. - Tom | Thomas.W 21:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision to Alternate Proposal Above: As I thought more about sussing out my alternate proposal above, following initial favourable reception from 38.142.216.106, what about this...assuming we can impose bans on editing in specific namespaces,

1. an indefinite Main namespace ban on DBA, for which the closing admin would note key policies for DBA to read up on, absorb, and self-quiz himself (WP:CIR, WP:BRD, and other policies cited above). This would still allow DBA to contribute productively via relevant article Talk pages using "edit requests" (even though normally used for WP:COI, a special case can be made for having another editor review his proposed edits for WP:RS, WP:NPOV, citations, etc.), peer review, and RfCs; and
2. a prohibition, if not an indefinite topic ban on WP:ANI, as this would force DBA to resolve his disputes through WP:DR, mentorships, and The Teahouse. If he received threats to his personal security, there is always the option of him e-mailing the Wikimedia e-mail address for such matters. Similarly, if the DR mediator felt he had a legitimate case for an ANI issue, DBA could raise the ANI issue through the mediator. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Legitimate question for DovidBenAvraham: Looking in to Retrospect (software), this seems like an innocuous macOS backup software. What's your personal fascination, if any, with this software article? (Sorry, didn't read the whole case and prior case(s), if any.) Doug Mehus (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've used Retrospect for multiple machines (Macs plus a job-mandated Windows 95 desktop) on my home LAN since 1995, except for 2010-2015 after my ancient "backup server" died of old age. I have no connection with the developers; I've always personally paid for my licenses. I want the developers to sell enough licenses to stay in business, but their business model of charging extra for "server OS" licenses has broken down because almost everybody uses Linux-based servers now—which IMHO is why they chose to be acquired in June. I'm also fascinated that most of the developers have worked on the product for 25 years and keep devising new features (although their beta testing capability hasn't improved since 2009). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(I've added this paragraph after Doug Mehus responded, because it doesn't affect his response—and I should have included it in the paragraph directly above.) There's another important reason why I want to promote Retrospect, which I freely admit I want to do within the limits of documented (see my comment below) Misplaced Pages rules. This table of consumer-oriented Macintosh backup applications shows that Retrospect is the only one with true client-server capability. IMHO that's vital for SMEs, in which I expand the definition of "enterprise" to include governmental and other non-profit organizations (hospitals and local libraries). Those organizations are being hit by ransomware, and they're frequently badly hurt because they haven't been doing management-enforced backup of their individual computers. The problem with doing that using consumer-oriented near-CDP backup applications is that each user's computer is attempting to back up without any coordination with any other user's computer, and that generally means the backup destination HDD device is overloaded if more than a dozen users' computers are backing up simultaneously. The long-time-known solution is scripted client-server backup, but Retrospect is the only application that is both cheap enough and simple-enough to do that without the aid of an expensive IT professional such as Guy. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: (Response to David's second paragraph added following my initial replies to his first paragraph that follow this reply.) This seems reasonable, but, not being an expert in this area, I'm wondering if—as an alternative to adding such details to Retrospect (software)—this could be forked off as a sub-page of that page or as a related content fork? I don't know what such a page would be called, but perhaps it could be named as Retrospect (software)/Name of sub-page or as Name of content fork of Retrospect (software). Do you see what I'm saying? Also, do you know JzG (Guy) is an IT professional? Assuming you do, just friendly "bro tip" from editor to another, we need to mindful of not WP:OUTING other editors. You haven't named his last name, which is good, but if he hasn't named his profession on his userpage or elsewhere, then you've outed his profession. At the same time, when you add the subjective adjective "expensive," it can be construed in a pejorative (negative) way. I assume good faith in that this isn't what you intended, but other editors will not necessarily be so charitable, especially if they see apparent habitual use of such language. Contracting an IT professional is usually costly, but like in our editing, in our interactions with other editors, we need to try and maintain a neutral point of view and be objective. This isn't always possible, in heated discussions (i.e., at AfDs), but we should save our criticisms for other's arguments and not try bring a personal element to it. Ping me, and Guy, if something like this is workable. --Doug Mehus (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: To alleviate the outing concerns, I think that's DovidBenAvraham's inference from what Guy said above in this and this edit. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Okay, yeah, that all looks good—it's pretty clear he acknowledged his occupation by those edits. I'd intended my comment to @DovidBenAvraham: to be more of a "teachable moment" for the future anyway as it was a pretty mild case of outing, if it were that. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the place for this is Wikibooks. He wants a ridiculous level of detail about features and enablements that are completely generic. This is a very small player in the market and we shouldn't include that level of detail even for major players. I am also concerned that DBA seems to be rewriting the central article on backup software when he has virtually no knowledge of anything other than this one product. That feels like someone rewriting the article on relational database management systems when they have only ever used FileMaker Pro. It would be better for someone who has never used anything, because these niche products skew your view of what the market looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 9:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG Yeah, I tend to agree, but was just thinking on if there might've been an opportunity for a spinoff article on Retrospect (software)'s features. A "how-to" manual or exhaustive product review analysis tends to favour Wikibooks more. In terms of DBA's questioned expertise, I tend to agree with you here, but in the spirit of collegiality, I'm wondering if, perhaps, an indefinite limited topic ban (perhaps following a short term Main namespace ban while David reviews and absorbs the noted policies in this thread—to the extent it's still a discussion thread and not a book in itself) whereby DBA would still be able to propose edits through Peer Review or RfC and you primarily (as well as editors) could provide him with brief but useful guidance on why the edits would be rejected, need to be cut, or otherwise modified? I know for myself, given my lack of expertise in this area, I would probably limit myself to performing minor grammatical fixes, citation adds, and infobox updates, and would discuss proposed ideas on the Talk page. I think we should encourage DBA to do the same. That's not to diminish in any way DBA's abilities or competence, but just a matter of saying, "hey, this is a complicated topic, let's get some outside experts to weigh on your proposed edit(s). Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, no, a spin-off would just be a SPAMFORK. This belongs, IMO, at Wikibooks, where I think it would be perfectly fine. Sure, there is similar content in some other articles. We should nuke it there too. Meanwhile we got yet more pormotional text today: - including claims of novelty sourced to a patent (a canonical primary source). I just don't think DBA knows how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Guy (help!) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Fair point. I do tend to agree with you here, "I just don't think DBA knows how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work." In fairness, he is not alone in this thinking, sadly, by the number of people who dispute AfDs on non-notable companies. To me, this lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages's core purpose and to its main policies (especially WP:CIR and WP:BRD) is the main problem here, and the reason I know support an indefinite ban (preferable Main namespace ban, so he can still propose edits through WP:RFC and WP:PEERREVIEW via Talk pages...or would he still be able to do this with a blanket indefinite ban?)Doug Mehus (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Humourous aside: Can we spin-off this ANI into multiple threads per WP:ARTICLELENGTH? ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: Thank you for that response. You seem quite knowledgeable on the subject, and you're generally quite well written, David, I have to say. I admit, I haven't read all the ins-and-outs of this editing dispute, but what what I did manage to glean is that in a Talk page, Guy, recommended for you to use your writing skills and write more detailed content over at Wikibooks. That seemed like a reasonable approach because you have to remember that encyclopedias, as Misplaced Pages notionally is, aren't meant to be detailed treatises on every possible topic. Some topics will be longer than others, but if they get too long, we need to refashion things and split things off. There's a Misplaced Pages policy, can't remember which one, or possibly an editing tag, that reminds editors not to focus on such nuanced details, minutiae, and the like that would only appeal to a narrow, niche audience. That sort of thing belongs in the scholarly journals, trade publications, and, yes, even Wikibooks. Heck, you might even be able to have a named byline/attribution over at Wikibooks. Do you think this could be a reasonable approach?

At the same time, in your editing, while bold moves are encouraged, when an edit is challenged, we're supposed to revert and discuss, in the talk page. I know sometimes talk page discussions languish unanswered, but there's a tool called RfC whereby you apply an RfC tag atop your talk page discussion, and a bot will invite editors to participate in your discussion. There are also other tools, like WP:EDITREQUEST and WP:PEERREVIEW that you can use. Do you think you can work really hard to adopting this approach? You're obviously well written, well spoken, and quite knowledgeable, who has a high intellectual capacity and incredible potential. I just can't stress how serious this is, and, it seems to me, that you're within a CH (maybe two) of facing an indefinite block to force an editing behavioural change. I really don't want to see this happen. If you would like to discuss this off Misplaced Pages, I'm willing to guide you, to the extent I have available time, but you may have to be patient for replies. If you want, reach out to me via LinkedIn. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, Guy explicitly outed himself (I assume from his "handle" that he's male) as an IT professional in his 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC) comment in the section of which this is a subsection]—although he had given strong hints of it in previous comments. I have no idea of his last name (I don't even know if "Guy" is his real first name), and I wouldn't disclose it if I did. I'm quite sure from what Guy wrote in that comment that he is worth every penny, but anybody who can work with Backup Exec and NetBackup is IME likely to be highly paid—because those client-server backup applications have large-enterprise features that aren't needed by mere SMEs.

Second, let me respond in one comment to the basic "block DovidBenAvraham ..." topic. The tl:dr version is I need a mentor for about 3 hours, during which he/she will spend most of the time refining the answer to one simple question: Based on any article links the mentor can provide, is there a written Misplaced Pages policy that says articles about application software can only mention features that are unique to that particular application? If it exists I've proven overnight that I am willing to comply with it; I remembered a unique feature of Retrospect, and I slightly-adapted a long-existing Features paragraph covering it into the fourth paragraph of the article lead.

If you skim this section of the article's Talk page, you'll see that Guy and Dirk Beetstra steadfastly evaded my repeated posing of the question in the preceding paragraph. They responded instead with links to other WP articles about editing, in the course of which Guy implicitly called me names such as "monomaniacal" and "proprietor of a Single-Purpose Account" and "writer of a How-To guide". Frankly I think their evasion is because that written WP policy doesn't actually exist. The charitable explanation of why they are nevertheless citing it is that "interceptor pilot editors", who do dozens or hundreds of edits a day, think it would save a lot of time in their unceasing battle against "bomber pilot editors"—some of whom (like me) tend to write articles that have at least promotional intent even if they don't violate written policy. If I'm correct about its non-existence, my mentor will have to spend considerably more than 3 hours writing that policy and getting it approved.

As for my filing the subsuming-section's ANI, I did so in desperation only because on 26 October 2019 Guy filed this (archived) Miscellany for deletion of my Sandbox. What motivated him to do so was my unimaginatively having put a diff of the then-current and my proposed new version of the article into the article's Talk page. Guy's expressed reason was because it's "where this user has been padding the article and pushing back against all attempts to prune it back to something less like an advertisement for months". That sounded to me like attempted sabotage, which is one reason I cited WP:Vandalism in the ANI. The only excuse I can think of for Guy's doing that is his frustration that he has been unable to convince me—which IMHO he should re-direct into getting the "only unique features" policy written and approved.

As for an RfC, I did one 6 months ago to deal with Pi314m's un-discussed merging-then-deleting of related articles into the Backup article. The result was a very-temporary promise on his part not to redo it if I split that article, but IMHO Pi314m only made that promise because I also filed an (unsuccessful due to my lack of experience) ANI (because he's done un-discussed merging-then-deleting into other articles every January for the last 3 years, violating a written WP rule)—and I think that scared him. Since my inescapable first RfC requirement would be "show me the written 'only unique features' policy", I don't think that would achieve any result. Moreover (in the wake of a fairly successful RfC that got me to cut the article from 7 screen-pages to 4 screen-pages two years ago) I filed an RfC 1.5 years ago, only to have it immediately turned down because there was a third editor involved—and Dirk would count as a third editor in this case. In short, IMHO I already know enough about WP alternate options for conflict resolution not to need a mentor for that, but thanks to Doug Mehus for his offer. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to keep away from the entire area of backup software. This edit, for example, uses a niche book on backing up small MacOS X networks by TidBITS, an equally niche Mac specialist publisher, to make generalised statements about backup. You seem to seriously misunderstand your level of expertise. You're backing up a SOHO network, but writing as if you're an expert on enterprise data protection. You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope on this. You also replaced a not-terribly-good generic secondary source with a much worse primary source about a specific filesystem, NILFS. I presume you use that also? Sourceforge pages are not approrpiate for generic statements like that. "Products like X do Y, source, the SourceForge page for X where it says it does Y" is never appropriate even when X is a major player.

Your comments about Beetstra and me are blatant WP:SEALIONING. Every word you write is predicated on the assumption that you are right and everyone who challenges you is therefore wrong. You have a total of 2,500 edits, mainly related either to this or to an article where you admit a WP:COI and which you created. You literally wrote an article on the person whose publication company you now state you run. Your email address is at the same domain as the official website. Guy (help!) 09:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Another data point: you created a section in Backup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) called "automated data grooming". I can only find one reference that uses that term other than specifically in respect of Restrospect. No other product calls it that. You have the illusion that your experience is generic. It isn't. Guy (help!) 10:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: Are you sure you don't mean WP:3O instead of WP:RFC? Third opinion requests require that only two editors have been involved, whereas RFCs do not. I think this kind of misquoting and misunderstanding WP policies and dispute resolution methods is precisely why the issues and the need for mentorship extends beyond just your persistent focus on the non-existence of a "unique features only" policy (which by the way completely misses the point - discussion and consensus are critical when there is no explicit policy against some particular content or conduct). — MarkH21 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Some analysis

From DovidBenAvraham's edit count, he has 1,427 main space edits.

• 575 to Retrospect (software)
• 340 to Backup, in many cases presenting an idiosyncratic point of view founded on his use of a niche product in SOHO networks.
• 251 (including creation in August 2015) to Ronny Lee, where he has a COI which was declared in September 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:DovidBenAvraham&action=history) - I assume that 71.183.27.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also DBA based on , which would add another 50 or so to this number.
• 198 total to various articles relating to backup / Retrospect
• 20 to Daniel Hertzberg

DBA admits to being CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, the website he links says it is run by David Hertzberg. WHOIS for ronnylee.com: , DBA's company website according to his user page - registrar David Hertzberg. Hertzberg is a reasonably common name but that's still a bit striking considering that DBA is personally involved in every other topic he edits.

So that's 17.6% admitted COI, 79.2% related to retrospect and backup, and 3.2% to other topics. Based on this, he is lecturing people with hundreds of thousands of edits to tens of thousands of articles on the correct interpretation of policy. I now think a TBAN would be a waste of time, and we should just politely show him the door. Guy (help!) 11:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I want to point out that he is lecturing people with hundreds of thousands of edits to tens of thousands of articles on the correct interpretation of policy is a dangerous thing to say. I get what you mean and I think that the preceding edit breakdown is valid, but implications based on edit count are improper. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG and MarkH21 As long as DBA remained objective and neutral in his edits of Ronny Lee, I'm less concerned with this than I am with his apparent over-confidence in his level of knowledge and to his admitted not understanding of the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I think an indefinite Main namespace ban would be in order, until such time as he reviews and absorbs the applicable policies cited in this thread treatise. After which, this would be converted to an indefinite limited topic ban on Retrospect (software), whereby his editing contributions would be welcomed, albeit indirectly, through WP:RFC, WP:PEERREVIEW, and/or WP:3O, as applicable. (And I'm quite a patient guy, but, not having reviewed everything in the preceding months and years, it's clear something needs to be done, so long as this ban will be curtailed the moment DBA acknowledges his shortcomings, understands both Misplaced Pages's purpose and its policies, and agrees to modify his interactions with editors.) Doug Mehus (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a legitimate criticism. A user whose limited experience of Misplaced Pages is mainly COI and inserting an idiosyncratic POV is not well equipped to lecture others on policy. Guy (help!) 11:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Doug Mehus, I will restate that I have greater faith in the benefits of an indefinite (not infinite) block than in any of the rather complicated solutions you propose, including overhauling our "new member welcoming committee protocols", etc. There's a concrete problem to be solved. I congratulate you on the amount of good faith you're able to assume; I too, and probably most people here, believe DBA means well; but I don't share your optimism about changing his bad habits simply by pointing them out. That's been tried, a lot, and for a long time. In this discussion I see so far six seven people supporting a block, two one supporting lesser sanctions (topic ban or prolixity sanction), and a couple supporting either block or topic ban. (I've changed the figures because Guy recently went to supporting a block rather than a topic ban.) (Cabayi would have to use more words for people like me to get what they do support.) So it looks right now like your proposal will probably become moot. And frankly, that proposal seems more likely to work for a newbie without DBA's Misplaced Pages history, IMO. It looks a bit as if you do take him for a newbie, with your (mistaken) guess that he might not know what RfC's etc are; you acknowledge not having studied his history. I know doing that is a bore, but you probably need to, before making such far-reaching offers of your own time and effort to help him. Anyway, I suppose you may be less inclined for these offers now that you can see his response to them, especially where he repeats yet again his request for an impossible level of detail creep in our policies: "The tl:dr version is I need a mentor for about 3 hours, during which he/she will spend most of the time refining the answer to one simple question: Based on any article links the mentor can provide, is there a written Misplaced Pages policy that says articles about application software can only mention features that are unique to that particular application?" Original bolding. In my ears, that, the essence of which he has repeated so frequently, says a lot about his attitude and about the reasons people agree above that a block is needed. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

• What is any attempt to link an editor to an IP address doing on a public WP page, per WP:OUTING?

If Retrospect is a notable topic, then it's notable whoever wrote it and we should keep it. If it isn't, then delete it, per usual. But COI has a vanishingly small involvement in WP:N, at least for how we try to objectively measure that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley Was this directed to me, or just an open question? I didn't question Retrospect's notability, and I didn't suggest linking an editor to a public IP as outing.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the perennial gadfly appears. Nobody is suggesting deleting the article on Retrospect. It is notable, but minor. Thanks for dropping y, though. Guy (help!) 16:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG I can't make heads or tails of the end of your comment as to Andy Dingley's dropping of the letter y. Only thing I can think of is that it should be by?--Doug Mehus (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Gee whiz. All that work by Guy researching my past edits, that could instead have been devoted to finding the written Misplaced Pages policy article stating the "only mention unique features of software" rule. I take that performance as a roundabout admission that the policy article doesn't exist, and that the policy as of right now is only "interceptor pilot editor" folklore. Why doesn't Guy write that policy article from scratch, or edit an existing policy article, and get it approved? He'll have a tough time phrasing that article so that the policy doesn't apply to OSes such as Windows and macOS and Linux. He'll also need to put in some kind of "grandfather clause", so that the policy doesn't apply to big-ticket enterprise client-server backup applications that he has used—such as Backup Exec (35 first-party out of 49 features mentions, by my rough count) and NetBackup (13 first-party out of 38 features mentions, by my rough count). My reading of the articles, for the purpose of putting in some links to the Enterprise client-server backup article, indicates many of the mentioned features are in fact identical to competitor features—and to features whose mention Guy has deleted from my former version of Retrospect article.

As far as alleged COI is concerned: I wrote the Ronny Lee article starting 4 months after he died in 2015, which was the day after my last visit to him in the hospital. The edits that have an IP address instead of my "handle" are because the Misplaced Pages article was my first one. Ronny Lee Publications didn't make money in 2015, barely did in 2016, and didn't in 2017 or 2018. The years it didn't make money were years in which I had to reprint some of Ronny's guitar method books; I keep the business going only because there is a small continuing demand for them. The edits to the Daniel Hertzberg article were corrections he—a close family member—requested because whoever wrote the article was no longer available; I initially told him I couldn't do the edits, and I guess I shouldn't have changed my mind. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham I like you, you have enthusiasm, show genuine interest in improving Misplaced Pages articles—albeit the plural use of articles may be stretching it a bit—but, not being an expert in this area, I tend to agree with JzG here that your proposed edits are too detailed. Misplaced Pages has lots of policies, to be sure, but there is not a written policy for every edit action on every type of article, let alone every article. Thus, some inferences are required. I can refer you to WP:HTRIVIA, which states that, while welcomed, such trivial details that are only of interested to a narrow (or supposedly narrow) section of the population usually do not matter. For instance, while interesting to me, I would not add an exhaustive section on the capital adequacy of Scotiabank and its evolution over time. I really think you should consider writing about, in detail, Retrospect (software) over at Wikibooks. If you ask Guy nicely, I'm sure he might even peer review and/or recommend your wikibook in the event it was ever nominated for deletion. I see potential for the two of you to working together, in a mentor/protegé relationship, as there's obviously a shared topical interest, but I think you've got to remove your self-affirming biases, if I may be so blunt. I'm certainly willing to help you, where I can. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham As far as WP:COI, see my comments above. I am not very concerned about this, so long as you remained objective in your edits and you have disclosed the conflict on your userpage. My bigger concern is whether you understand Misplaced Pages's central purpose and whether you can drop your self-affirming biases.Doug Mehus (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• @DovidBenAvraham: I haven't read all of this and won't offer any opinion on any sanctions proposal, but I just want to try to explain one thing. You appear to be seeking "a written Misplaced Pages policy that says articles about application software can only mention features that are unique to that particular application". But Misplaced Pages does not, and can not, work like that. It is just not possible to prescribe precisely what specific details can be added to every single possible article subject. Instead, in most cases policies and guidelines regarding what is appropriate to promotion, levels of detail, encyclopedic content, etc are more generalised. When there's a disagreement whether something constitutes promotion (or unencylopedic detail or whatever), it is decided by consensus guided by policies and guidelines. In fact, those policies and guidelines are decided by consensus in the first place. So if you want to include something in an article, and in that specific situation the consensus is against you, then it is incorrect to include it, simply because consensus is the ultimate decider. There doesn't need to be a specific prohibition against a specific kind of information in a specific class of article. That's just how it works - hope it helps. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Promotion

Above, User:DovidBenAvraham wrote, There's another important reason why I want to promote Retrospect...

That statement ALONE should see him immediately blocked for trying to use Misplaced Pages for selling, and his appending ...which I freely admit I want to do within the limits of documented...Misplaced Pages rules simply means that he is hunting for loopholes to enable him to continue using Misplaced Pages for his free advertising. --Calton | Talk 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Calton: and @Bishonen: Yes, that was the statement that I had to read twice when I read DovidBenAvraham's reply to me. David, I think there might be a complete misunderstanding in what Misplaced Pages is not. To your credit, you are not alone in this thinking—I've argued with other editors at AfD that strive to protect long-standing companies and organizations that fail WP:NCORP and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, thinking every company needs a Misplaced Pages page. Misplaced Pages is not a value-added SEO service for companies...full stop. Your intent is good and, to be honest, I'm less concerned with conflict of interest concerns with respect to Ronny Lee so long as you remained objective and neutral in your edits. In fact, that's probably a red herring in this whole discussion. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that you appear (a) to be over-confident in your expertise on relational database software intricacies and (b) to misunderstand the whole purpose of Misplaced Pages. You will be pleased to to hear that I disagree, to a degree, that Misplaced Pages editors should be focused on more than a single article or particular area—indeed, many of my edits have been in Canadian financial services companies and Canadian radio stations; however, your level of interest in Retrospect (software) and your comment about needing a mentor for all of three hours does, to me, show an unwillingness to heed suggestions and work cooperatively. Thus, I do think that an indefinite Main namespace ban is in order until you agree to refrain from editing Retrospect (software) without using WP:RFC, WP:PEERREVIEW, and/or WP:3O. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Abusive language and threats

I have no idea how to handle this. Someone is posting the most vile accusations and threats in a talk page. I’d like assistance please. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Special_Task_Force_(SAPS)

My advice to you, BoonDock, would be not to engage in conversations like that in the first place. The IP editor is not making a suggestion about how to improve the article, just soapboxing - the best thing to do would have been to remove their comment with an edit summary along the lines of 'Remove soapboxing; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article'. As for now, I'd advise you to disengage and apply WP:DENY - just ignore them. I'll remove the thread now, and warn the IP. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you BoonDock (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM too is grounds for instant removal. Which sounds a little Judge Dredd, but you get the gist. ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

True - that's another classic. Favonian has also blocked for 48 hours for the PAs, I've removed the thread - I think we're done. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

Special:Contributions/70.115.139.248

Disgruntled IP using foul and unnecessary language across the talk page

Special:MobileDiff/923248193 Special:MobileDiff/923248545

There's more. Its the only thing the IP has done is respond to every talk subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed these unconstructive comments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jamesmiko being disruptive on NHL and NBA userboxes

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

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

I want to report Jamesmiko who is being WP:TENDENTIOUS (both edit warring and disruptive editing) on NHL, NBA and NFL userboxes (see his recent edit history). I recently reported him at WP:AN/EW, but no action was taken. Therefore, I am taking the matter here. I standardized the NHL (all of them), NBA (began doing it, but due to lack of free time stopped) and NFL (same reason as NBA) userboxes in 2018. However, Jamesmiko started reverting the changes once in a while and has now been doing it constantly (for about the last two weeks). He ignored my every attempt to try and work it out (he either ignored my messages or wrote that I did not have any authority to issue any warnings or make changes). The user in question states that, because he created many userboxes, he can do whatever he likes with them and by the looks of it – that is a case of WP:OWNER and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He also added that if I wanted to make a change then I had to do it for all the userboxes and I do not have time nor I am interested in most of them. His messages can be seen at User talk:Sabbatino#Userboxes. Going back to the issue, I made the changes according to MOS:ACCESS (specifically MOS:COLOR) and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR so it would comply with these policies. For example, his version and my MOS-compliant version (the page has already been protected due to disruptive edits by Jamesmiko). The changes were also made according to coloring schemes used in teams' infoboxes' titles, template, etc., but Jamesmiko for some reason thinks that "the more colors, the better". Jamesmiko just reverts either citing "consistency" or saying that no policies apply to the userboxes, or does not use the edit summary at all. In addition, by reverting to his preferred version, he reinstates wrong abbreviations for some teams, uses unverifiable color codes, and reintroduces non existent categories. This has been going on for far too long and it is evident that the user is being WP:POINTy by trying to show that nobody else can make changes except him. I am looking forward in dealing with this situation. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sabatino only edits the userboxes of teams s/he supports. As far as the designs I made a few years ago, most of the users who use them appreciate the format I used. There are a couple of other users who understand the template pattern, and I rarely alter their designs. Sabatino is not one of them, as s/he comes in to destroy these userboxes based on nothing other than "I can't see." Templates should not be subject to emotional responses. The userboxes in this format best demonstrate each teams' branding. Yes, they are meant to be colorful and to use the entire template of the teams' official colors. The purpose of userboxes is not the same as the purpose of articles. The colors I use are taken from official team websites and media guides; they are not random. I use two eyedropper programs to sample the real team colors. However, Sabatino's color choices are random and seem to be wild guesses at the color code. For example, the color codes on the Pittsburgh Pirates website are #000000 and #FDB827. Oftentimes, users edit the userboxes with their assumptions of team colors, which are often demonstrably wrong. There are also times when users insert pictures that do violate userbox guidelines. There is nothing in WP:Access which says every single letter must be readable, as the team names are intentionally the part left to be readable. Sabatino also uses completely random team abbreviations, based on opinion. However, the ones I use come from the official league websites and ESPN tickers. For example, when one watches ESPN, they see "TB" as the official abbreviation for the Tampa Bay Lightning, not "TBL". Sabatino is actually the disruptive user, as I am interested in preserving the integrity of the original userbox designs. Besides, there are plenty of websites which use color-on-color which still fit ADA compliance guidelines. Compliance isn't restricted to white on color, which Sabatino seems to assume. S/he is uses their own personal interpretation of WP:Access and ADA compliance, which is demonstrably and categorically false. James Miko (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

When I see article history like this and this, I'm really tempted to block both of you. Maybe you don't cross the WP:3RR rule in a 24 hour period, but it is still edit warring and disruptive editing and it's going to stop one way or another. These aren't even articles - they're userboxes for goodness sake. I suggest that the two of you find a way to work it out. We don't really do content here, WP:ANI is primarily for behavior problems - and I'm looking at a couple right now. Go have a WP:RfC on one of the talk pages, get others involved, find a consensus, and learn to live with it. — Ched (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a matter of editor interpretation, it's a question of empirical evidence. There's online tools available to test color combinations as to whether or not they meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Plug foreground color #ED174C and background color #006BB6 into this contrast checker and you will see that combination fails both WCAG AA and WCAG AAA, even when using large text. Snook's tool also shows this combination as failing web contrast accessibility guidelines even at 18pt+. In this version User:UBX/NBA-Clippers, the red letters will be invisible to people who are vision impaired or color blind. I can hardly see them myself.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: I do not make up color codes. They come from the teams' sources. Therefore, stop accusing me of wrongdoings. While you, for some reason, just invent color codes. So stop saying that you are using official codes. Just look at LA Clippers Reproduction Guideline Sheet. Where are the color codes that you imply on using in this version? Every NBA code is taken from the teams' "Reproduction Guideline Sheet" files. Same goes for NFL. Meanwhile, the NHL color codes are taken directly from the teams' page sources (click "View page source" to see them). No program or tool, which you are using, can be more accurate than official teams' sources. So just stop. Regarding the abbreviations, all of the come from the NHL, NBA and NFL official sources (websites, media guides, playbooks, etc). Just because ESPN or any other unofficial website uses whatever abbreviations they like does not mean that they are correct. And finally, I do not "use own personal interpretation of WP:Access and ADA compliance" as I am following those policies unlike you. I want to also add, that non existent categories are reintroduced when the navboxes are reverted to non MOS-compliant versions.– Sabbatino (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what Sabatino wrote: "I will act in bad faith and will restore the MOS-compliant versions and I do not really care if I get banned, because it is you who started it." This was his/her intent all along. The userbox patterns were a product of earlier consensus between myself and other users. The issue is between accurately representing a team's brand vs. ADA compliance. However, the ADA compliance is coming at the cost of using false color codes that are wild guesses at team colors. The accurate team colors may be found by "eyedropping" on team websites and media guides. Also, ADA compliance doesn't require every single word to be white on a color background. There is no way to agree to disagree on this issue. A design must be chosen, which is hard to do when users have unequivocal access to edit. I frankly cannot accept Sabatino's designs because they fail to represent team branding. If you go to a team's website, they meet the legal ADA requirement with color arrangements similar to the existing userbox patterns. There is no real issue, but an assumed one based personal preference and a poor interpretation of ADA compliance. Also, because userboxes are limited in size, they don't meet ADA compliance for letter size or font, anyway.

Instead of blocking anyone, how about establishing consensus on a design? Everyone wants to go immediately to making threats, which only blocks communication. I never started this edit warring, but I'm not going to let it go, either. Sabatino is a "johnny come lately" on this userbox design, which have existed in their current state for several years. Futhermore, s/he doesn't even edit them all, only ones s/he is interested in. The boxes should have team colors and formal abbreviations, not randomly chosen ones. James Miko (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Userboxes#Userbox colours; perhaps discussion can be held there? isaacl (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: When I wrote "I will act in bad faith and will restore the MOS-compliant versions and I do not really care if I get banned, because it is you who started it.", that was a means of indimidation, because some users (you included) just do not understand some things in a civil manner. The fact that I wrote here just shows that I was not gonna do what I wrote so stop crying like a little kid. "The userbox patterns were a product of earlier consensus between myself and other users." – when I asked you to show it, you failed to do that or you deliberately did not provide of what you were asked for. Regarding the colors, I already wrote in a reply above about them so I will not repeat myself. "I frankly cannot accept Sabatino's designs because they fail to represent team branding." – this is a clear case of WP:OWNER and WP:IDONTLIKEIT so there is nothing more to say to this. You suddenly want a consensus when I took the matter here. So why you ignored my attempts to discuss it earlier? You thought that you are untouchable? No, you are not. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The emotional outburst is amusing, to say the least. I was referring to a consensus that already existed, which you choose not to recognize. James Miko (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The two of you are going to end up blocked if you keep bickering and edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: What consensus? This is the fifth or sixth time I am asking you to show the discussion/discussions that would show the consensus, but you do not show it at all. So I am asking again – where is/are the discussion/discussions? – Sabbatino (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note to admins: Jamesmiko wrote on my talk page that his edits are superior to mine (and I assume everyone else's). The same song is being repeated regarding colors, abbreviations, etc. (I already wrote everything in my reply in this discussion). In addition, I am being accused of being the disruptor, while the reported user has been restoring his version ignoring my attempts to discuss it. Additionaly, the revert has again been made at User:UBX/NBA-Grizzlies without any edit summary, which means that the reported user is openly using Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive personal attacks on me

User:Elizium23 has been doing repetitive personal attacks on me and accusing me of bad faith. We have been involved in conflict and I has pinged several editors for third opinion and to came on conclusion but the user went for personal attacks.

1. It started on the talk page of Weeping crucifix in Mumbai. In this section, he accused me twice for WP:OWNing when I objected his synthesis in the article and asked for synthesis in RS. I didn't show any of the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR in the article and didn't stop anybody to making changes. He never showed differences for accusation.
2. When I said about what is written in RS then he said that only this can be good explanation, this can't be and used word absurd twice. After it, he capitalised word 'YOU' and again started personal attacks.
3. The same editor accused me of accusing him for bad faith on even noticeboard when discussion about the topic was going on and later told that you get yourself blocked.
4. I generally issue caution or warning after removing content and it is my habit to notify concerned editors. One can trace my all changes which I reverted or removed then I give explanation on user's talk page. When I did it on the talk page of ELizium23 then he called Your DYK sucks and get over it in both diff and edit summary.
5. Suddenly after it, he came on my talk page and attacked me for bad faith by WP:AOBF and without any differences. He even called me that I am kneejerk reverting his edits but in fact, I edited only few in which there was high Christian POV (I can assume it from disclosure of his COI) and I did it too with summary and replying on talk page.

These type of repetitive personal attacks and vituperative mudslinging are harming my presence on the Misplaced Pages and draining my energy. I can too fall on same lines and attack him personally by calling him as kneejerk and accusing him for assuming bad faith directly but I want to follow the policies of Misplaced Pages. I am looking for stringent action on the concerned editor for ad-hominems on me.-- Harshil 02:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In my defense, his DYK does suck. Elizium23 (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Elizium says in his user page that he's affiliated with the Church and claims that "Since I would not be able to contribute neutrally to these topic areas, I pledge to refrain from making direct edits to these and other related articles." Yet then he does this. Shame. TryKid (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

COI 101: It is not, and never has been, a conflict of interest for a member of a church to edit articles about that church. What I said is that I would refrain from editing articles connected to organizations with which I am affiliated. And I have stood by that pledge. Now quit trying to shame me for this. Elizium23 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a little reality check: The archdiocese of Mumbai is halfway around the world from Phoenix. It's in another country, another continent, another tectonic plate, another climate. The archbishop and pastor there have zero, count it zero, jurisdiction over me in Phoenix. There are 1.9 BILLION adherents to the Catholic faith worldwide. If everyone with a "COI" (as you put it) refrained from editing Catholic Church related articles, nobody at all would be editing them, I promise you that. Elizium23 (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

What I should do is institute a counter on my user page that counts up the number of times someone accuses me of a COI, when there is none. Guys, I appreciate that I have made myself a COI-accusation-magnet by disclosing two very minor affiliations, but c'mon, you can do better than to squeal "COI! COI! COI!" every time I make an edit to a topic that has no actual bearing on anything I am actually affiliated with! Thx! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elizium23 (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think every Misplaced Pages editor is a Catholic. If Catholics refrained from editing article about the Church, I would certainly be editing them. Many other editors too. Your last statement is demonstrably false. The first statement ("It's not COI for a church member to edit about his church") doesn't seem to be true to me, too. Also, I'm pretty sure Jesus and the Mumbai church are related to the Phoenix diocese, since they both come under the Catholic Church. (Forgive me if they don't both come under the Catholic Church, I'm not very knowledgeable about that). It is COI to edit favourably towards the Church that files a case against someone who showed basic common sense. TryKid (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I wonder who wrote Human??? TryKid, please don't stretch COI beyond breaking point. Cabayi (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A million monkeys, typing away? Jonathunder (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, basic common sense, such as mocking the Church calling her "anti-science" and "miracle mongers"? That is the "common sense" that Indian rationalists know and love? Elizium23 (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And (heh) once again we have someone who has no clue what the sources say about the case. The Church didn't file anything! The Church has no control over the criminal charges, didn't bring them, can't dismiss 'em! Read the sources, people. Sigh. Elizium23 (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Catholic Secular Forum seems pretty close to the Church no? But looks like I was wrong, so I apologize about that. The thread is not about the content of the article and what Sanal and the Catholics did though, it's about your behaviour. Another editor has weighed in that you I'm wrong about you having COI, so I apologize and I won't make that accusation again. I still think that you have a non neutral Christian POV not supported by reliable sources that you're trying to enforce but I don't have time and energy to argue about that. Also, you have a left message on my talk about removing some uncivil comment of mine, (Diff), but I don't see any removed comment. I request you to withdraw the misleading notification from my talk page. TryKid (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Some notes from my impression of this: no, being a Catholic doesn't mean you shouldn't articles about Catholicism. Yes, telling someone that their DYK "sucks" is inappropriate. Apart from that I'm not seeing much egregious here. Saying that someone is exhibiting WP:OWN behavior with your mere second comment on the talk page is unnecessary escalation, but both parties have been reverting more than talking. Regardless, this is primarily a content dispute, so nothing for admins to do. If discussion doesn't go anywhere, use the various WP:DR processes to get some outside opinions. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Isn't accusing someone for bad faith and issuing final warnings on talk page or you get yourself blocked is an inappropriate? -- Harshil 15:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Like these? Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Being a member of a religion does not mean you have a COI and shouldn’t edit within that area. Secondly, personal commentary on talk pages is inappropriate, that’s true. However, when the personal commentary is accusations of policy violations, we’re just as concerned as to whether those allegations are true. Saying someone’s DYK sucks is a personal attack, but a relatively minor one in the grand scheme of things and probably best handled by letting it go. Based on the diffs this looks like a frustrated content dispute that should move towards dispute resolution, rather than an actionable behavioral problem. ~Swarm~ 16:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In the space of 2 days, Harshil came at me with seven (7) user talk page warnings. I believe that is a tiny bit excessive, when we are moving toward a productive conversation on article talk pages. I found some discussion of his past, off-wiki history informative (is out WP:OUTING to mention he was banned on Quora?) Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To add to what @Rhododendrites: said above, WP:COI doesn't apply, as I understand the policy, to Catholics editing articles about catholicism. They could optionally disclose they're Catholic, but even that, I don't think we can even constitutionally compel. The most egregious WP:COI, as I see it, is such where the editor has been paid to edit. A little down the pyramid is an editor editing for a company for whom he or she works for regular pay (as an employee or independent contractor). A little further down would be a volunteer directly editing an article about an organization to which the person currently volunteers. Basically, anyone who works for, is paid by, currently volunteers for, or any of the editor's immediate family members (to parents, grandparents, offspring, and the offspring of their offspring) that work for, are paid by, or who volunteer for an organization/company.

It seems to me that the WP:DR recommended by Rhododendrites is the best solution here, perhaps with an added note of caution for the parties to refrain from each other's talk page pending successful completion of the DR. Alternatively, the extent of any admin involvement needed here, perhaps, to order involuntary mentorship for the parties on what constitutes COI editing, how to identify it, and, crucially, how to action it. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I must ask, and beg to differ, why a few people here seem to think that "his DYK sucks" is a personal attack. It is the opposite of a personal attack because it is a comment on content, not a contributor. In all honesty, I stand by the statement that the DYK in question sucks (although that might be coarse language for a Catholic like me) the DYK premise is truly awful, it should never have made it to the front page. DYKs are approved by committees and so they are not intrinsically tied to a single contributor, and so there is nothing wrong with my judgement when I come out to say that this DYK leaves much to be desired and should not have been promoted, and in fact this article should be blown up and redone from scratch if possible, because the tabloid hot takes are just outlandish. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you might get less pushback if you offered more specific criticisms on what they could fix rather than just saying 'your work sucks'. I can't weigh in on whether your description is accurate or not, but just telling someone that their content sucks might not technically be a personal attack but it isn't particularly constructive either. Again, not saying that you are wrong, just saying that this might be a better approach if your goal is to improve the content. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, if you replaced the word "his" by "the" then you might be right, but what you said was personal. I'm an atheist myself, but I always thought Christians were supposed to be a bit more kind about such things. How about both of you agreeing to discuss things on article talk pages without edit warring or being nasty to each other? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

How about this: I shall recuse myself from the weeping-statue article altogether. I see no point in working on it in this state. I shall also attempt to avoid interaction with Harshil169. Our topic areas don't really intersect. I hope this will satisfy everyone involved. I am not interested in pursuing a dispute that's so bitter and not winning me any friends. Thanks for all involved, and your good counsel is taken on board for future reference. I do apologise for being abrasive and coarse and rude. It is totally uncalled-for and my hands are not clean in this dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame for you to drop your activity on that page, as the version of it Harshill69 defends has little basis in reality. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, edit-warring or falling afoul of WP:Discretionary sanctions were poor alternatives. Elizium23 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Being harassed by a user

I really don't want to cause anyone headache or create trouble so please close this. I am leaving wikipedia. Graull (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am constantly being harassed by a user called Sharabsalam. He has attacked my edits since I first started editing in wikipedia. You can see my talk page he has constantly bombarded my talk page with investigations, threats, and commands on what I should or should not edit (last time I checked the internet is free). I have asked advice from a kind user called El C here to see if my edits are problematic but i find it peculiar that this user is the only person who keeps finding my edits problematic. No one has told me that my edits are wrong except him. It sound he or she dosent like that I edit AQAP in Yemen related articles and keeps attacking me with different reasons to revert my edits.

First, it's POV, then, it's the wrong article, then it's a biased source. There's ALWAYS a reason for him to revert my edits. Check my edits please and see if they warrant reverts. I am not adamant on editing wikipedia but honestly my experience here has been so negative so far because of this one user. His arguments are not rational and he keeps reverting no matter what I say. I never edit warred with him. I have asked him constantly to leave me alone. He keeps following my edits in every article and reverts it and hoenstly I am fed up.

I can no longer continue here because of the hostile and malicious behavior of one user. If this is not harassment then I don't know what is. I keep explaining to him my reasons for the edits but he revert anyways until I posted in source noticeboard in which he couldn't fight back because another user agreed with me.

I can not continue this. I joined wikipedia to try and organize small things in wikipedia and assign proper names as per articles (Houthi government to Supreme political council) and Hadi governmemt to Cabinet of Yemen) as well as add information on operations against AQAP. but he keeps calling me biased and tells me that he's a Yemeni hence he had the right to revert all my edits in any AQAP and Yemen related articles. I am tired. I feel targeted and bullied. Please stop this kind of behavior to occur with other users. I am done from being harassed I have self respect to leave when I am constantly being attacked.

This is a great initiative made by multiple users. Users shouldn't act like they own articles. Please ask him to STAY AWAY FROM ME. If there anything wrong with my edits then PLEASE someone else can tell me. An admin can ban me, instruct me, or tell me to stop editing if I am being a net negative to this project. But I can no longer accept being targeted by one user. Please, please stop this kind of behavior from occuring to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graull (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Graull (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Graull, please provide diffs of the behavior in question - see Help:Diff for directions on how to provide those links. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I am using a phone right now I don't know how to do that using a phone. Just read my talk page and see my contributions and his interaction with almost every single article I have edited so far. I am tired. If you find something wrong with my edits then please let me know. I find reasons such as "unhelpful wording", "POV" and "propaganda source" very shady reasons for him to keep reverting my edits when no one else reverted me except him. I am not taking any sides in that conflict I am Canadian!! I genuinely feel targeted! Everytime I edit I get reverted by him only, never anyone else. I can't continue like this.

Please let El C know that I genuinely appreciate his advice previously and I thank him for it. I hope more users here are like him. I can't keep this up because of this bad editing experience I have witnessed so far. I wanted to help but it seems all I experienced so far is harrassment. I just want to be left alone!! I am genuinely frustrated right now... I need to stay away from here for a long time and call it quits. I genuinely hope no user whether new or old experience this kind of bad experience and targeted harrassment that I have experienced so far. Thank you. Graull (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I never harassed this editor. It's their edits that seem POVish like mentioning that Hadi-led government is a cabinet in the infobox although this is disputed between the Yemeni Houthis. Plus the editor writes no edit summaries. I didn't follow this editor edits. I see his edits in my watchlist. I usually don't bother clicking on diffs if there is an edit summary but this user provides no edit summaries. I have seen some of his edits and they were fine although the editor didn't write any edit summary. Also I thought the editor is a sock puppet of Wikiemirati. I don't know who is the master. See their edits from the beginning didn't seem as a new editor so I had every right to investigate.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Graull Sorry to hear that. I am almost the only one who has all Yemeni-related articles in his watchlist. If you see me consistently that's because of that. Your edits were almost all related to Yemen or UAE. So it is obvious why you would find me always there.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - As far as I can tell, this dispute seems to stem from a months-long edit dispute related to the Yemeni Civil War. Based on Graull's talk page, there have been some content disputes (e.g. removing or adding content related to Fall of Zinjibar and Jaar) which is exacerbated by Graull's decision not to use edit summaries in some instances. I don't know enough about the subject matter of the actual edits re: Yemen to say whether Graull or SharabSalam are right on the content. However, I do think that based on their talk page interactions that there is a problem with collegial editing between them. Graull seems to take extreme offense to being reverted by SharabSalam, repeatedly referring to it as harassment and asking SharabSalam of being part of the Houthi movement. For his part, sharabSalam's mildly aggressive approach on Graull's talk page (e.g. stating that Graull is not supposed to edit articles related to the Yemeni war because he is not an extended confirmed user) and filing unsubstantiated Sockpuppet investigation sockpuppet allegations against Graull has not helped ease tensions.This is a pretty high stakes emotional area so a certain amount of conflict is unavoidable, but I think both users need to take a deep breath. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Editor Interaction Analyser
• Interaction Timeline

-- Cabayi (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::One correction; I gave evidences why this editor can't be a new editor and that Wikiemirati is likely behind the sock puppet but the evidences don't prove that Wikiemirati is the sock master, which is why I asked for a check user. Apparently the checkuser tools didn't prove that Wikiemirati/Magsuf is related to Garull.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sharabsalam your aggressive approach as well as saying I'm not a new user has frustrated me. I have already told you as well as provided evidence that I have edited as an IP before I made this account and I have been warned by someone else to stop editing by IP when you opened investigation on me. I made this account to hide my IP address as well as when I did a paper on AQAP in University. I have edited in other conflicts in Africa and Syria as an IP previously when I did a paper on there (Africa), I have never experienced such aggressive reverts by someone like you though. My edits are not perfect I totally understand that that's why I asked other people to check them because you've called them problematic. I am open to hearing your concerns and I have repeatedly tried to be civil towards you. I am feeling targeted by you. If my edits are annoying you you're welcome to tell me in details why is it they're annoying you. Saying "POV" or "not helpful" and reverting is not a good way to solve disputes! Im not adamant on editing wikipedia. I don't have a specific agenda! I'm not your enemy. Please, be polite. I am willing to forget all of this. I am going to stop editing wikipedia overall anyways due to your aggressive approach. I don't enjoy being attacked aggressively and I need to stay away from negativity. Please, next time explain in details in the talk page why you think certain edits are annoying you (Hadi governmemt, operations against AQAP as well as other edits I have added) when you find an edit you don't agree with, instead of attacking other users and littering my pages with warning signs and reverting with "POV" and other silly reasons. Please stop accusing me of things. I hope you enjoy the rest of your experience editing in Misplaced Pages, if I have annoyed you I apologise but please know that my intentions were to improve wikipedia. Graull (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody closes this discussion I want to make a response.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Feeling triggered or angry is very common in Misplaced Pages. It's not just you, everyone here had felt triggered. If you feel that you can't mentally handle criticism then it would be heather for you to not edit in controversial areas in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is free but you have to follow rules and regulations. "cabinet of Yemen" is not common in the media. It is very rare that someone will say cabinet of Yemen in relation to the Yemen civil war as both sides claim being the legal governors of Yemen. Just know that I never followed your edits. In fact I was scared from your accusations that I am harassing you so I let some edits that you did although they were not okay but then today I saw a lot of edits without edit summaries making a changes to the infobox's etc etc. Also for the sock puppet claims, I didn't want to bring this up but you mentioned above in your report against me and I told you why I did that. For you leaving Misplaced Pages, I have been followed and reverted for real harassment not phoney harassment, real harassment. For example here, here. Why are these real hounding and yours are not?, that's because I have edited in these articles, which you edited and I have been in that area editing and reverting vandalism almost all of my time in Misplaced Pages. That editor however followed my edits reverting them, do you think someone from the West know anything about Shara'b As Salam District? LOL, it was just because of a disagreement in another article. Also, I was accused of being a sock puppet although I was totally unaware of anything in Misplaced Pages and there was no reason to accuse me except my political views, see ,. I kept challenging in the talk page, I didn't say harassment, I talked about the topic. I have many known editors who disagree with my edits and I have disagreed with their edits, (you are not the only one in Misplaced Pages who has made edits that I disagree with) they have never said I am harassing them so why would I be only harassing you?. I tried to make things chill and asked in a way to make it funny, "Why are you so freaking angry all the time?" but I understand that new editors feel triggered when they get reverted. I told you to stay out of controversial areas that normally requires "confirmed user" tag, since you are still a new editor, you would get experience so you can use NPOV tone in articles and use neutral sources. It is your choice to leave Misplaced Pages. I didn't contribute to this. I was reverted multiple times got blocked for editwarring while reverting obvious wrong edits biased POV edits, I never left Misplaced Pages and said "I am leaving because of blah blah harassment blah blah".--SharabSalam (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Graull and SharabSalam: For what it's worth, in light of Graull's retirement message at the top of this thread, this response from SharabSalam is outrageously cruel, and, ironically, absolutely full of harassment. I mean, give me a break with this stuff:

• "If you feel that you can't mentally handle criticism then it would be heather for you to not edit in controversial areas in Misplaced Pages." Armchair psychiatry like this is clear harassment.
• "For you leaving Misplaced Pages, I have been followed and reverted for real harassment not phoney harassment, real harassment." I can't really say if Graull is right or wrong on the content but they absolutely have been harassed. Calling your treatment of them "phoney harassment" is you telling on yourself.
• "Why are these real hounding and yours are not?" Oh, you've both been harassed.
• "do you think someone from the West know anything about Shara'b As Salam District? LOL" Are there no Yemeni people living in the entire Western Hemisphere? Are there no experts living in the entire West?
• "I never left Misplaced Pages and said 'I am leaving because of blah blah harassment blah blah'" Even if SharabSalam had never uttered a single harassing word before, mocking a good-faith user for getting overwhelmed and leaving is a perfect example of harassment.
• And that's not to mention repeatedly telling Graull that they've been "triggered", which is one of those words that almost instantly went from describing a serious problem to mocking said problem.

Sometimes at ANI, when it's just two non-admins bickering about obscure stuff, it just goes stale and gets automatically archived with no administrative response. I hope that doesn't happen here; even for ANI, this rant is so aggressive, confrontational, and outright rude that an admin ought to give it consideration for a block. @El C: You were kinda/sorta tagged in this. Any thoughts? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:D4F6:ABB0:52FD:6A03 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think my advise still stands. But I agree with the IP directly above, SharabSalam. Your reliance on innuendo is unnecessary and actually crosses a line. While it may not rises to the level of sanctions, as was also suggested, please cut it out. Graull, I'll expand on my previous advise: you two need to manage the content dispute better, more efficiently. Divide it into digestible bits, conduct a Request for Comment when needed, or make use of one the specialized noticeboards. While this is undertaken, I am hoping that discussion remains understated (without any personal nuances whatsoever), all edits clearly explained, and WP:ONUS respected. For the disputes to be resolved will take some methodical work and self-restraint. I am still cautiously optimistic. El_C 20:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

El C and the IP I have never harassed him. You misquoted what I said. Graull edits were most of the time wrong. I had to revert. I got accused of harassment multiple times and he has accused me of being a Houthi just because of the discussion in Houthi talk page.

For the quotes, first of all I misread what Graull said, he said I feel "targeted by you" and I read it as "I feel triggered by you" BIG MISTAKE. I made a lot of misspellings because I was typing using my phone and I was in hurry and I was eating. I told him, that's very common here. if you feel that you can't mentally handle criticism then it would be healthier for you to not edit in controversial areas in Misplaced Pages. I honestly wanted to make him return and I gave an example, myself, in Misplaced Pages even after I got real harassment I stayed, my intention was to convince him to stay. I felt sorry and I felt guilty for him but what should have I done. I swear I never followed his edits and as I said I got even scared from reverting him because of his accusations of harassment. They have added information from non-reliable sources that support the UAE and its proxies like The National. also using infobox to write that Cabinet of Yemen although this is disputed and without writing an edit summary! I reverted one of his edits accidentally because I thought they did the same and when he told me that it was about the Houthis I self-reverted. I am not sure what should I do else? How can I just watch this without reverting? Where is the harassment? DO NOT say the sock puppet investigation is harassment, there was every reason why to think that this user is a sock puppet--SharabSalam (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I want also to say that I have all Yemen-related articles in my watchlist and it is very common that editors find me in their way when they make wrong edits and this user edits were almost all in Yemen-related articles not just AQAP but also Houthis. I think his edits were mostly about UAE-Yemen conflict. So thats why.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

here was every reason why to think that this user is a sock puppet — please name one such reason. Reverting is fine, so long as there is sufficient explanation and with the understanding that, generally, longstanding text should stay in place while a discussion is undertaken. Also, continuing to allude to mental health is not a productive direction. Please don't do this again. It's just inappropriate. Just like when Graul asked you if you belong to the Houthi movement. Just try to engage one another in good faith by focusing only on the content. El_C 20:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As he said that he has been editing as an IP. The reasons why I thought that he is a sock puppet are in the investigation archive One of things that doesnt make sense about this editor is why he created blanked page in his user page and talk page immediately after they joined wikipedia and then they started making big editings with not making any style mistake, of course, just using unknown and unfavorable sources like all the content from the Chinese Xinhua newspaper(a state-owned agency) and other things.

As I said I was talking about mental health in good faith because I thought he said "triggered" instead of "targeted". I am actually having a health problem, I got flue, which is why I am editing less lately.

If I was targeting Graull and not his wrong edits I wouldn't have reverted him when he edited as an IP. I dont want to say his IP but he said what his IP and I found out that he got reverted by me! He added a text which was already in the content. It was like when there are lots of cooks and one of them adds salt and then the other adds salt which gets the dish ruined. He reverted me using his IP even though I told him that the content he added is there. Notice that this was before he created his account in wikipedia and that this proves that I am not targeting him specifically but rather their wrong edits.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

‎Umfront and edit-warring

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

For this user with 240 edits in total, the main conflict resolution avenue is edit-warring. They have been previously warned (by two different users) and blocked (by me, in February) for edit-warring. Today, they started an edit war at Sergey Aksyonov, who was born in Moldavian SSR, currently Republic of Moldova. Aksyonov's name is given in the article, among other languages, in Romanian, the state language of the Republic of Moldova. The user four times

My apologies for coming here too often recently, for whatever reason the rate of disruptive editing in East European articles by newish accounts, several hundred edits, dramatically increased recently. I do not understand why.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a new account (since 2009). Secondly, according to the basic law - the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, its Official language is Moldovan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umfront (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed an argument you literally repeated in your edit summaries. It is completely irrelevant what the constitution of the Republic of Moldova says on the subject. In common English usage, the language is Romanian.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: As far as why the increase, maybe SAD as fall sets in and winter approaches. —— 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed my basic hypothesis, though I am afraid its consistent application is not encouraged by WP:NPA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly calling others racist

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

Despite repeated warnings Elspru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to call other editors racists because they are casting doubt on some Russian sources. See WP:FTN#Pyramid power, Russian research and Alexander Golod their talk page, their edit summaries and . Doug Weller talk 20:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Indeff for WP:NOTHERE. They're clearly not collaborating, and are only here to push absurd fringe theories. Its a longstanding pattern too, see this wacky edit from 2011 . They are simply wasting the community's time. Captain Eek ⚓ 20:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

208.185.237.210

• 208.185.237.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Geolocate:
• 38.142.216.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Geolocate:

Same person? Note the similar geolocate, similar interests, and see the edit filter log for 38.142.216.106 --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely Donald Trump editing on his iPhone. Can we legally block President Trump? Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Watch out for a tweet tomorrow telling us that "Misplaced Pages is the worst, they're failing, they're fake news. Jimbo Wales is a sad, sad man. Lock him up!" Captain Eek ⚓ 04:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we may legally block President Trump. Court rulings suggests that President Trump may not "block" (in the sense of Facebook and Twitter) other users, or request that they not interact with him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:BrianaMalaEdo

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

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

Editor is inserting the same pornographic gif into unrelated articles. Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Banhammered. Ritchie333 09:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

vulgar and uncivilized language as well as vandalism

Please refer to the vulgar and uncivilized language directed towards me in his edit summaries by IP address here who is the same as Jatbrand based on his edit summaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/JatBrand He is also generally modifying quotes and disrupting wikipedia. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Those edit summaries will need reliable translation (I'm assuming from Marathi?). The claims of being the same as another editor could be something for WP:SPI, but seems likely. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked the /64 for a month. Whether it's a sock or not, it's certainly a vandalism-only account. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at User:Kutyava

The article Darul Huda Islamic Academy is an educational institution of good repute in Kerala of India. which may be known from various reliable sources available online. The page was in very good condition some times ago. There is another competitive organization the supporters of which are enemies to each other. One of the editors has deleted everything which I added even from google books about this institution which creates doubt about his intentions. The editor in question seems to be not neutral and has a liking for competitive movement of which he has created pages see here. Please make him stay away from articles affiliated to Samastha (EK faction) as he has created pages of Samastha (AP faction) and affiliated organizations like Kerala State Sunni Students' Federation. Clear subject matter bias. ScholarM (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have done absolutely zero effort, but by happenchance noticed this, which may be of use when looking into this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ScholarM reported by User:Kutyava (Result: ) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kutdyava also made an inappropriate report at AIV that mischaracterized ScholarM's edits. I haven't carefully evaluated ScholarM's edits, but describing them as "only for promotional purposes" is without basis. OhNoitsJamie 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Although stuff like this (which has been edit-warred back in multiple times) does look pretty promotional. Mind you, stuff by Kutvaya like relisting your own AfD which gained no traction aren't brilliant. Both Kutvaya and ScholarM have completely broken 3RR today on Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Perhaps they both need a time out. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There was very marginal discussion on the article's talk page, but it went nowhere, and both editors continued reverting each other. Both have been sent to the penalty box for 24 hours. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Discussion was closed, but I do think it's worthwhile to discuss both editors' conduct. On one hand, some of the material that ScholarM added to the article may have been borderline promotional, while on the other hand much of the content that Kutyava revised or removed was done apparently to cast the institution in a more negative light. Should either or both of the editors be topic banned from the article? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  For comparison:

  • • This is the version prior to either editor's involvement
    • This seems to be Kutyava's preferred revision (diff from stable
    • This is ScholarM's (diff from stable)
    • This is a comparison between the two preferred versions

-- Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As an side, I found ScholarM's edits elsewhere to have been troubling. I think the chances for them becoming subject to ARBIPA discretionary sanctions are... not low. El_C 19:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Info Anonym

Info Anonym (talk · contribs) started on Misplaced Pages on October 17 by editing Jewish descent categories, precisely at the moment a large conflict was raging at Category:North American Jews, and apart from 6 edits today he edited only in connection with those categories.

I tried to explain to them on their talkpage how things work on Misplaced Pages in general, and with categories specifically,, and likewise I tried to inquire how he came to edit those category pages. Out of WP:MEAT concerns. He, however, has not given a satisfactory explanation to my WP:MEAT concerns, as I noticed here, nor does his edit of today show that he understands what how burden of showing consensus works, or, alternatively, he does not understand how the history shows on whom the burden of showing consensus lies. In addition, he does not understand that he is effectively involved in edit warring on a few connected pages about one and the same issue. This, despite my efforts to explain this on his talkpage.

I think we might benefit from a block till such time as he lays the WP:MEAT concerns to rest, and shows that he understands how to edit responsibly in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies in guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not only edit in connection with these categories apart from today. That is a lie. You can check my contributions from the 23rd, 24th and 25th October.

You also never mentioned to me on my talk page that you were asking me out of WP:MEAT concerns. Knowing I am a new editor you could have told me that. To me that seemed like an irrelevant question at best if not an assumption of bad faith. I did however already answer that question the first time you asked. I explained to you that I saw Middle Eastern categories being removed from every Jewish article and category, which is what got me involved. I am however planning on staying and I have already been editing on pages outside of those. Then you asked me a second time which I of course did not answer a second time. Apart from that, I have noticed that discussions about that topic have been going on for two years at least constantly involving you and other accounts from the current discussion. I don't know why you would assume that now suddenly one of them would create a second account or tell their friend to do that?

You yourself are engaged in edit warring. You even broke WP:1RR here: on the 23rd of October reverting twice in only two hours which you as an experienced editor should know better. I also already answered your concern about the lack of consensus issue but you ignored it. The category talk started off as a removal discussion. That is why WP:DON'T PRESERVE is relevant. You need consensus to remove the category, which you didn't get. So I ask you to revert your removals of that category. Especially the removal of the category "People of Middle Eastern descent" from "People of Jewish descent". We were talking about overcategorization by putting Middle Eastern descent, South West Asian descent, Asian descent etc. on every Jewish category. That could be circumvented if the Jewish descent category was a subcategory of the Middle Eastern descent category.

I know how to edit responsibly, I have been mentioning guidelines to you all throughout our discussion in the category talk. But you ignored not only that but also arguments from the opposing side making the talk extremely ineffective.

(Info Anonym (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)).

You indeed made (a few) more edits that were not connected to Jewish descent categories. My apologies. Doesn't really change my point, though.

You still did not explain how you all of a sudden came to notice these categories. This is the second time now you are circumventing the real question.

I asked about my WP:MEAT concerns without referring specifically to that policy, for obvious reasons.

This thread is not about the content issue, rather about the behavioral issue. You basically continue here to explain your (incorrect) understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, adding a few (incorrect) accusations at my address. So basically you are continuing the edit warring attitude.

I came her with two concerns: WP:MEAT and WP:EDITWAR/WP:TE. Both concerns remain very much in place. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

IDHT user with severe CIR issues

Subject: User:서덕민 (For simplicity's sake, they will be referred to as Seo)

There is a troublesome user who renders their username in Korean that does nothing but make obsolete, low quality edits to the project. Seo's edits vary from complete nonsense to ridiculous grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Check their contributions here. Despite numerous warnings on Seo's WP:IDHT behavior and WP:CIR issues, not only did they *not* respond to the warnings, they have continued their disruptive pattern of edits.

Diffs:

I think a block might be necessary. Users that outright refuse to communicate when other contributors voice their concerns are harmful to the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of 서덕민's Hangul script in their username? The name seems to meet WP:USERNAME, particularly WP:NONLATIN. Your last warning on their userpage, that lead to this, was about vandalism - but I'm not seeing an example. Is there one? Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, on a closer glance, it's disruptive editing rather than vandalism, but it's still pretty bad. This one is unsourced, for instance. And after being reverted, Seo just entered a vague statement citing that the name is available in "many more" cultures.

Putting that aside, the utter lack of communication regarding their behavior means that they have WP:IDHT issues. It's been hours since I've posted the report, and they don't even have anything to say here in their defense. It's like they don't even realize that there is an issue. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They haven't edited since then either, and often don't edit for days. Might not have even seen the notice yet. I don't see that it's trolling though ... Nfitz (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They've received plenty of warnings before, and has not responded to any of them. That's an WP:IDHT issue. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any previous warnings of trolling. Is it really IDHT ... I don't see the same thing being added, and it looks like there is an attempt edit differently. It's not great editing - sure ... but there seems to be WP:BITE issues and a failure of WP:AGF here, with false accusations. Nfitz (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, how are they false accusations when I'm not the only one that handed out warnings to Seo? JesseRafe warned them of similar issues too. I usually try to assume good faith, but in this case, an editor that doesn't even try to address the concerns that were voiced by users is detrimental to the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You did falsely accuse them of vandalism. You do that quite a bit. —AdamF in MO (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

JesseRafe warned them once about 3 weeks ago about "no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles" (which appears to have been followed) and once yesterday about adding unsourced content. You've made accusations of vandalism, trolling, IDHT, CIR, and complete nonsense. No one else has done otherwise - why do you claim this? And where's the evidence of trolling? I don't even see examples of "complete nonsense" - for example adding Mari being a Korean name too (마리), in addition to the existing list of Breton, Japanese, Estonian, Georgian, Hungarian, Finnish, Welsh, Swedish and Norwegian (did someone forget Cornish and Manx?) doesn't seem to be complete nonsense. Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I detailed the other instances of gibberish being added below (and prior to you comment), you must not have seen it. Also, that page does indicate Mari is a Korean name, only an article in the Korean language that says that Mari is a name - there's a difference: it's largely about non-Korean women named Marie. Look at Seo's edits holistically, not individually, they are adding very little of any substantive value, but repeated attempts are disruptive like at Karen and they don't respond to their critiques or reversions but continue the habit. Also, I don't think it's strictly true that they stopped adding original research three weeks ago as you assert, but almost all of their edits are still original research and none are sourced. JesseRafe (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, Google Translate throws back "Seok Deok Min", which seems to me like a legitimate Korean name. —v^_^v 00:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's a legit Korean name, I expect the OP was pointing it out for those who don't read hangeul. Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've twice warned this user and undone dozens of their edits (often the same repeated content) and agree with Sk8erPrince's categorization of them being largely nonsense or/and poorly written, and also of little important significance or an honest attempt at improving the encyclopedia. Their recent edits at Ari (name) strike me as closer to test edits than one with a hundred contributions. I also see no issue in Romanizing the username for the purposes of this discussion for simplicity, same as any Cyrillic or Hebrew or whatever username to make typing easier for most editors who wish to participate in the conversation, I don't think Sk8erPrince was trying to make an issue out of the their username and further discussion on that aspect is beyond the point of the discussion on their frequent disruptive editing. JesseRafe (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Found a suspicious account

Hello, this new account ClarityRandom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be adding a load of unsourced old nonsense to articles related to feminism.

For instance:

• This is not what social reproduction means (it sort of means society is doomed to repeat it's failures across the generations).

• This is not what source criticism is about. Source criticism is the academic term for evaluating reliable sources.

• First edit was a large one, adding and changing much sourced commentary, and finished by adding this, "while organisations such as Woman's Place UK organise to defend the principles of socialist and marxist feminism and womens sex based rights that are threatened by transgender politics and identity politics." It was added without an inline citation in the middle of a sourced statement about a 1960s feminist group.

They've made 140 edits so far, mostly around a handful of of articles. This set of edits for instance doesn't seem to add any resources and is sort of promotional. It adds to the lead a statement promoting one of the "best known living social historians" naming them "Tilly". Sadly, it seems that Tilly passed away last year.

I'm not sure what to do. There's too many edits for me to simply go around reverting them all on subjects which I am not learned. I can't get a sense of vandalism or actual bad faith, but there's definitely a bit of unsourced and dubious stuff in the main space and promotional editing. If this is not urgent enough or off topic for this page, please direct me to the appropriate venue.. ~ R.T.G 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The ANI notification has been posted to User talk:ClarityRandom Shenme (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:RTG I am Clarity Random I have an MSc and PhD in history and political economy. If you dont like my edits go onto the page and ask for citations and/or clarifications.

social reproduction is a key concept in marxist feminism - see these by leading marxist feminist theorists:

I teach historical methods, (and have in the past taught on marxist feminist theory) - but I dont keep track of which historians died and when.

I suggest you go and learn more about the subjects you are trying to talk about here. When you have an understanding of them go to the articles you think need citations, and request them.

Also if you are claiming 'promotional' posts please specify what you think is being promoted, as niothing I have posted is promotional nor intended to be so (Womans place as an organisation was listed alongside other socialist feminist organisations in the marxist feminism article, so I expect you are complaining about those other editors too?) ClarityRandom (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarityRandom (talk • contribs) 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745399881/social-reproduction-theory/
2. https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/social-reproduction-theory-2

Edit warring, pointy edits, and harassment

Can someone please have a word with Ballastrae? After beginning an edit war at Baylor University, he or she has continued to make the exact same edits to a couple of other articles in a clear attempt to make a point. After I warned him or her that this behavior would likely lead to a block, he or she began to make edits (e.g., copying my post to a Talk page, copying my warning to my own Talk page) clearly intended to harass me.

He or she is welcome to continue discussing the original edit to Baylor University; there is an ongoing discussion and other editors are beginning to join in. But making the exact same edit to other articles, edit warring to preserve those edits, and then harassing another editor are all unacceptable. Please convince him or her of that. ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a continuation of the behaviour that led Ballastrae to be blocked back in 2017 after removing large sections of an article on a University because "we are not holding up the same standards for other universities, such as Baylor and Penn State and the list. Fair is Far!!!!" . 86.134.79.237 (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment, inputting his points of view, reverting pages, and Edit warring

Will someone please have a conversation with ElKevbo, as he has initiated an edit warring, as he does not agree with changes and feels that editors MUST meet his requirements for editorial changes and not Misplaced Pages's. He invoked his feelings and reverted the changes back to what HE FELT was appropriate. Key words - he felt.

He expressed a concern from a 2017 change, but he did not correctly express that the changes in 2019 reflect the conversation that was outlined in the 2017 discussion. Yet, in user (User talk:ssg2442) 20:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) sent him a STOP Unnecessary Reverts because of his continued reverts. Additionally, User Atlantic360 called him out for edit warring again in 2019 :You started edit warring, they are references Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC). Further, he was a part of another incident in 2019 that became edit warring, because he did not like the edits by a user: 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)RobertM87. In review of the totality of the concerns, the focus of edit warring is initiated by ElKevbo when he does not like the changes to pages, as he has a prescribed methodology for the way that pages should be listed.

ElKevbo was not harassed, Ballastrae was the user that was harassed by ElKevbo and he continues to harass Ballastrae by sending up this message and then ElKevbo left another message on Ballastrae's talk page. He pointed out his view and when I would not agree with his view he began to disparage Ballastrae on Ballastrae's page and on the university pages. Again, when he saw something that did not fit his "perfection" mold, he balked and then started reverting pages and sending out messages. Ballastrae responded to these allegations and afforded him the warning that continued reverts were not positive.

ElKevbo is becoming condescending, intimidating and very aggressive. Ballastrae (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment, retaliation, and Edit warring

Will someone please have a conversation with Jeff in CA, as he has initiated edit warring. Upon agreement with ElKevbo, a non-nonsensical reversion was made to a proper change on the Pennsylvania State University page indicating controversy.

There was NO reason for the reversion as the original change was proper. Again, people are allowed to make their rules based upon their feeling and remove proper changes because another user complains. The change does not NEGATE the fact that Penn Had Major controversies that are to be flagged.

Further, there has been NO rules outlined that define that a Controvery/Controversial section cannot be attached. When this does happen then the other universities will need to be corrected. Until then the change was proper to include.

This was a retaliation. Ballastrae (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A single revert with edit summary including "Please discuss in Talk" is quite normal. I've checked both user talk pages and don't see any collusion, so your saying there was is prejudicial (and quite the wrong way for you). Your progressing from Baylor University to Pennsylvania State University seems more the 'retaliation' you mention. Shenme (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And btw you templated Jeff in CA for their single edit on their user page, not on their user talk page. Shenme (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ballastrae has failed to follow WP:BRD on these articles and has edit-warred on more than one; and has then made WP:POINT edits to a number of other university articles. Given that these are practically their first edits since being blocked for similar in 2017, I have blocked them for a week. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thanks for your help with this. He or she has created a new account, User:Ballastrae1, and is blatantly evading the block. ElKevbo (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and warned them that if they try it again their block will become indef. GiantSnowman 15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22 again

Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned on 9 Setember 2109.

"Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Misplaced Pages. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page."

See Special:Permalink/914804289#Formal proposal 1 and User talk:Anthony22#You are now subject to a topic ban.

He was warned about violating his topic ban by several editors and has been blocked twice for it, the latest on 11 October 2019

The following edits appear to be continued violations after the most recent block:

That last one and Anthony22's response when criticized for it makes me think that at the very least Anthony22 should be given crystal clear instructions with no wiggle room or possibility of misinterpretation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Every time this poor guy gets dragged onto here comes up I regret supporting that topic ban. User:NinjaRobotPirate among others warned us that the ban would be difficult to interpret and I feel like an idiot for not listening to them. As far as the merits go, I definitely understand why it was reported here. I can see both sides of it -- if you fatally wound someone on Tuesday but they don't die until Friday, were they assassinated on Tuesday or Friday? It could be a content dispute or it could fall into the rough outer boundary of the area covered by the topic ban (grammar/style). I can't say that it's a no-brainer. 2601:144:200:92E0:942A:E85F:CD4:78F3 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I shoot someone on a Tuesday, and get arrested for it right after, but the victim doesn't die until Friday, was he killed on Tuesday, or on Friday? If he was killed on Tuesday, then he will have died three days after he was killed. If he was killed on Friday, then a killing will have occurred three days after the killer was arrested for it. If "the killing" were considered to be a multi-day event starting on Tuesday and concluding on Friday, then a killing will have occurred on Wednesday and Thursday, despite nobody shooting anybody, and nobody dying, during those two days. Is there no answer to this riddle? – Levivich 05:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking of "sudden-death overtime" and feel Anthony22 has quite lost. Shenme (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Lev: Not killed. Attacked on Tuesday, died on Friday, possibly from injuries sustained in the attack. Only with coarser time resolution could it be said "he was killed last week". Not related to the law, of course. —— 06:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Given his topic ban he should have asked on the talk page. Just look at all of the editors who have given him advice, none of which he has followed. He has shown zero understanding of why he was topic banned and why he keeps getting blocks for violating his topic ban. I myself gave him this advice:

"My advice to you is to stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting ANI's time."

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember the original complaints that led to the topic ban? Low quality edits. Alas, a "only make high quality edits" topic ban is not workable. Let's look at the first edit in the above list:

Anthony22 wrote in the edit summary "As I said before, I have never seen the name spelled "Maxene" until now." It took me less than a minute to find that spelling used by Rolling Stone and The New York Times Oh, wait! I didn't have to bother searching. That NYT reference is right after her name in the infobox. Clearly Anthony22 didn't bother looking. Getting the name spelled right is what we are talking about when we say "high quality editing". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the wording of the topic ban and reviewed the diffs provided. It is clear to me that the topic ban has been violated repeatedly. Since the last block was for one week, I have blocked this editor for two weeks. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:GreenC editing disruptively at Talk:Sarah Jeong

User has thrice removed the same comment by another user claiming "WP:AGF personal attack etc." The comment was a response to their own trollish post. The insistence on WP:AGF is laughable given their other comment in the thread (which I've removed as a legitimate WP:ASPERSION). Note that DS are in effect for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if people would just relax and let things go, this wouldn't be here. It's not too late. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I warned them about editing others' comments after the second removal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

GreenC and Joel B. Lewis trading reverts back-n-forth in a hatted section? I know there's passive-aggressive, but hidden-aggressive? Shenme (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shenme: in the next section (below) we have archived-aggressive, as well. --JBL (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• A bit bizarre, GreenC. You personally attack a group of users for disagreeing with you, in an apparent implied personal attack and bad faith accusation that they’re sock or meatpuppets, and then when someone suggests you take it to SPI, you delete their comment as a personal attack? Knock it off, you don’t get to delete other people’s comments in general, but particularly in the context of ongoing disruptive behavior on an article under active discretionary sanctions. I have little tolerance for trolling behavior on that page in particular. ~Swarm~ 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• IMO at a minimum GreenC shouldn't be removing a comment which had been replied to without at least some clear indication that it happened e.g. replacing it with a redacted. I mean XavierItzm's comment may not significantly address what JBL said, but at least it's indented as a reply to JBL whereas with the modification it's easy to misread it as a reply to GreenC with the wrong indenting. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW, I had restored my comment yet again (maybe violating 3RR?) before I saw this thread, and have self-reverted (i.e., removed it again) pending a closure here. GreenC's behavior is indeed bizarre. --JBL (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Joel B. Lewis: I've restored your comment for you, as there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  This is all really silly. For the record, GreenC Sarah Jeong has been on my watchlist almost forever, mostly as a result of her conflict with Naomi Wu. I have not now, nor have I ever, knowingly engaged in off-wiki communication with JBL or with Sangdeboeuf. My comment on the issue of the New York Post is, rather, of a cloth with multiple comments I've made at WP:RS/N and other locations in recent months that Misplaced Pages depends too much on newsmedia sources and should be far more restrictive of which newsmedia sources are considered reliable. You'll note that I didn't express any great love for The Hill in the discussion either. Now could you all please stop this silly sniping and focus on article content? Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep personal attacks in my talk page archives

Yesterday User:JG66 made a few personal attacks on my talk page. No big deal, it happens. I removed them, they restored them. I archived the section hoping that would put an end to it. But now JG66 is edit warring at User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_8 to put them back in, making more attacks in the edit summaries in the process. I'd rather they not be there since I removed them, as I believe is my right on my user talk. Is this acceptable? I'd like some outside opinions, please. - MrOllie (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• @JG66 and MrOllie: - MrOllie is entitled to delete comments (whether accurate or not, positive or negative) from his user talk page as specified in WP:REMOVED, other than the few exceptions there which these edits do not appear to be part of. If the edits were relevant to an ANI discussion they can always be found in the page's history and given as diffs. Deletion is taken as indication by the user that they are aware of the comments. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing ping Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User: JG66 came to my defence after intimidation from MrOllie when he hastily removed over 120 of my edits citing that I was spamming. I have tried to get a response from from MrOllie on three occasions to discuss this in a calm manner. He has not responded, instead he archived the matter. My weakness is that I am an inexperienced Editor but I have tried to explain to MrOllie that my motives are genuine. Other Editors have also come to my defence, so I think MrOllie should stop being the victim here and understand what Editors far more experienced than I are saying about this matter in a legitimate and correct way. I do not think JG66 was acting in any other way than decent, correct and fair. Another helpful editor User: Rlendog has re-instated over 50 of the deletions which has restored my faith in the decency of Wiki Editors.Muso805 (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Sure , understood. The user seems overly sensitive to criticism, and I don't believe any editor who's at all comfortable in their own skin and able to view their contributions outside of the self would take anything I said in my posts as personal criticism. He treated an editor (Muso805) who has shown extraordinary good faith throughout this – and who admitted from the start that they were quite inexperienced here – despicably. I showed a stubbornness of my own in repeatedly adding the comments that the user wanted excised from their archived version of the discussion (but really, is the second of those comments a personal attack? It's addressing behaviour.)
• Yes, my edits to that talk page archive will stop. But I hope their behaviour comes under the spotlight here sometime soon, especially if they continue to treat new(ish) editors in that way and just shut up shop, close down all discussion – sulk, basically – when the editor seeks some sort of explanation. JG66 (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem, take it to ANI once you have plenty of clear evidence. If you leave the editor a warning and they remove it, that affirms they have received the warning. If they ban you from their talk page, that's a really solid reason to take them to ANI next time there's an issue. (I can't discuss it with them at their talk page so I have to bring it here.) Now I'm going to look at the underlying complaint and see if anybody needs to change what they are doing. Jehochman 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• A partial list of things that shouldn't be taken as personal criticism: 'digging your heels in through what appears to be immaturity', 'Stop being so pompous', 'it's probably because you were being pompous', 'your incompetent editing', 'not got the maturity or humility'. - MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mass additions and removals of references

• All Time Top 1000 Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Muso805 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Muso805 and MrOllie: I advise both editors to stop performing mass edits that are disputed. Instead, get a decision on whether All Time Top 1000 Albums is a notable subject. You can do this via WP:AFD. Next, you should go to WP:RSN and determine whether this is a reliable source for the proposed uses in Misplaced Pages. Once that's done you can proceed with adding it as a reference where needed, or removing it. Additionally, Muso805, you appear to be a single purpose account for generating publicity about this topic. Please declare any connection you have to the subject because your behavior appears to demonstrate a detemination to create links to this page. Jehochman 12:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• The book is almost certainly notable. The author is notable, there are a number of Google Books references to it, and even a quick search found this article and this article in the Guardian and Independent of the time, as well as the BBC News reference that is already there. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite about the notability of this book. But Jehochman, sorry, I think your characterisation of Muso805 as "a single purpose account for generating publicity about this topic" may be a little "non-neutral". It seems to me that this new editor has just seen this book and thinks it's a useful source. They might be criticized for adding only some entries and not all, but that's something quite different. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad the book is notable. However, is it the right source to use? Why add just this one single source to a zillion articles? Why not focus on improving articles generally. Need to use this source here and there? That's fine. Look through the user's edit history, it looks like a determined link building campaign. That doesn't mean it is, but the behavior is indistinguishable from a link building campaign. I'd like the user to just say clearly "yes" or "no" if they have a connection to the subject. I'd like the user to explain why they are so interested in adding references to this book, rather than broadly improving the articles. Jehochman 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by joewendt

joewendt (talk · contribs) has posted a legal threat on his talk page, seemingly over having been accused of having a conflict of interest. Wendt admits in that message to being chair of the Florida Reform Party, which means he is also this candidate for president. His edits have largely surrounded past Reform presidential candidate and competing 2020 presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente. He has continued to edit since being told about our legal threat policy without withdrawing the threat. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No on explicitly asked for it to be removed --Joewendt talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Consider yourself so asked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've enabled talk page access. They did not make any threats after being notified of the policy, no one asked them to remove the previous threat, and judging by their last edit they might have been poised to retract it. No other comment on the block. -- zzuuzz 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict with diffs, but then he was already blocked so I didn't reinstate it and moved on. The above is incorrect, I advised him twice this morning to remove his threat himself. And he chose to continue to ignore sound advice and WP policies. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, noted, and might I suggest a note on the user talk instead next time. I'm still not seeing a basis for a TPA revoke. Of course if the next thing they do is set about ranting and threatening instead of retracting the threat, that's a different matter. -- zzuuzz 14:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I did put the note on his talk page too and he instead said everyone who disagreed with him had a conflict of interest and demanded an apology (for being told not to make legal threats!). I don't think having TPA will make a big difference, but do think your guess is a good one. JesseRafe (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realize that I blocked them without talk page access, this was not my intention.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat was removed: Special:Diff/923746629 _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted page recreated

Saeid Shahi was CSD'ed yesterday as G11. It is back today. I'm not sure exactly what happened as there are multiple recent moves in the history. MB 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Anybody wants to have a look whether Iman.farzam needs an indefinite block as vandalism-only account? This is not so obvious to me but I am afraid they are net negative for our project in any case.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What's up with this edit? did we actually have a wrong name, birthrate, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is why I suggested to block as vandalism-only account. This is clearly a different person.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Now an IP has put the deleted page back. MB 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted, ip blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You creation-protected the talk page but not the article Ymblanter. I assume that was not your intention. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, switched the protection. Today is clearly not my day.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Victor Salvini

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

I think this user is here to Right Great Wrongs. Or actually Wrong Great Rights, by promoting far-right narratives. Edit #2 removes references to the far right from 2018 Chemnitz protests: . Promotes the fascist = socialist far-right trope: , Antifa as an organization , unlink right-wing using "nowiki" in mainspace , change (sourced) "liberal" to "left-wing" on HuffPo article etc.

I noticed this user because of edits to Paul Joseph Watson, climate change denial and especially climate change skepticism.

The user has received BLP and American Politics DS alerts. Guy (help!) 16:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

239 edits, most of are not really useful. I guess I would indefblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering about a talk-only restriction for a while until he's learned how Misplaced Pages works? Guy (help!) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess we’re here now. The Chemnitz edit was because the article implied everyone who went to the protests was far right, which was wrong, I did not remove references to the far right entirely, but I made it so it wasn’t implied that everyone there was far right. I gave up with the fascism and socialism correlation here a while ago (which by the way, calling something meant to expose the far right a “far right trope” is kind of ridiculous). Regarding HuffPost, please read this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/ . I personally take offense to being called far right, and do not see how these edits are worthy of punishment. —Victor Salvini (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I encountered VS a few times, mostly when they tried to soften material about far-right political groups or introduce the socialism = fascism trope into articles. I think they're likely WP:NOTHERE especially considering how likely it is that their username is a portmanteau of Victor Orban and Matteo Salvini. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jicco123

Jicco123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continues to make disruptive edits against MoS (now primarily on Mixer (service), where user consistently insists on using an image of the service's language menu in place of a textual list of languages, and inserting an uncited statement about a major streamer also moving to the service), and refuses to properly collaborate. Has recently had a 48-hour block for the same reason (WP:CIR). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the underlying content dispute, but must note that Talk:Mixer (service) is totally devoid of discussion, and that the history of User talk:Jicco123 contains nothing but templates. How do you expect people to react if nobody talks to them as human beings? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

NPA, NOTHERE, or am I being too sensitive?

I noticed that User:Winged Blades of Godric left a terse edit summary that did not really explain anything when reverting me. "Nope" does not rise to the level of information required to understand the revert. I placed a standard warning and the editor reverted. I'm fine with the revert, but calling me a troll in the process is not appropriate. I left a second, hand-crafted comment explaining NPA, which was also reverted with calling me a troll. Going in for a final comment: I was called a troll in the revert. I'm not going to comment on the editor's talk page again. Are these personal attacks? They are most certainly not respectful in any sense. Are they signs that Winged Blades of Godric is WP:NOTHERE in making no attempt to work collaboratively? Or am I creating a battleground by escalating or possibly just being too sensitive (as the editor is clearly busy and does not want to engage)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards