Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daiyusha (talk | contribs) at 05:02, 16 March 2019 (→Osanna M. Kazezian-Rosa' auto bio: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Tony85poon

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

A. Randomdude0000 Tony85poon (talk · contribs) has been engaging in troubling editing and talk page behavior, especially at Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign and Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign. This has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the user appears to have a WP:POINT, which happens in this case to be to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on behalf of feminism. Case in point, this edit. Note the editor was blocked for two days in late February. I consider myself too WP:INVOLVED here, but I suspect a topic ban for post-1932 U.S. politics or women's issues might be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Also notifying some other involved editors: @A. Randomdude0000, Another Believer, Mélencron, and Ahrtoodeetoo: – Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Muboshgu's assessment of Tony85poon's behavior, which is becoming increasingly brazen. A few examples: , , . It seems as if he is saying "go ahead and block me, I dare ya". So I agree that a topic ban, at the very least, would be in order.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been troubled by their edits. They are clearly not here to be constructive and cooperative. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I share the others' views of Tony85poon's conduct but disagree about the appropriate remedy. I believe a topic ban would be an example of biting a newbie too hard too fast, something we do too often in the AP space. I think this editor deserves a firm and frank, high-level warning from an admin about what the project is about and how they can contribute productively. If they persist, only then should they be topic banned. Tony85poon has undoubtedly been disruptive, and I'm concerned about potential listening and competence problems. But I believe he is here in good faith to build an encyclopedia--he just needs to better understand what that means. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Partial retraction of that view. In this recent edit, Tony85poon did actually dare me to ask for a block, suggesting that it's not his job to avoid disruption. This isn't a problem with AP-related articles, it's a problem with his understanding of community-wide standards. I suggest escalating blocks. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a textbook WP:CIR case to me – not capable of exercising editorial judgment in their edits and constantly adding irrelevant content despite other editors' efforts to get them to stop engaging in such behavior. Mélencron (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Melencron. Their problematic behavior relentlessly continues despite the efforts of multiple editors to keep it in check, and the editor in question gives no indication of putting the brakes on anytime soon. At this point, I believe a block is in order. The disruptive behavior needs to be stopped ASAP.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The listening and CIR problems are relentless. This editor needs a hefty block. R2 (bleep) 00:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• If there's a competency issue, do we think there's a mentor out there who might be able to guide this user in a more productive direction? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's great that we're willing to work with a new editor, but I think that mentoring might be a frustrating exercise for both parties. This editor seems to have clear ideas of what he wants to do, and he is not easily dissuaded from those bad ideas when other editors point to the guidelines. This struck me as an example of the user thumbing his nose at a request that should have been fairly easy to honor. Here he sort of doubles down on the behavior on another entry a couple of days later. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Edits like this convince me that we either have troll on our hands, or someone who simply does not possess the competence to edit an encyclopedia. Having seen very similar behavior from other users in the past, I'm betting that we have a troll. Regardless, this has become quite disruptive and we need an admin to step in. - MrX 🖋 03:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• If I can throw my two cents in here: This is pretty much a CIR issue. Repeatedly starting barely understandable RfCs for trivial matters (eg "Can a political campaign article have a "Positions" section?") or adding completely unreadable (and overlinked) sections eg here and here is disruptive and just sucks up other editors' time. I'd support a (second) temporary block, removed only when and if another editor offers to mentor Tony85poon. Hydromania (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I would say the user covered a lot of fields, and may be from Hong Kong so that he also covered topics from Hong Kong. WPHK talk page had die off and people works as lone wolf. And active user would also have a risk of too strong personal POV, which i feel it looks playing fire on cross-wiki edits around Cory Booker (say, Korean wiki, da-wiki, Greek wiki, hi-wiki, ca-wiki, etc). As an user that joined wikipedia for so long, I would say new user have to learn that wikipedia is based on secondary source, which each other have their own POV and people defend it, but the basic ground on editing, was given fair weigh on reliable source as WP:DUE. Once he learn that , there is no need to warrant an indef block. And yes, i personally seldom touch ethnic or political articles. Matthew hk (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Strike-off my comment. Well, after the socks were exposed (that easily spotted as ducking due to usernames), I can't tell their political agenda on editing so much political articles. May be WP:NOTHERE or more seriously, just like Russia flipping facebook? And yes, WP:RBI. I suggest we close this thread. Matthew hk (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Over the past several days, Tony85poon has fortunately shown a greater willingness to listen to and cooperate with other editors. Given this welcome and positive change in behavior, a block no longer seems to be necessary at this time. However, they have continued to make some problematic edits (along with some good ones, it should be noted) that have required reverting or amending, and continue to be a seemingly endless topic on the talk pages of the articles they edit (the aforementioned Booker campaign article in particular). While these edits do appear to have been made in good faith, they show a general lack of understanding of basic encyclopedic standards. So, I believe Tony85poon should continue to be monitored, and perhaps offered the mentoring option if the problematic editing pattern persists (assuming there is someone out there with the time and willingness to mentor them).---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Tony85poon is taking over WP:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. He has six (6) active RfCs going, all of them pretty frivolous and/or unnecessary. He seems to think that a RfC is warranted as soon as someone disagrees with him, and he refuses to listen with other editors ask him to take them down and talk things out. Some of his disruptive behavior has settled down, but he's still a bull in a china shop. R2 (bleep) 22:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Tony inserted content into Jimmy Carter with the edit summary "Requested for Comment at the Talk Page" while the content is under discussion in one of the aforementioned RfCs. Tony violated 3RR so I blocked the account for a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears that he now has a sock puppet. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex, thanks for bringing that up here. I've already filed an SPI. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon has been blocked indefinitely for creating multiple sockpuppets. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Threatened with block by edit-warring admin using "fuckoff" template

Formally, JzG is warned that the community's patience for repeated incidents of incivility is wearing extremely thin. In particular, JzG, I kindly advise you to note the number of editors endorsing blocking you here who are themselves administrators, and that a number of editors have made good arguments for why blocking you several days after this incident would easily fit within policy as a preventive measure.

To several other editors who ought to know who they are: please put away the "it was a joke" defense. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for saying offensive things, whether you ought to have known they were offensive or not. A bunch of you replied to an editor upset about a sarcastic response with more sarcasm, and it's difficult to see that as anything other than escalating drama for its own sake. Those antics are getting old.

In addition to the above, JzG is fined 45 quatloos for violating Section 4.5.3.a of The Policy, and Floquenbeam is fined 1 bar of gold-pressed latinum for pointing out the violation. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Can someone please have a word with JzG? He is edit-warring at Liberty University‎ and just threatened to block me using a (fictional?) "fuckoff" template. Neither of these actions should be acceptable from an administrator. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You templated a regular. You did this in pursuit of your desire to use self-sourced promotional content in a controversial article. I called you on your hypocrisy. You came here. Good luck with that. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the "fuckoff" template: Current wiki policy, as delineated in Section 4.5.3, is that you can tell someone to fuck off (a) on your own talk page, and (b) once per person. JzG is OK as far as 4.5.3.b is concerned, but has violated 4.5.3.a. Regarding the "threatened to block me" accusation: no, he didn't, that was clearly a parody of the edit warring template. Regarding the "edit warring" accusation: that could very well be, but ANEW is that way. JzG is fined 45 quatloos for violating 4.5.3.a, but will likely run into more trouble if he uses bad language against ElKevbo again, on any page, since he's used up his 4.5.3.b quota. Play nice, Guy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What do I subst to use that template? Asking for a friend. Leviv ich 21:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I had written a big long screed about how to resolve this, but I think Floquenbeam has said it far more eloquently than I could have, and I very much support the sentiments enclosed. Full disclosure, I thought the "template", while perhaps not suitable for repeated use, was hilarious and had quite a good chuckle over it. Captain Eek 04:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• That "template" made me laugh almost as much as the bringing this complaint here expecting someone to take it seriously. On the heels of Misplaced Pages is better than a comedy show today. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: An editor in good standing has asked for help with an administrator who is blatantly edit warring and threatening to block that editor and all anyone can do is make light of that editor and the situation. Is that what we're doing here? Is that the kind of community you want to have? ElKevbo (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest walking away from your keyboard for a few hours and thinking about your own conduct at the article and how bringing this to ANi is perceived by other users. Hopefully you have some realizations. You are taking this a LOT too seriously. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What exactly do you believe is wrong with my conduct at the article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if an admin is edit warring (and this is not a claim of support or denial that Guy was edit warring), that doesn't mean that you have a right to edit war either. It takes two to tango. Captain Eek 04:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggested light reading: standard dispute resolution protocol. Talk things out first, or seek dispute mediation, and only bring issues to ANI if they are chronic, intractable behavioral issues. Captain Eek 04:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I've taken a look at the situation. JzG is WP:INVOLVED and should certainly not block ElKevbo under any circumstances. Beyond that, this looks like a content dispute - Feminist is a long-term editor who appears to be in disagreement with JzG there. There is an open discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Liberty_University. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no more intention of blocking ElKevbo than he has of blocking me. I reserve the right to continue to remove self-sourced promotion from any article, per WP:RS, WP:PROMO and WP:THISISAFUCKINGENCYCLOPAEDIAARTICLENOTANNADVERTISEMENT. Guy (Help!) 05:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. The content here is far from controversial and I can't see any reason not to use it, nor to use the primary source (our rules are to not rely on imperfect sources, not to strip them). However we should additionally have a secondary source. Is there any local equivalent to the THE that lists such things across all colleges? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thus spake our resident contrarian. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it's self-sourced advertorial from pretty much the only university known mainly for right wing indoctrination and teaching creationism as science. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Guy, we are talking about this content. Which is uncontroversial stuff, about the organisation of the college and their sportball teams. It has nothing to do with creationism, or with the academic credibility of the institution. Whatever their beliefs, they still play sports.

If you really think that their beliefs are reason to remove content like this, then yet again you've let your self-appointed role as "Guardian of the Wiki" against pseudoscience et al to cloud your judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• @ElKevbo: FYI the wikitext which JzG placed on your talk is a copy of the wikitext you placed on his talk, with a few words changed. To my reading, the suggestion is that someone engaged in an edit war should not attempt to get the upper hand by templating their opponent. The edit-warring template you used is just a CIVIL way of saying "fuck off". Of course JzG is not going to block you and there was never a suggestion, let alone a threat, that he would. I hope your reading regarding the article content is more accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "just a CIVIL way of saying "fuck off"."

Sorry?

We have an ongoing problem here with CIVIL. Clearly recent policy and practice permits such language - providing that it's used by powerful admins or their friends. If ElKevbo had used it, that would be another matter. We should address both of those, both the use of uncivil language, and the inequity in policy's application.

Also JzG has a long record of threatening editors. I am not reassured by Johnuniq's Of course JzG is not going to block you and there was never a suggestion, let alone a threat, that he would., because JzG is forever threatening to block any editor with whom he disagrees (and frequently me). If the claim is that JzG should not be taken at his word, then that's quite an allegation to make of an admin. If JzG is making so many hollow threats, then that's clearly an attempt at intimidation and that needs to stop right away. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me it would likely be inappropriate to for JzG to take any administrative action in this case from the get go. As I understand it, the university is fairly involved in the American political scene, and the page itself is under Wikiproject Conservatism, so it would seem to fall into the area JzG shouldn't be involved administratively per .

In any case, it looks to me like JzG is too involved to take any administrative action. I agree with User:Andy Dingley that it would be quite wrong for JzG to threaten to block people even if they would never do so. Especially since less active editors may not understand WP:involved.

But has JzG actually threat to block anyone? The example cited at the beginning of this thread never says 'I will block you'. It simply says you 'may be blocked'. Nearly all of our templates say something similar and they're generally intended to be used by everyone because anyone can bring a case to ANI or wherever is appropriate to ask for a block. An admin doesn't lose that right when they become an admin. Unwarranted warnings can still be a problem even when it's clear it's not a threat to personally block, but that's separate from the admin issue.

It is unfortunately true people tend to take block warnings more seriously from admins, even in cases where the admin is involved in the actual dispute rather than administratively so probably can't actually block the editor. I don't see any simple solution although maybe admins could be encouraged to add a message 'I'm not saying I will personally block you, but I can use the avenues open to all editors' if people feel it's a problem. My impression is most new editors don't really know who is an admin anyway. Many mistakenly assume anyone warning them is an admin even if they often aren't.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't a block warning. It was a comment on the rank hypocrisy of one party in a content dispute trying to gain an advantage by invoking "edit warring" against another. In this case, ElKevbo's primary goal is to include self-sourced promotional content in an article about a controversial subject. Whether or not you agree with the specifics, it's clearly a legitimate concern, and reflexively reverting any removal of self-sourced content, as ElKevbo has done, is clearly some kind of problem, but there's no chance I would block him for it, or take any other admin action, for very obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 06:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the advice, everyone. I have not edit warred at this article and this administrator has edit warred (with multiple editors). It's very disappointing that other administrators are not only okay with one of their colleagues edit warring to impose his own views on an article but also okay with him then threatening and harassing another editor. I hope that everyone understands just how toxic that makes this community when its administrators allow and encourage that behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That just looks like a deliberate lie, as the page History shows no evidence of edit warring. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JzG removed content from the article in Special:Diff/887193370 (BOLD). ElKevbo reverted this edit in Special:Diff/887194939 (REVERT). The appropriate step for JzG to take in the WP:BRD cycle is to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page. Instead, JzG reverted ElKevbo's revert in Special:Diff/887201363. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of edit warring by JzG to me. ElKevbo did not continue this edit war. feminist (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

... and that is a pathetic edit war. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally I can't see anything wrong with templating the regulars. It does none of us any harm to be reminded when we step over the line, especially us admins. Whether I agree with him or not, I'm disappointed with the flippant responses to Elkevbo's complaint. Deb (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand that many established and experienced editors take offense to being templated, but I get templated (usually by mistake) all the time... it's never bothered me at all. I typically don't template established editors or experienced contributors directly, but there are situations where I absolutely will (such as edit warring between an experienced editor and a new editor). In that case, it doesn't matter to me how long someone has been on Misplaced Pages or how many edits they have - I leave both users the same templated warning on their user talk pages. This is in order to be 100% equal and fair to both parties, and so that I'm not seen as playing favorites. The template in this case isn't left in order to be careless, but left in order to treat all involved editors the same and hold them to the same level of accountability. ~Oshwah~ 12:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• What's the point to having warning templates anyway? Surely they developed as a standardised and equal-handed set of warnings for particular situations (and experienced editors ought to recognise that, and their limitations). It is much better to have a template that is patronising, with its "welcome to Misplaced Pages" and "you may not know of this policy, but..." approach than it is to have the "You are a hypocrite, fork off" version used here.

Unjustified use of a template is annoying, but if any experienced editor gets a deserved template, then that's their doing. They shouldn't complain about it being done with standardised wording. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JzG was clearly edit warring with ElKevbo. And the faux "fuckoff" template used by an JzG might well be interpreted as a threat of blocking (that it was delivered in a tounge-in-cheek style makes no difference), and as such is inappropriate behavior for an admin. Paul August ☎ 14:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that telling or hinting at another editor that they should "fuck off" is childish and immature behavior, and is definitely unacceptable behavior coming from an administrator - regardless of the situation, manner, or context. That's absolutely not okay; we're supposed to lead by example and demonstrate how to behave and how these kinds of issues and disputes should be handled.... How is telling someone to fuck off a behavior that's compatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators? ... ~Oshwah~ 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, point for point. This behaviour is well bellow the standard of civil, focused, and non-incendiary conduct expected of even a rank-and-file editor, let alone someone invested with the communities faith and special permissions for the purpose of putting out fires and maintaining good order for the sake of the project. As sure as the day is long, we're going to have at least a half dozen people showing up here to advocate that "Well, in the context, I think Guy's comment was funny and acceptable." and boy am I tired of hearing that kind of ethical relativism. I'm tired about hearing about "context" every time someone refuses to act like an adult on this project and they (or others looking to preserve an emerging status quo where they are allowed to behave like surly little nitwits) advance the argument that in the face of real vexation, they couldn't be expected to behave better. Yes, you most certainly can:

If you think you are unique in the level of tension you face on this project, you are almost certainly wrong. In the last six months on this project I've had to engage with avowed racists, scores of socks and other blatant abusers of process, and a group of LTAs trying to promote the sexual abuse of children in our articles. That in addition to dozens of simpler editorial issues which were turned into quagmires by an ornery contributor or two willing to game process--the sort of thing we all have to contend with constantly here. If I could get through all of that without telling someone to fuck off, you most certainly can too. Nor am I saying my experience are particularly unique or represent a highwater mark of frustration: that's just my point--this project can and will test your ability to remain calm in the face of provocation (either intentional or implicit in what you are hearing the other party say), and if you cannot pass that test, this just isn't the project for you. You weren't under an especially high level of pressure when you blew up, because you accept when you work here that you will face such situation and uphold community standards in such a way that you don't contribute to the disruption. And that standard goes tenfold for administrative privileges. If you can't stay especially cool, you're not the person to have the bit--period, end of story. If you have a mop, you are expected to keep it clean and not drag shit all over our floors, which is exactly what you do when you tell someone to fuck off. Even if not for the high levels of tension you are expected to face and still act like an adult capable of showing self-restraint in the face of conflict, "context" is still a pathetic argument to advance to defend one's position. Because regardless of context, we have standards, and the standards are there precisely for the purpose of making sure the "context" doesn't devolve into an increasingly disruptive state of affairs, which most certainly will happen without rigorously enforced restraints. There's also the fact that, as noted by others above, the "give a pass for context" approach is disproportionately and inequitably applied (for obvious reasons) to different classes of user, additional reason (if any were needed) to view it as a dubious test for excusing incivility.

All of which is to say I support a shortterm block for Guy until they can argue persuasively to an unblocking admin that they understand the problem with their behaviour and will endeavour not to repeat it, same as we would expect of any less accomplished and recognized editor in these circumstances. I'd additionally not be opposed to an inquiry for their fitness for the bit, insofar as our admins are expected to show a high standard of conduct and there is at least something of a question of a potential attempt to abuse/leverage tools in the context of a dispute. Let me be clear that I don't expect there is any realistic chance that either proposal will go far. But as regards the block, I'd support a short block for a non-privileged editor in these circumstances (unless of course they could acknowledge the issue sufficiently to convince an admin to unblock), and I see no principled reason not to apply the same standard to Guy, just because he's an admin and we like him. And as to the bit, I'm sorry, but even if the question of Guy being WP:INVOLVED here is resolved in his favour, I am personally of the opinion that any admin who tells and editor to "fuck off" has called into question their basic competency in the elevated position they hold in this community. We need admins who douse the fires of others in ice cold water, not those who drop gasoline on such situations--regardless of their degree of involvement. Snow 18:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This behaviour is well bellow the standard ... Is it, though? I thought there was an RfC at which consensus was reached that telling each other to fuck off is not below the standard of civility (the fourth pillar) required on Misplaced Pages. Leviv ich 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Below standard" (whatever that means) or not, it's still inappropriate, and especially so for an admin. What possible benefit to the encyclopedia is derived from telling another editor to "fuck off"? In my view though, it's the threatening nature of the faux-template which is particularly inappropriate behavior for an admin. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, no such RfC ever arrived at such any such conclusion, not by a mile. There was an RfC about a year back (held at WP talk:Civility, but inspired by a report about concerns with longterm civility here at ANI, in which an eager but uncautious editor but forward the question: "Should telling someone to fuck off be sen as a per see violation of WP:CIV" (I'm a paraphrasing, but that was the main thrust. I told that editor at the time that, although I agreed that they behaviour that inspired their RfC was inappropriate, that they had just made a huge tactical error that the community of volunteers working at ANI and other administrative spaces would have to deal with for years, because from now and until the end of time, people would be erroneously asserting (either through mis-remembrance, willful misinterpretation, or seeing what they wanted to see) that we had an RfC that found that "telling someone to fuck off is alright". But that was most certainly not the outcome of that RfC: there was no firm consensus in that discussion, despite long and involved debate. Indeed, the closer noted (accurately) that a majority of editors felt that in most circumstances telling someone to "fuck off" would be blatantly inappropriate. However, because of the imprecise manner in which the RfC OP framed the question, a lot of contributors were anxious that !voting to endorse it would lead to over-application and that the policy would become a vulgarity filter--basically these editors were concerned that the policy would thereafter be used to create frivolous reports of any use of the word "fuck" that was used in good humour amongst friends in a collegial fashion. But if you look at the balance of the sentiments expressed by those same users in the RfC discussion, it is clear that almost all saw an expressed a limit to using such vulgarity where it was blatantly incivil.

The actual relevant question here ("Is it a violation of civility to tell someone to to "fuck off" in the context of an editorial or personal dispute) has never been put before the community, mostly because it doesn't really need to--as a matter of longstanding practice, such comments have been routinely met with community intercession and sanctions. And honestly, that question is no brainer--telling someone to "fuck off" in a dispute is manifestly inappropriate for a work environment, being aggressive, disrespectful, hostile, incendiary, and frankly just plain juvenile, serving no productive project furthering purpose--just an expression one's anger towards another party and an indication that the person saying it is done even attempting to comply with our conduct standards at even their most basic level. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a comment which is more plainly and incontrovertibly against both the spirit and wording of WP:CIV, and I don't know why we would even bother to have the policy if even such a blatant refusal to comply with it cannot justify community response. So, no, there was no such RfC that says "it's ok to tell someone to fuck off", nor do we need an express RfC to arrive at the conclusion that this behaviour breeches our conduct standards--all of the relevant community consensus is already enshrined at WP:CIVILITY, WP:DISRUPTIVE, and numerous other policies--and this standard has been applied many thousands of times against newer editors who have received blocks for that exact phrase and similar expressions. And if anything, the standard should be even more rigorously applied to admins. Snow

That's a good point and so I went and looked back. The RfC question was "Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?, and the close was ...most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. Mitigating factors could include extreme provocation and whether the phrase was used as part of non-serious banter, but it's ultimately a case-by-case determination. I remember learning about it here, where it was discussed in relation to this template+"fuck off" by an admin (among other similar incidents involving different editors), which was held as an example of non-sanctionable conduct. I agree with that, and so I have a hard time applying a different rule in this instance. Leviv ich 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, except some incidental discussion in an RfA that expresses the opinion of one (or even a handful) of editors does come remotely close to being a significant enough expression of community consensus community consensus as do our relevant policies, representing standards adopted in a much broader fashion over a much longer course of time--the most significant of which policies, indeed, a pillar policy, is WP:CIV--to whit, and from the lead paragraph of that policy: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." No which part of "Fuck off" or "go fuck yourself" or any other variation which is starting to plague our edit summaries and user talk page resources (and very soon, article talk and ANI?), do you find jives with that standard? In fact there's about two dozen more quotes that one could pull out of that policy which make clear (with substantial specificity) why this kind of behaviour is against our community's expectations. I suggest anybody who is prepared to argue that this kind of behaviour, when done in the context of a user dispute, is appropriate and non-sanctionable, to go to that policy and pull out a quote that even raises the suggestion or some ambiguity to the situation. While they're at it, they might take a moment to consider how we explain this to the many thousands of problematic/ill-tempered editors who have been blocked for much less plainly aggressive and disruptive behaviour, because they didn't have a high enough profile to fend off the ban hammer when their expressly hostile language landed them in trouble.

I honestly don't mean to be incivil myself in saying this, but your segment of commentary in an RfA is supremely unimpressive when held up against the plain wording of our central user conduct policies and equitable standards. I take a different interpretation of the RfC close you qouted there, but even if we adopt the part you chose to emphasize with your qoute, we are still left in the same place: a case-by-case analysis. In that light, I've seen enough evidence in this case to say that Guy's use of "fuck off" was inappropriate, needlessly hostile and likely to inflame the matter, and below the quality of "calm and reasonable, even in heated debates"--to say nothing of what we expect of them given that they are an admin. Snow 03:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also just a note: I certainly don't view this as the worst kind of incivility ever on this project, by any stretch of the imagination. I've suggested an approach under policy because I feel the behaviour was sufficiently bad enough that I would be willing to endorse that community response as against an unknown/newer editor, unless the editor in question spoke up to make assurances that they understood why it was a problem. Therefor cannot see any alternative but to urge the same for an admin. There's also, as has been noted both above and below, intersecting and arguably more important issues relating to WP:INVOLVED and tools. I have not found the time to review those issues in super fine detail (and may not before this discussion is resolved), so I won't speak to them primarily unless/until I do. But what I can say is that "there is an accepted community standard that an admin telling someone to fuck off is non-sanctionable" is a clearly and massively erroneous statement, completely out of whack with every policy directly on point, and the underlying community consensus formed therein over many years. Again, no offense intended. Snow 03:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No offense taken, and I actually agree with you about how things should be, but let me ask you this: who was the last admin to be sanctioned for telling someone to f off or anything like that? (Honest question, I don't know the answer.) My impression–and it may be mistaken–is that admin and other editors are given a ton of leeway when it comes to cursing at each other and such. I think that should change, I've just always thought I was in the minority. Leviv ich 06:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say you're by any means in the minority there. When I first joined the project as a regular contributor about nine years back, there would have been just no question about whether telling someone to fuck off was appropriate or not--it never would have been given a pass (now, even then, and admin or a popular editor might have gotten away with it on some rationale or another, but no one would advance the argument that the comment itself was within the perview of reasonably civil conduct). Standards have slipped a little since then, of course, but I still believe the vast, vast majority of editors favour the standards laid out in WP:CIV and when questioned on the matter, find outbursts of invective cursing to be completely inappropriate. What has changed more than anything is the culture of the spaces where this kind of misconduct is weighed by the community.

Here at ANI in particular, there is a "birds of a feather" effect, wherein editors who have a "I am entitled to say whatever I want so long as I feel it was justified in the moment" mentality see community action being considered against other contributors who have conducted themselves in in a similar fashion and with similar disruptive outbursts, and oppose any sanction which looks like its the type they've had to face down in the past. Now these editors are a slim minority when compared to the editors who provide more nuanced opinions here and in other administrative spaces--which editors may or may not support a sanction in particular cases but do not in either event engage in minimzing policy or concerns--but the members of this small minority are heavily invested enough (and consistently present enough in process spaces) that despite their numbers they manage to muddy the waters enough to degrade the consistency of enforcement in many cases where they feel entitled to argue "Oh, he couldn't help saying 'fuck you and fuck the horse your road in on, asshole'--the other guy made him do it." As if that were an adult or reasonable argument. Still, vocal as this minority can be, it doesn't change broader community consensus nor the plain reading of WP:CIV, so I'd feel quite comfortable, if I were you, in knowing that most users want that policy followed closely and see repeated and/or severe violations as a problem, whoever's conduct it happens to be.

That said, your point is taken as to admins, in practice, having a degree of "process armour". And honestly, that makes a certain degree of sense: we are used to seeing problem contributors respond to any administrative action with histrionics and further disruption, so we get in a habit of giving admins the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean we should adopt a formulaic/dogmatic approach to such questions or just accept that admins will get a free pass because its too hard to hold them to account. It may be difficult (indeed, probably in a majority of cases outright futile) to get the same standard applied to admins (or editors who have made a large number of connections on-project, for that matter) as is applied to a neophyte editor who acts out. But I think we still need to try to insist on that response, or else the immunity to having their conduct reviewed becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Snow 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Snow Rise. Your comments here have changed my mind on this and given me renewed hope about civility on Misplaced Pages. Leviv ich 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to encourage JzG to be nice to people. Many people do not interpret an imperative to "fuck off" as being nice. It would be helpful for JzG to cultivate other turns of phrase. Beyond that, it appears to me that the underlying conduct dispute is proceeding along reasonably fruitful lines at this point. UninvitedCompany 18:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it's time for JzG to step away from certain topics for a while, he has shown himself to be very abrasive and I agree with Snow above as well as Oshwah, the behavior is unnacceptable from anyone, and certainly not from an admin. Sir Joseph 20:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also agree that some action should be taken, by JzG or otherwise. I've noticed chronic incivility by this user, such as the stuff mentioned above, these rude messages or edit summaries telling people to get off his talk page, this personal attack, another one, and probably more. SemiHypercube 21:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO an admin saying "you may be blocked" (with no other notes saying otherwise) will often be interpreted as a possibility that the admin would block, and the person writing it knows that. So IMO doing such is using the position to intimidate or influence the situation. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with North800. For an admin to use blocking language, with the power to do so is bullying. On the other hand, ElKevbo is getting in conflicts quite frequently, and blows his top when people don't agree with him. They both need to think about civility and the the level of maturity they are(n't) showing.Jacona (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a formal warning on civility for both then? Captain Eek 23:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

With candor, I think that's the best resolution we are likely to land on here. Personally, I'd support something a little more likely to catch the attention, but given the overall context here, I view that as an unlikely outcome. So a message expressing the community's concern with the behaviour is perhaps the best of limited options at this stage. Snow 04:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The "you may be blocked" language is part of our standard edit warring notice which ElKevbo also issued to Guy. If our templates our written in a way that is interpreted as intimidation, then that is another discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 10:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is not civility as such -- I think an admin should never be deliberately vulgar in a dispute here, ever, but that unfortunately may not have consensus-

-but over-agressiveness and WP:INVOLVED. Both here and chronically and repeatedly over the years in the sort of situation SemiHypercube has pointed out. I've dealt with almost as much promotionalism as JzG, and I've been equally annoyed, and I do sympathize with this feelings about it, but I've never thought any degree of rudeness necessary. In fact, it is counterproductive--the more polite the explanation the more likely they are to realise there's no point bothering further. And, in particular, an admin has enough power in dealing with promotional and other improper editing, that any display of personality will always appear overbearing. So I agree with Snow and Oswah. At some point we need to give a clear message that this must stop. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no WP:INVOLVED here. I took no admin action and none was ever going to be taken. Remember: the trigger event was that ElKevbo, who has consistently reverted my edits removing self-sourced promotional content, left a template edit warring notice on my talk page when he is the other party in the edit war - I copied this and changed it to an obviously satirical hypocrisy warning. It was a sarcastic response to an aggressive act. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not participated in this discussion after a few initial comments; I stopped reading this discussion and removed this noticeboard from my watchlist after the initial responses were so disheartening and disappointing that I considered taking a break or leaving altogether. I do want to make it clear that I have no general objection to rough language; my objection in this instance is the aggressiveness of the specific language used in the context of a message from an administrator that included a warning that I might be blocked.

I also don't see where in these interactions I have been uncivil or edit warred. I don't think I'd necessarily characterize JzG's article Talk page discussion as uncivil, at least not in the usual sense that we mean it; it's only when he posted to my User Talk page that he crossed a line. I also think an examination of the article's history will show that JzG is the only editor who (until at least recently; I have also removed that article from my watchlist so I haven't kept up with recent events) began edit wars by reverting other editor's revert and he did it multiple times to multiple editors. Someone else in this discussion has noted some of these actions and I agree with their characterization of the WP:BRD cycle that was violated with JzG's reversions of reversions.

If you'd like further input from me, please ping me or drop a note on my User Talk page; I am not continuing to monitor this discussion as I believe I did my part in bringing this administrator's conduct to the attention of the wider administrator community and I trust that you will act on this as you see fit. ElKevbo (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there you go

I went to ElKevbo's user talk to apologise, since he very obviously failed to interpret my sarcasm for what it was and interpreted it instead as a threat, which it was not. However, he has asked me not to post there (along with some others who were attempting to offer him helpful advice). That rather limits my ability to fix anything. If it wasn't blindingly obvious, I would not have blocked ElKevbo, not only because of WP:INVOLVED but also because the dispute doesn't rise anywhere near that level. There's a sensible debate going on at the talk page with additional input from RSN, I don't really see this as needing additional escalation, but clearly ElKevbo disagrees. Le sigh. I don't propose to say any more about this unless people specifically ask me to. I should know that sarcasm doesn't translate.

Happily, dlthewave is doing some good work on the root cause of the problem int he article. Hopefully ElKevbo will accept him as an honest broker. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You know sarcasm is never really helpful, at its best it's insulting. But a "sarcastic" threat of being blocked, coming from an admin is particularly inappropriate. In power imbalances, the "I was only joking" defense doesn't cut it (consider sexual "jokes" from a boss to an employee). Paul August ☎ 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that it was inappropriate behaviour from an administrator?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I'm going to call you out on this post. You call this an apology??? In my opinion, you need to take on board that in posting that template, you were wrong, you were 100% wrong, and the only editor who was wrong was you. I can't speak for anyone else, but had you made a real apology, I would have voted no action instead of voting for a warning. Leviv ich 16:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

Per above conversation, several options appear to have traction. I thus present 3 possible solutions to the issue. As proposer I neither endorse nor oppose any option at this time. (Non-administrator comment) Captain Eek 06:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I have only written proposals 1, 2, and 3. Captain Eek 18:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a math problem here. The "some action needed" "vote' is split amongst 4 items, the "no action needed" "vote" is concentrated on one possibility. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well as always, a !vote should be based on consensus, not who has more votes (easy to put in writing, harder to put into practice). But you are right, that does give a bit of mathematical disadvantage. Perhaps the first vote should have been "Do something" vs. "Do nothing", but that seemed an extraneous step? Captain Eek 19:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

At this point, the close can still analyze them that way, in essence interpret them as "how far are you willing to go? and see what there is a consensus for. E.G. 100% will be willing to go to at least doing nothing, 70% to at least a warning, 40% to the next more severe step, so the consensus got lost after "just a warning". North8000 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Warn

Both JzG and ElKevbo are given formal warnings about civility and edit warring. JzG reminded that sysops are held to higher conduct standards than regular users, and to refresh their reading of WP:INVOLVED.

Proposal 2: Temp block

JzG is temporarily blocked and expected to give a convincing unblock reason that shows they understand the situation and will work to correct any issues the community has highlighted. ElKevbo still warned about about civility and edit warring.

Proposal 3: No action

The matter is dropped.

Proposal 4: Admin status

It's time to question whether Guy is fit to be an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Tban from American Politics

JzG is topic banned from any article related to American politics, such as Liberty University is. This would go a long way to ease up on civility. I know this is a long shot, but a good chunk of the issue is Guy and this specific topic area.

!Vote

Support some sort of formal warning for JzG. As for ElKevbo being uncilvil, can someone please supply diffs? Paul August ☎ 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 per the above situation, and Proposal 2 if continued per WP:ROPE. SemiHypercube 11:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps Proposal 4 would be worth doing, but oppose proposal 5 as JzG has said he generally avoids contributing to US politics articles (here and here) so there might not be much use in enforcing something voluntary. SemiHypercube 20:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Proposal 1 - not to "punish" JzG but to remind him what's expected of us. Deb (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal 3 Storm inna fucking teacup. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal 3 per the Dog: this section is rather unnecessary. ——SerialNumber54129 13:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal #1 Something needs to be done but it's not a huge deal. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal #1 A think a formal warning is needed as what is "blindingly obvious" to JzG may not be to the person at the receiving end.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal #2 Seriously - MjolnirPants and TenPoundHammer get blocked for telling other users to fuck off (or similar), and Guy gets off with a slapped wrist? No. Be consistent. However, I'll take option #1 as a compromise. Ritchie333 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, F&K has summarised why it is consistent rather well. ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants was blocked for something that required oversight, which was not because he dropped an f-bomb. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposal #3 Giving an admin an EW template is pointy; with all the good faith in the world, it's hard to believe that ElKevbo genuinely thought JzG didn't know that edit warring was a thing, so why template except to wind him up? JzG should probably have risen above it, but replying with a sarcastic template is not something that needed bringing here. He's accepted above that it wasn't the best possible response, so I don't see what purpose a warning would serve - drop it and move on. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal #2 (for a short-time block). JzG's combative attitude and frequent "sarcastic" personal attacks have for a long time been extremely exhausting to other editors in various places (e.g., Talk:Sci-Hub recently). I believe JzG needs a clear signal that they should temper down, as Misplaced Pages depends on COLLABORATION and not fight. I am against #1 as I do not think ElKevbo should be met out the same treatment as JzG, a contributor with a long history of complaints. — kashmīrī  14:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As it was added after I cast my !vote, I may also consider supporting proposal #4 – to discuss desysopping Guy, but without prejudice to the outcome of the discussion. It needs clarification whether Guy abused admin tools or status. To be clear, I have not seen examples of this, but if the majority feels there are grounds for #4, I will not oppose. — kashmīrī  18:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I also oppose #5. The problems with Guy's editing are not specific to American politics. — kashmīrī  18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Resolved This was resolved (IMHO) 30 minutes after the original post. I told Guy to knock it off, I told ElKevbo where to report the edit warring if he wanted to, and I assured him Guy wasn't threatening to block him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you mean this, I don't think it resolved that much as ElKevbo thought you and other editors were making fun of him and we're still here two days later.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I still think Floquenbeam's solution was good. Their answer was concise, witty, and kept things lighthearted while still solving the issue; i.e. that Guy cursed once, but will likely run into more trouble if he uses bad language against ElKevbo again, on any page. Captain Eek 19:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I still support fining Guy 45 quatloos. Captain Eek 19:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal 1 (but not for ElKevbo) – Per F&K via SN, this is not comparable to MP or TPH. It's not serious enough for a block on a first offense without a warning first, and I'd probably vote no action if this was a non-admin editor. But per Snow Rise's and others' comments, we can't just ignore incivility, and while I thought it was funny and I generally like Guy, when I step back, "Should an admin be allowed to tell an editor to fuck off?" is a question with an obvious answer. Wherever "the line" is, it was clearly crossed here; a formal warning is due. Leviv ich 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal #2 – it's been nearly 48 hours since this happened. If I reported a vandal to AIV 24–48 hours after their last edit, I would expect it to be declined as stale. So I think this is not recent enough for any blocking, more so because we are dealing with experienced editors who are not vandals here. And with that in mind, there has been discussion here of templating the regulars. In my opinion, blocking the regulars is similar to templating them. Why? See the lead section of the DTTR page: When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. Sticking to the "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Other problems with blocking experienced editors are highlighted at WP:UNBLOCKABLE: They will argue that the previous short blocks failed to stop the user from engaging in the problematic behavior, so nothing short of an indefinite block or an ArbCom case is likely to help. Conversely, if you make a long block this same admin will reverse it as being too harsh or on the basis of "time served" if it's been a few hours. Now, since discussion has taken place in this thread about JzG's civility, and we know he has read it because he has replied to this discussion, I think that that means he has de facto been warned about his conduct and so I doubt that a further warning on his talk page is necessary, for now at least. Linguist111 16:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• You might be confusing preventative blocks, which are used in situations of ongoing vandalism and which indeed should be fresh (although I never heard that 24h makes one stale), with punitive blocks which we are discussing in this case. So, your "policy"-based oppose doesn't sound convincing to me. — kashmīrī  17:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Unless I've misread our blocking policy, I don't think that punative blocks are a thing. It specifically says that blocks are not intended to punish, only to prevent disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• If JzG has any sense (which I presume he does, as he is an admin), he will, by reading this discussion, understand that his behaviour in this situation has been disapproved of by multiple other experienced editors and he will not continue it, and therefore no action will be necessary. If, after reading this discussion, he doesn't understand and continues that behaviour, then there'll be reason to take action. At the moment, I don't see how blocking JzG is particularly preventative. Linguist111 17:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think Kashmīrī's mis-remembering WP:PUNITIVE. ——SerialNumber54129 17:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oops - not as bad as me misspelling it... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries :) That is an essay, and legal discussion goes somewhat deeper – one role of punishment is to deter. As most will have understood, here I tried to differentiate between vandal blocks, intended to immediately stop imminent damage, and short-term blocks intended to dissuade an editor from engaging in persistent low-level activity detrimental to the project. — kashmīrī  18:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, Kashmiri most editors wiil have understood your remarks to fly directly in the face of policy: WP:NOPUNISH. And the "depth of legal discussion" is, how you say, at best a distraction. ——SerialNumber54129 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - WP:BP is policy, and that's what I had in mind. Blocks are not meant to be punitive (spell check - tick), that's policy. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Linguist111, 48 hours? This ANI report was posted 20:45, 11 March 2019; the fuck off template was 20:42, 11 March 2019. Three minutes. Not stale. This isn't a vandalism report, it's a civility report; staleness means something different for civility than for vandalism, right? Leviv ich 17:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• I mean that right now it's been nearly 48 hours, so I don't think that it is appropriate to give out a block right now since time has now passed. Of course, civility is important, but I don't think that blocking this particular user at this particular time is preventative. Linguist111 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that a block is not appropriate right now, but I disagree with your reasoning about the fact that 48 hours have passed since the report, because by that logic, we could never block anyone for incivility unless somebody did it right away, and that would discourage discussion prior to blocks, which I don't think is a good thing, especially in civility cases, which, unlike vandalism, often require some careful analysis of context to determine culpability and seriousness (as has been occurring here for the last 48hrs). Generally speaking, the preventative reasons for an incivility block after 48 hours are: technically, it prevents the editor from making uncivil comments for the duration of the block; it prevents future incivility by giving an editor a cooling-off period to reflect on their conduct; it acts as a deterrent for the editor who presumably will be more careful so as to avoid future blocks; and, it acts as a deterrent for others, who will see that incivility results in blocks. Leviv ich 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fair points. What I am mainly focusing on is the following question: "Is blocking this user the only feasible action that could prevent, or help to prevent, further misconduct?". My answer to this question would be "no". Linguist111 18:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Really, why doesn't someone who gets on with JzG just go to his talk page, ask him to read over the latest version of this thread and ask for his takeawy: if he tells us what he draws from it I (almost) guarantee it will contain something to satisfy everyone and their issues here, and we won't have to worry about blocks—bans—warnings—templates—or Section 4.5.3a-c... ——SerialNumber54129 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal #2 as first choice. Also support proposal 1 for JzG definitely not for ElKevbo. Admins should be held to the same standards as everyone else - if not higher and he was a total instigator. I would go far as supporting giving GUY a topic ban for his action or to be de-modded AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal #2 then #1 Sir Joseph 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support #4 We need admins, not bullies. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Only ARBCOM can desysop. Sir Joseph 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Which would begin by consensus here to file such a request. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal #2- I'm sick of admins getting a pass just because they are admins. They should be setting the example here which is why i also would also support proposal #4, but I don't believe it can be implemented here.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, wanted to clarify that regardless of what option is chosen, I oppose any warning for ElKevbo. I really don't see what he did wrong here.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• 3 as a first choice, 1 as a second. Neither user has demonstrated a long term pattern of behavioral issues unlike the counter-examples cited earlier. Given that, I prefer 3 over 1 because the purpose of a warning is to inform someone who may be unaware that they are doing something wrong. I think both parties are quite aware by now, given the length of this discussion and their participation in it. We don't need to have out blocks or sanctions yet, and this discussion is quite warning enough. If this becomes a repeated problem in the future we can revisit it.--Jayron32 18:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Jayron, I'm sorry, but WADR, Guy has shown repeatedly that in this area he often resorts to this non-civil language when conversing to people he disagrees with. This is similar to his Politics sub-page. Other people have also pointed out how he talks to people in this specific subject area, it's not a one off. Regardless, it is conduct unbecoming an admin. Sir Joseph 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• #3 I suggest some people take some time off from their witch hunts and go find something better to do that involves less drama. Nihlus 19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting, in that at WP:AN by the other thread involving civil language you commented quite differently. Sir Joseph 20:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, you're mistaken. Nihlus 07:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose #5 A topic ban is not the answer here. This is an issue of general, not topic based, conduct. It doesn't appear that this issue is about a certain area of editing, unless someone can show a convincing pattern with diffs. Captain Eek 19:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Question Should the proposals be changed so as to strike Both JzG and ElKevbo are given formal warnings about civility and edit warring. from Proposal #1, and to strike ElKevbo still warned about about civility and edit warring. from proposal #2?. I realize that I may have misinterpreted the situation here. I couldn't find any specific instances of uncivil conduct by ElKevbo. If anyone can provide diffs to the contrary, please do. I think this thread has been warning enough, and ElKevbo's responses have shown competence and understanding. I think those lines should be struck from the proposals, since the issue that folks are most riled up about is Guy's conduct, not ElKevbos. Captain Eek 19:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• @CaptainEek: I hold myself partially responsible; if I'd realised that you've been here five years with 3000 edits—but only 63 of them to ANI and those only beginning in January...I would have suggested adjusting and / or opposing all your proposals from scratch. I think you're beginning to recognise that it's not quite as simple as playing Pontius Pilot: It's more like tring to trying to stop the brooms multiplying. And now you want to change your proposals—even those which have already been subject to commentary? I'm sorry, I don't see much of a way out tbh. ——SerialNumber54129 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thats a fair assessment, and thats my bad, not yours. I wrongly thought this was fairly routine, and see that it has now become a major policy issue. I apologize for making the brooms multiply. I will step back from this discussion if need be. Captain Eek 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal #3 and hope some lesson about civility and collaboration is learned by both, and that Guy takes a second thought about the weight even a joke about blocking by an admin carries. I think many of us feel, like Leviv, that we need to up our standards on civility.Jacona (talk)
• Comment for all those saying do nothing, please do a search in the archives for "Jzg civility" and read, it's not a new one time issue. This has been going on for years and the fact that Guy is an admin should not be a defense, and indeed, that was one of the reasons for not blocking him in the past. Sir Joseph 20:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 Ugh, this is a really problematic manner in which to have formatted an !vote/proposal section and I think it's going to make it even more difficult to arrive at a concrete consensus for an already complicated issue. That nitpick done, my preferred approach would be a short-term block, per my reasoning above: this is the standard approach that we would use for an editor with repeated issues in this area who made that particular comment while displaying a certain level of battleground mentality, and I see no compelling reason to adopt another standard because the editor in question here is an admin. Indeed, this is without even considering the additional sources of concern about potential abuse of status, and focusing just on the content of the comments themselves, which sufficient enough to warrant a block, given the community has made its concerns known in the past. Actually, I was just about prepared to downgrade my stance to a warning when I saw how they approached what they describe as an "apology" to the other editor (detailed above). There's clearly enough WP:IDHT involved here that I think an attention-grabbing block is warranted and in the best interests of the project. I'd also support looking at the user's admin status, but a short-term block seems to me to be the most balanced option at this juncture. Snow 22:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Proposal 3. As someone above said, the witch-hunters need to find a new hobby. Also, if your problem is with the word "fuck", it's ONLY being used as the name of the template, so just change the fucking name, and the "problem" is fucking solved. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)--Calton | Talk 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Calton: Template:Fuckoff doesn't actually exist. What I think happened was: after ElKevbo templated JzG with {{uw-ew}} , JzG copied the transcluded Wikitext, manually edited it to include <!-- Template:fuckoff --> in place of <!-- Template:uw-ew -->, then pasted it onto ElKevbo's talk page . You can compare the messages here. Linguist111 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is no such template--a template with that title would never be tolerated, precisely because we don't allow that kind of inflammatory language on this project--rather, Guy inserted that language himself when creating the formatting of a false template, which makes it very much his words and his express choice to put forward that message/voice his discontent in exactly those terms.

Also, please try to avoid needlessly inflaming the debate even further by using denigrating language like "witch hunters" to describe the other community members here providing their good-faith input on a community matter; your having a laissez-faire attitude towards the conduct in question here does not mean any other community members who feel differently here are by default acting out of some frivolous or nefarious mob mentality, and your implying as much is WP:PA-ish in tone and does not help to resolve the issues amicably and without further disruption. Indeed, I think if you want to support Guy here, you do his position a disservice, if anything, when you are dismissive of the concerns of others in this kind of name-calling fashion. Snow 00:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the second person to call it a witch hunt. I am reminded of this link, where I was threatened with a warning by Drmies for calling something a witch hunt. As always, it really does depend on who says it. Sir Joseph 01:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ilikeit poll ElKevbo misunderstood the sarcasm. The situation was explained by Floquenbeam and everything after that is pointless drama. Apparently ElKevbo thinks it is perfectly to ok to edit war and template your opponent, and could not recognize the tone of the reply. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all as resolved. Needless drama and bureaucracy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposition #2: A 6-month block (long enough not to just sit it out) would show that the community had some integrity, it might even make some of the traditional rally-to-the-cause folks think twice before filling a discussion about JzG's arrogant responses (e.g. Good luck with that...) with further obscenities. It is written in the Guide that "The best way to make The Established Editors more civil is to block them periodically." (so they can eat humble pie & request an unblock like everyone else) SashiRolls 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Jesus Christ, what a shitshow. To all the (Personal attack removed) here - I'm most entertained, but now that you've expressed your outrage, let's move on. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for anyone else but when the best arguments your allies have are calling others (Personal attack removed) or claiming there is a witch hunt, it's pretty clear that you are in trouble. If you are trying to help JzG, you might want to try a different tack. Addressing why it's okay for JzG to have done what he did would be a good start rather than just tossing around insults. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: personal attack redacted. If you use that word to refer to other editors on Misplaced Pages again, I will block you. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support for #2 JZG claims that this was sarcasm, which is well and fine, but you can be sarcastic without telling someone to fuck off. There's nothing funny about that, nor is it an overreaction to think he should have some time to think about why civility is necessary for an online community. Comments like this can be extremely off-putting to those considering whether or not to join our faltering community, and even to current contributors who might consider being more active within the community. Points can, and should, be made without resorting to childishness and incivility. I'd support #1 as my second choice. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 for Guy or just Support 3. Per the reasons outlined by Deb and Floquenbeam above. I think blocking Guy or even consider removing him as admin rather extreme. He could just simply *not* do it again, and this whole thing would be fine. I oppose warning ElKevbo because what is there to warn them about? To tell the truth, I felt that Floquenbeam took care of this whole thing rather well. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, "don't template the regulars" probably applies, So ElKovbo was a bit out of line. But I do feel JzG was being disruptive. The "sarcasm" from a non-admin would have been problematic, but from an admin, it's not unreasonable to take that seriously. And then the apology that wasn't makes me think that he really doesn't get it. I'm fine with a formal warning to JzG (so #1 but only JzG). And I think a short topic ban (say it could be appealed at 30 days) from American politics for JzG would be a good idea. I tend to agree with JzG on most things in that topic area, but I find him to be abrasive at best and lacking perspective to the degree I'm not sure he can edit in a NPOV way in that area at worst (so weak support for #5). On #2, I don't see what that helps and I'm not sure it's within policy. #4 I'd hate to see as he does a fair bit of darn useful work around here last I checked. But I'm opposed to #3. If this were his first time up for an issue like this, sure. But it isn't. And given the issues, I think something needs to be done to grab his attention and realize that he should not be behaving like this. Hobit (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1. In and of itself, a block is excessive and unnecessary in this instance. While warning JzG is objectively pointless as he will ignore it (as he has ignored all the various admonishments he's had over the years). To note, in just a few minutes I found five reminders/admonishments from arbitration around civility:
  • JzG is admonished
  • JzG is specifically admonished
  • JzG warned re civility
  • JzG is warned
  • JZG is warned

Most of these are from many years ago, and over those many years, none have resulted in any sustained improvement, and so depressingly I can't imagine a warning will make any difference this time, either, but we are compelled to try; administrators should be held to a higher standard of conduct than other editors, not a lower standard. I'm almost convincing myself to say "yes, block" but I recognize Guy does do a lot of good work. That is a pat phrase, but I'm focusing less on the term "good work" and more on the word "lot", because we must consider sample size - JzG is very very active, and that high level of activity is in often-fraught areas of the encyclopedia. If (say) 99.5% of everything he does is absolutely positive and in line with the community's civility standards, which I'm pretty sure it is, that 0.5% where it is not and Guy crosses a line is relatively going to result in a larger set of diffs or set of issues which will have upset a larger number of editors (who tend to be more upsettable, if that's a word), than most other admins. So I will say a warning ought to be sufficient, with the hope that Guy will listen and learn rather than shrug it off, fail to acknowledge this discussion has even taken place, and go back to Righting All The Wrongs, and perhaps a reminder that this persistent, long-term, battleground-style approach is not the only way to do things. Fish+Karate 10:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Fish and karate, I see your concern about the project's benefit. But then we are bumping into another Jytdog situation: can lots of good work justify a different standard of treatment than with regard to an editor who does less of that work? Should those who do not do that many good edits be automatically sanctioned more severely? I am just wondering how many good editors were effectively driven away by JzG's incorrectable attitude. — kashmīrī  10:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kashmiri, as I say above, I am not saying those who make lots of good edits be treated differently when they transgress. I am, though, noting that people who make a lot of edits are likely to make more bad edits than those who do not make a lot of edits, particularly if that lot of edits are in some very fraught areas where tempers fray more readily. JzG's 0.5% (or whatever) of bad edits is larger than my 0.5% of bad edits or your 0.5% of bad edits (all of us make some bad edits eventually), and it's objectively and provably easier to find examples of these bad edits with JzG, as you can see in my above post. We can't prove how many, if any, good editors have been driven away by JzG's attitude, this is impossible to substantiate, but we do know generally that a more civil way of working is better for everyone. Fish+Karate 11:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a joke, everyone. While I take no position on the content dispute, I very much doubt ElKevbo was traumatized for life. Guy clearly did not intend to threaten ElKevbo with a block. Once it became clear that ElKevbo did not catch the sarcasm, Guy clarified what he had meant. Simple misunderstanding that could have been solved without resorting to the ANI. All the virtue signalling and holier-than-thou posts here are, quite frankly, sickening. Let's drop this and pretend it never happened. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• 3. —Cryptic 12:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Proposal 2 With JzG's history in the subject area, including that essay he wrote belittling those who hold views he is skeptical about, I think a block is appropriate. These actions would earn any non-admin a short block, and I see no reason not to apply it to admins. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

thewolfchild – abrasive interaction issues at Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad

I'm reaching out to understand how to proceed out here with respect to the thewolfchild. In my opinion, the editor seems to have an abrasive and overly aggressive attitude towards anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint at Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad, to the point of having a chilling effect on opposing views from editors such as Athaenara, Mr rnddude, Kashmiri, Foxnpichu, Hhkohh and Crazynas. My discussions with the editor on my talk page also ended up on a route it should not have gone in (and I would probably take the blame for it as I should have ignored commenting back). I should confess; I might be the one completely wrong in assessing the issue, in such a case, would of course step back. Feedback from my fellow editors would allow me a dispassionate view of the issue.

Some relevant diffs:

• The editor has a background of being blocked 9 times in the past for reasons ranging from aggressive attitude, personal attacks, edit warring and similar.
• A few diffs of Thewolfchild's recent interactions at the RfB can be seen here:
• A few examples of recent interactions on various editors' talk pages can be seen here:

Thanks, Lourdes 04:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

the idea that all we are doing at RfXs is trying to appropriately deposit our feces is a rather amusing one to me Crazynas 11:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit that I had thought about this same of course of action myself. I had thought about proposing a TBAN from commenting at RfX with an exception carved out for asking two questions of the candidate only and posting a !vote. I agree with Lourdes' assessment that TWC is abrasive at RfX, and will add that this has been a pattern for some time. I mean, just refer to Iridescent's pre-emptive comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Sir_Sputnik. I mentioned a series of diffs at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/DeltaQuad in my latest post which I think highlight their passive-aggressive demeanour at that RfB. It appears to me that TWC needs to be notified that they are not arbiter of appropriate !votes, comments or questions in any venue let alone at RfX. Either through their own volition, or by sanctioned remedy. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes - I think that many of his responses (while I definitely would have worded them better) are an attempt to make fair arguments in rebuttal to others, but responses like this one (and many others listed here) show a very battleground-like attitude and he's definitely bludgeoning the process there. When he goes as far as to accuse you of making certain edits and changes to spite him and because of the discussion at the RfB and with no real evidence to back this up, you know that there's a problem and he's taking things way too far. This edit he made here is unacceptable.

Regarding your discussion with thewolfchild on your user talk page: I don't think you did anything horribly and utterly wrong, but I think that many of your statements in response to thewolfchild caused him to become more frustrated and more angry instead of attempting to diffuse the situation properly and attempt to work with thewolfchild to take care of things. Editors who resort to using words and phrases in order to be passive-aggressive and disrespectful toward one another and in order to trade blows aren't demonstrating the civlity and respect that we expect of all editors, and the responsibility that we have as administrators to set the example for others regarding how to handle situations like this. As you of course already know, I have to respond to editors while they're spitting hate, insults, uncivil anger, and... other fun remarks towards me all the time. We have to put those comments completely aside and out of our mind and remain 100% calm, collected, civil, and respectful in our responses and regardless of the discussion or how heated others are.

I think we need to ask thewolfchild to stop with the passive-agressive battleground-like mentality and attitude, or to step away from the RfB discussion for awhile. He's definitely treading in the realm of being able to be blocked for uncivil disruption and bludgeoning the process. ~Oshwah~ 08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As I see it, TWC is wasting a lot of precious time of other editors. We have a choice: either ignore it and move on – the likely result will be that their trolling and attacks will continue, albeit perhaps with regard to other editors than us – or try to rein it using the tools we have. I admit I favour the latter and like the TBAN proposal put forward by Mr rnddude. — kashmīrī  11:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to such a proposal being brought forward. I think it warrants a discussion at least. ~Oshwah~ 11:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

When I recently said I need good evidence to block an established "content creator", TWC said, "What kind of horseshit is that?" with no further explanation. Nice.... When I tried to discuss the issue with him, he didn't want to know. While I have disagreed with Lourdes' view of DeltaQuad here, I think she is perfectly entitled to express her opinion without abuse. Ritchie333 11:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~ 12:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what they are talking about this in my talk page, but it is obviously pointless:

OK. And... what do you expect to accomplish with that question? - wolf 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps they are unfamiliar with how RfB processes Hhkohh (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think TWC desperately needs an attitude change, and at this rate, it's going to take a block or some similar sanction to enforce that.--WaltCip (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "I had thought about proposing a TBAN from commenting at RfX with an exception carved out for asking two questions of the candidate only and posting a !vote". I support this. Twc's Rfx comments have become just too much. Aside from the fact that they seem oblivious to the Streisand effect - wtf does one oppose out of 200 matter unless dragged out into a pointless to/fro - it's downright rude and uncivil. I sympathise to a degree - they've been carried away by this bizarre notion that an otherwise "pristine" Rfx must not be "spoiled" or "sullied" by any 0.5% oppose vote, and that anyone casting such a vote must be pilloried. The proponents of that ludicrous way of thinking ought to consider that this is where that leads... -- Begoon 13:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see the argument that if an RfX is on (10/1/0), someone might want to challenge the oppose and bring in new insights to stop it becoming (10/5/5), for example. However, by the time a RfX is over 95% support with 48 hours left, there really is no need to badger the opposition - it's a complete waste of time. Ritchie333 13:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for TWC

From making any edits to any RfX page, excepting one !vote and two questions for the candidate. Since there appears to be some appetite for this above, I'm formalising the proposal. ——SerialNumber54129 13:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional support Iff twc undertakes to voluntarily cease pointless badgering and shows some understanding that it does more harm than good then my support is withdrawn. -- Begoon 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Confirming that my support still stands. "I apologise for one of the many comments I made but still think I should be allowed to do that, although I'll stop for a bit if you all insist" doesn't meet my requirement of "understanding that it does more harm than good" or demonstrate the introspection I was hoping for. -- Begoon 13:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support in view of the long history of personal attacks, including several blocks for the same (per Lourdes). In addition, given that the majority of TWC's disruptive editing took place outside RfA, and in disregard to earlier blocks, a short block (of a few days' duration) might also be helpful to serve as a final warning. — kashmīrī  14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Per Begoon. I honestly thought he was being disruptive myself when I was having a discussion with him. The only reason I didn't do anything is because I thought you were simply allowed to act that way in RfX pages. I didn't realise this was not the first time either. Regardless, if Wolf learns to stop it, we could give him another chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oof... we definitely have an issue if the incivility and negative conduct is causing other editors to believe that this kind of behavior is allowed and considered part of the norm when it comes to this process. :-( I appreciate you for providing your honest input and thoughts. ~Oshwah~ 15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"I thought you were simply allowed to act that way in RfX pages." Absolutely not - despite perceptions, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are also policies at RfA / RfB. Ritchie333 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well it looks like you learn something new everyday. Thank both of you. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support – I was actually considering raising the issue myself as I found the badgering of the opposers quite disruptive, both in the current RfB and in recent RfA's. –FlyingAce 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a wake-up call and because the negative atmosphere at RfX is a serious concern, and not only with respect to the candidates, and moving discussions to the talk page is demonstrably insufficient. I'm concerned by Thewolfchild's not having responded here as well as by mentions of previous blocks that a topic ban may not be enough to get them to stop. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: To be fair, TWC hasn't edited since 0142 hours this AM, and this discussion was opened at 0421, so I guess for the time being we should assume they haven't seen it. ——SerialNumber54129 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. As someone has pointed out above, I've previously described TWC's attitude as a "school bully routine", and I've seen nothing subsequently to suggest I was wrong; their contributions at RfX have consistently been a mix of self-importance, unwarranted aggressiveness, and needlessly personalising disputes, which needlessly makes a process stressful when (despite the beliefs of some) it doesn't need to be. I have very little doubt that TWC's reaction to being restricted from RfX will be to take the battleground mentality elsewhere, and that we'll be having this same discussion in a couple of months regarding their conduct in some other venue, but they deserve the chance to try to prove that they're willing to respect the views of people regardless of whether or not they agree with them. ‑ Iridescent 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. RfA and RfB are areas that can really do without aggressive bullying behavior, regardless of whether it's towards candidates, towards supporters, or towards opposers. Carrying it out so insistently, in the face of obvious concern from other editors, leads to only one sensible solution, which is this topic ban as proposed. There's also the obsession with "having the last word" that seems to have become a hallmark of this user's editing. Unfortunately I also have to echo Iridescent's comment above; a recent trip here to ANI for the wolfchild ending with Anna Frodesiak summarizing that Editors who behave in a hostile manner for too long, wear out their welcome. How many more blockable or ANIable (yes, it's an adjective too!) posts will bring an indef? but generously hoping that thewolfchild's editing displayed an improving trend. This latest disruption does not show much sign of such an improving trend. MPS1992 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  I would also support, as my first choice, Lourdes' proposed alternate wording below. wolfchild's "reply" is unconvincing; it starts with the vapid, continues with some meandering, and concludes with redefining any restriction as being on their own terms as a voluntary thing. That's not what's needed, given the behavior that has happened. MPS1992 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: The evidence supplied above shows a fairly persistent battleground mentality with regard to taking challenges to the !votes of others to a badgering and even disruptive extreme. Many of the responses are aggressive out of the gate and the responses in the back-and-forth discussions that follow are not particularly well calculated to help the parties arrive at a meeting of the minds, but rather are so combative as to virtually guarantee further entrenchment. It indeed makes me wonder if there is a more fundamental change needed to TWC's interactions on-project in general (especially seeing that block log and noting how many times they have been a disputant in ANI threads) but we can certainly start with a more targeted approach of a topic ban from this area that seems to get them particularly fired up. I do appreciate that TWC's efforts in this area are tied to their wish not to see someone volunteering for community service be put excessively through the ringer (we all know what RfX processes are like), but it's not justification for needlessly aggressive argumentation and honestly, I can't see how their approach really helps such candidates, who may actually face a backlash if there is a perception that "oppose" !votes are being shouted down. Snow 20:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support for reasons adjacent to what Foxnpichu and Oshwah discussed above. I had actually wanted to discuss some of the opposes but held back feeling it basically wasn't possible to join in without becoming part of an ugly pile-on. Upholding behavioral norms at RfX so that a constructive conversation there is possible would be really welcome, and a tban, when there's a recurrent problem with a particular editor's participation, seems one of the only effective ways to do that; other strategies I've seen, like responding directly or refactoring personal attacks, seem often necessary but not sufficient. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  Lourdes's modification seems to me to be in everyone's best interest. Especially given TWC's acknowledgement below, which I appreciate, I'm hopeful it'd be understood an RfX tban means, don't just find another venue to keep pursuing the same issue, but, fairest and most efficient (i.e. in hopes of not winding up back here debating parameters) to all to make it clear up front. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support I worry that as Twc did in my case, or in the case of Xeno, Hhkohh and probably others, Twc will follow editors from the RfX and continue arguments on the talk page or other forums. Or he may berate other editors through the questions allowed to Twc in the RfX. So if there is appetite for the same and if the community agrees, I would hope the TBAN is modified as "From making any edits about any RfX across the project, broadly construed, except for one !vote and two questions from the candidate during any RfX, without alluding to any other editor's !vote or comments within the RfX.". Thanks.​​​​​​​​​​​​ Lourdes 01:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given that it takes a certain amount of courage to post against mounting consensus, we ought to be thanking editors instead of attacking them. And we ought to be addressing attacks when they happen. --valereee (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - hounding participants in project-side discussions is poor conduct, but so is calling an editor in otherwise good standing a troll, particularly so when the editor delivering the personal attacks is an administrator. Everyone's been fairly warned, in my opinion. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, you know it that I would never disregard anything you say. So I'll accept your comment completely. I'll be honest. For me and for others on Misplaced Pages, Twc is not an editor in good standing after multiple blocks. I called his posts trolling at the RfX after he had come to my page and left the statements that are mentioned below, where he used terms like "obnoxious revert", "for fuck's sake", "petty bullshit" etc. I struck the comment of trolling soon after. Do please go through my post below to understand the specific context. Warmly, Lourdes 01:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I suppose this can't hurt, although since TWC doesn't recognize he's done anything wrong, I don't understand why people think this will solve a problem; won't it just continue in some other venue? Also, want to record somewhere that User:Lourdes' smug condescension to TWC on her talk page is noted, and probably made things worse. Yet another person who apparently thinks "civility" consists of not using bad words. She should really calm down and have a cup of tea, and introspect why she enjoys baiting an intemperate editor; if she'd like my assistance in understanding how not to be so passive aggressive on Misplaced Pages and in her normal life, I'd be happy to assist her with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Flo, sure, I'm open to suggestions. Let this stuff get over first. I really have less patience with "'em boyz" ready to land at my page attempting to give their loser spiel. Anyway, will connect when this gets over. Warmly, Lourdes 05:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• TWC has replied below, and more importantly offered what seems to be a real and sincere aplology. They appear to understand what went wrong, and have even offered to take a timeout from RfX. I don't think that a topic ban is needed in order to protect the project at this point. In my opinion, Lourdes raised a fair point in her oppose, and on the other end of the stick there were certainly !votes, and comments that were without merit, or possibly even a basis in reality. It's fair that sometimes these comments need further discussion. We should remember that the policies WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and maybe most importantly, the behavioral guideline WP:AGF apply project-wide. SQL 17:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going to Oppose a topic ban in the light of TWC's reflection, apology and voluntary proposal to disengage from RfX below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in light of the comments below and Lourdes' inability to handle this situation in a manner expected of an admin as demonstrated by their comments on their talk page. Nihlus 19:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support the revised proposal. I do not find the apology to be genuine, given the track record on various Talk page pages and at ANI. Random samples: This is not a revert, it's just you being obnoxious for some reason. Grow up and find something better to with your time, mmkay?; Actually, you can't seem to help yourself. It took less than an hour for you to post another obnoxious comment with your desperate must-have-last-word-itis. Good luck with that; btw - you can only pull that so many times before it bites you in the ass, so watch it and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Some specific context would be helpful for the community:

• Thewolfchild landed on my talk page and the first post they posted consisted of: "I could say it was because I called you out on your ridiculously ill-conceived, and now utterly embarrassing, '!vote' at RfB, you decided to make this needlessly obnoxious 'revert' in return, but I won't say that. I will instead suggest you move on to more useful contributions and stop this petty bullshit. You're admin ffs, you're supposed to be above this type of behaviour"
• This outburst by Twc was a result of this edit of mine, where I had added a source for a line that had been added earlier by a new editor and Thewolfchild had reverted earlier as the new editor had not added any source.
• This outburst by Twc was also a result of this edit of mine, where I went and warned the new editor with the following words: "While what Thewolfchild says is absolutely right, I've gone ahead and added a source for your addition. Next time, please remember to add a reliable source whenever you add any material to Misplaced Pages. Thanks"
• Thewolfchild believed that the one edit to the particular article proved that I was tracking their edits across Misplaced Pages.
• Thewolfchild landed on my page because of this edit and accused me as mentioned above. I responded to Thewolfchild saying that their post is "Incoherent", "Nonsensical" and that Thewolfchild needed to "calm down".
• His past and current editing are replete with the same comments on other editors' talk pages using the same words, for example, as mentioned by K.e.coffman above: Multiple editors in this section have said they were considering opening up a TBAN discussion on TWc (and not for twc’s discussions on my talk page.

Well, I take on board the comments of Ivan, Boing, Floquenbeam, and others. I probably have very less patience for editors who land on my page and believe that they can practise on my talk page what they probably do in their real lives and slam words like "obnoxious revert", "for fuck's sake", "petty bullshit" and more in their first post – I've already mentioned at the start of this post that I should probably have remained quiet; although I really don't remain quiet in my real life when such individuals land up in my space – and I would recommend the same to others. Having said that, it's imperative to know that Twc's behaviour is not just with me, an administrator, but with editors across Misplaced Pages. Saying that his behaviour is okay because an admin said Twc's first post on their page sounds nonsensical, incoherent, is absolutely not okay. Look at what editors like Foxnpichu are mentioning – that they now believe that attacks against them by editors like Twc are allowed on Misplaced Pages. We cannot allow such behaviour to be overlooked because multiple apologies and assurances over the past so many years by this editor (after 9 blocks) have not resulted in any change. Lourdes 01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I read TWCs apology below and offer to take an enforced voluntary break from editing RfX pages for 6 months. My immediate concern with this proposal is that the last time that the community agreed to such, it backfired spectacularly. Any sanction needs to be a logged enforced community sanction. I do not want a repeat of the TGS fiasco. I have no issue with adopting their blanket TBAN proposal so long as it is logged as such, though I think a note could be added in such an entry that TWC had voluntarily proposed the sanction against themselves. My initial concern out of the way, I want to address the contents of TWCs apology.
  Of the six that have opposed, I asked four of them once to clarify or explain their oppose !vote <- this is not an honest reflection of what TWC did at the RfB. Their first comment was to lecture Lourdes about nitpicking the candidate over communication and heavy-handedness and to propose that Lourdes should just be neutral. There was no request for clarification. Their second and third comments were to attack Foxnpichu for being untrusting of a candidate who had, in the candidates own words, made a stupid block against them. It would be generous to describe TWCs interactions here as anything other than snide superiority. Their fourth comment was where a bureaucrat had had enough and had stepped in and removed it. This is the only comment that TWC has attempted to address. I have previously pointed all of these comments and two others on top of it and asked TWC if consider these passive-aggressive comments "seeking clarification"? They responded about my "musings". I'll add here that their challenge of Athaenara's oppose was put together reasonably enough. Also, for the first time, I did ask one editor to clarify the reason for his question <- This is not an honest reflection of what TWC did either. Why did she "have 3 RfA to become an admin?"...? Why don't you just read them for yourself? What do you expect to accomplish with that question? Seriously. <- The demeanour in this statement is, as with the other comments I've cited above, passive-aggressive. Obviously so. It is insincere to suggest that you were "seeking clarification".
  In sum, I think TWC realizes that they've upset a number of editors. But it does not, from their apology, appear to me that they are any closer to understanding what it is that people are finding objectionable with their behaviour. I cannot in any faith, good or bad, not support a sanction. I'll add here that Ritchie333's and Floquenbeam's comment give me pause. I had been under the erroneous impression that the issues were localized to RfX, a generally hostile area of Misplaced Pages. This doesn't appear to be the case. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - and yet another example of why threaded discussion should be prohibited at RFx. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not think an enforced TBAN resolves conduct issues at its core, this seems punitive at best. However ingenuine an apology (ffs assume some good faith?) you might think it is, it takes a lot to apologize on the most viewed page of Misplaced Pages. I agree with Floq's view of the matter partially and I think we need to not enforce something that can easily be implemented voluntarily. Imo TWC should stay away from RfXs completely for a period of 1 year and go through a simple ANI process after its expiry to gauge if their civility issues have been put to bed. (Pinging @Thewolfchild: for thoughts on the matter)--QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

twc reply

Well, it seems I have arrived late to this. If enough people feel you are being disruptive, there is no point in saying "no I wasn't". I can, however, try to explain why I ask questions of opposers. First, I feel we should be able to, and clearly I'm not alone in this. This isn't about "safeguarding any pristine voting percentage" (who said that again?), I don't even know these candidates. I'd like to know if there is a legitimate reason to oppose, in which case I may reconsider my support, or is the oppose is just based on something benign or some personal grudge, in which case, should it even be there?

Of the six that have opposed, I asked four of them once to clarify or explain their oppose !vote. The remainder of my posts are replies to posts directed at me. I will admit that one of my comments was quite crude and needlessly so and I openly and unreservedly apologize for that. I was at the time, as I'm sure others were, taken aback by an oppose that had no context, or text period, just a diff, forcing everyone to read through an entire ArbCom case and decipher how a particular vote (part of the majority, btw) somehow provides reasoning for a candidate not being trustworthy. I posted a much simpler comment seeking more info to which more info was indeed provided and I left it at that. Also, for the first time, I did ask one editor to clarify the reason for his question. I asked on his talk page and didn't see it as being rude. It has since been described as "badgering", but that word gets thrown around a lot so perhaps we need a community definition for it.

Anyway, taking on board all the comments here, I'm offerring to take a self-imposed ban from all RfXs, knowing full well that violating will result in an immediate block. Following this, should I participate in any RfXs, I will keep all posts to community standards and refrain from making any comments that are rude or off-topic. I would suggest 3 months, but gauging the discussion, I'm thinking 6 months would be more acceptable to those that have chosen to join in here. Will that suffice? - wolf 21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - I highly acknowledge and respect that you took the time to come here and try to explain, as well as apologize for your recent behavior. I don't want my response to you here to discount or brush that off in any way. It takes a lot for someone to apologize, and I give you my tip of the hat for doing so. Unfortunately, most of what's been discussed here (and ultimately what users are discussing regarding the proposed topic ban) isn't just a reflection nor is it an expression of concerns regarding your behavior at the RfB. The comments provided in this discussion, your extensive block log and history, and your contribution history - show that incivility, disrespectful remarks and passive-aggressive tone and demeanor, battleground mentality and conduct, bludgeoning of discussion and process, and unfounded accusations toward others is a long term and consistent issue with you, and the community is starting to take the necessary steps in order to formally disallow you from participating in discussions that are critical to the project due to your negative behaviors and your habit of causing hardship upon the discussions at-hand and the editors who participate in them. With this in mind, I think that any topic ban that's imposed should be on the terms of the community, and not yours. Your long-term pattern of behavior has shown that you have a very difficult time with exercising restraint, and keeping an eye on your emotions, your comments, and your words - and any fences that you put up yourself will be more easily taken down. I think that topic ban that's imposed by community consensus and formally applied (should any such topic ban be applied) will have a higher chance of success than one that you propose and then promise to comply with on your own. ~Oshwah~ 23:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I wasn't really looking at this as a "my terms" vs the "terms of the community". A ban is a ban, right? Whether I say here at ANI I will not post at any RfA/B for x-months as part of a voluntary-ban, or there is a consensus-registered restriction that says that I can't post there for x-months, what's the difference? (Other than, say... some good faith) Either way, if I post there during that period, I get blocked for violating the ban, right? I'm not looking to get blocked. As messed up as the RfA/B process is, it's not that important to me. - wolf 01:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: peanut gallery comment If twc voluntarily accepts a ban with consequences, which is endorsed by the community and gets logged at WP:RESTRICT then that is as good as a community sanction. --Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please help me

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

User DBigXray is reverting my edits (SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev&action=history ). Can you please allow me to state my views there, s/he is trying to censor it ? Thanks for any kind of help 2O19 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

2O19, it would be much better if you do self-inform us about your previous editing adventures over here. You seem to be extremely competent in that you have discovered ANI by your third edit.

FWIW, I have no clue about why 2O19 was refactoring my comments and pasting an user t/p thread over the article t/p. Thus, the reversion was wholly apt. ∯WBG 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The banner at the top screams When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.. Can't see your abidance. ∯WBG 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric I am sorry, for being too lazy to as were you to push your into self-evaluating the history of Jaggi Vasudev. Are you Offended? 2O19 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to be extremely competent in that you have discovered ANI by your third edit – Perhaps I'll start WP:Incompetence is required. EEng 23:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The ANi way: if they're an incompetent newbie, we block 'em. If they're a competent newbie, we accuse them of being a sock of someone competent. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't... Captain Eek 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI is two clicks from the main page. WP:Dashboard, which includes ANI threads, is the first link on WP:Community portal. How many edits does one need before they're allowed to find ANI? Leviv ich 01:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@WBG: It wasn't too long ago that I was accused of being a sock due to "extreme competence" for wandering backstage too soon, and now look what has been reaped (and wreaked): I've stayed at ANI. I figured if I'm so competent that everyone's convinced I must be a sock, then I must be competent enough to go backstage. Now you have haiku closes and my opinion on everything. So think about that the next time you accuse a newbie of being "too competent". You might get stuck with another Leviv ich 01:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Closing AN/I threads with haiku is wholly inappropriate, whoever does so. ——SerialNumber54129 14:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be such a dud! Can't you see I'm Daffy Duck and you're Elmer Fudd? Leviv ich 15:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Guys, the account wasn't blocked because they were too competent, they're blocked because they're obviously a sock of one of the many banned editors polluting the India-Pakistan topic. We do overreact to some new accounts "finding this page" too early, and that's a problem, but this is not that. You should find a different windmill to tilt at. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing the block, just the comment about newbie competency, which is "that" problem. It doesn't matter whether the accusation turns out to be true because the accusation is read by other editors who are not socks. Did WBG's comment help admin figure this one out in any way? No? Then there was no reason for it. I wish you'd join me at tilting at this windmill, actually. Sock accusations based on newbie competency should be discouraged outside of SPI regardless of accuracy. Leviv ich 15:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this comment. New editors just can't win: if they're not being berated for getting something wrong, they're subject to suspicion for trying to do things properly. Deb (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also agree. If a new account coming to AN/I is seen as suspicious behavior, perhaps we should indefinitely semi-protect AN/I? SemiHypercube 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Deb, this is why we need a union. Right, Levivich? So, yeah. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ixnay ethay unionay alktay, eforebay eway etgay ockedblay. Leviv ich 04:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem with India-Pakistan, I think this is a problem with the article Jaggi Vasudev specifically. Did the MRV discussion ever get closed? That was open for at least six weeks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Commenting since this is my block. Sorry I didn’t before, I don’t watch ANI, or I would have responded earlier. I don’t think I’ve ever blocked an editor for editing ANI early before. This block was for two reasons: first, the account was clearly created to further a specific content dispute and target a specific editor who is fairly visible in the India-Pakistan area. That is WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Second, as Ivanvector said, this account is clearly a sock of one of the nearly endless number of banned and blocked editors in the South Asia topic area, and yes, a brand new account dragging an editor who is highly active in ARBIPA to ANI before they are even autoconfirmed is behavioural evidence of that and should be taken into account. We don’t block accounts for being competent and new. We block obvious sockpuppets created to avoid scrutiny and harass a specific editor. If they happen to do so in a competent manner it doesn’t really matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I clouded the issue. It's not about the block, it's about the attitude of some long-term editors that a person can come to ANI too soon because - for reasons that are unclear - they shouldn't know about it if they are new. I don't think a sock can be identified on that basis, and I'm sure that's not how you spotted this one. Deb (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As Tony said, the account having arrived at ANI on their second (?) edit was only a contributing factor here, part of the banned editor's pattern which more importantly includes the editor they picked on, and the article being disrupted. We really don't (or at least I, an experienced SPI clerk, do not) take seriously the accusations of sockpuppetry that come just from a new account finding particular project-side discussions, and I think there are a number of long-term editors who I have told off and a handful that are banned from SPI for frivolous accusations of that nature. It's the rehashing of old disputes and arguments, and obvious attempts to settle old grudges, that are taken into account. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Regular edit-warring from user:Jim7049

Jim7049 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has been warned since January against unconstructive edits, disruptive editing, edit warring and NPOV violations in their talk page. This user has also been blocked and unblocked multiple times by admins but again continued edit warring yesterday on 11 March 2019. Please look into the matter and determine whether this user should continue their Misplaced Pages editing. AmericanAgent (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already warned Jim7049 earlier today for edit warring on Portal:Current events/2019 March 11, and the edit warring has stopped since then. I chose not to block Jim7049 in order to give him/her a chance to put the brakes on the back-and-forth reverts and to discuss the matter properly; Jim7049's contributions show that he's/she's added a discussion to the portal's talk page, which means that he's/she's attempting to do so. There's no block needed at this time, so long as the edit warring doesn't continue. ~Oshwah~ 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've also left him an in-depth explanation of policy, expectations, and how I step in and manage issues and disputes - see my resposne here. ~Oshwah~ 14:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Same situation, long-standing, on Commons; multiple explanations since January now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding dozens of non notables to article lists

• Korean Americans in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Yorkers in journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chinese in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indians in the New York City metropolitan region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Castncoot (talk · contribs)

Editor was alerted to this last year by DGG . Has responded to my concern thusly: . Many of the non notables are linked to family surnames, so as not to appear as redlinks. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I'm definitely not pleased to see Castncoot's reverts here and here to your edits and with the edit summaries he left, essentially calling your edit vandalism, implying that you're a product of sock puppetry, and that you have no policy knowledge. Have we tried going through each article and removing the people listed who don't need to be there? :-) ~Oshwah~ 14:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, Hi Bob! :-) ~Oshwah~ 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1) WP:NOTABILITY constitutes the potential for a standalone article, not that there must already be one. 2) I do suspect sockpuppetry here but cannot prove it. 3) In an article entitled "Korean Americans in New York City", a Korean surname is most certainly pertinent and notable for wikilinking, as long as it is done just once per surname. Castncoot (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Please take any concerns regarding sockpuppeteering to SPI, and desist from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Castncoot - I agree with your understanding of notability and the fact that it establishes whether an article should exist for the given subject. Having a requirement for a subject to already have its own article in order to be considered notable would be...... an infinite circle of logic and would make no sense, since that would mean that nobody would be notable due to the fact that having an article requires notability and then establishing notability would require an article.... lol.

I can assure you with the upmost confidence that this user is absolutely not a sock puppet, and he possesses a very high level of policy knowledge, experience, and dedication to the project. Can you please share the information and evidence you have that supports your accusation that this user is a sock puppet? ~Oshwah~ 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Initially I was going to say that I don't see how we can complain if Castncoot is including a reference for each one. But some of the references are broken and/or don't demonstrate that the person in question is a New Yorker or even that they have made more than one journalistic contribution ever. So although s/he is correct in saying that there may be potential for an article, there must be considerable doubt over whether that is actually the case. Deb (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically, lists of people that have a potently to be indefinitely long (such as a list of Koreans living in NYC, compare to a list of Nobel Prize Laurats), then in combination with BLP, the only people on those indefinitely long lists should be those with blue-links with very limited exemption. Otherwise these lists can attract anyone that can provide minimal sourcing to prove they exist (which is not the same sources that we require by notability). --Masem (t) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please also check the sources that are intended to establish notability; there's a linkedin and links to personal websites. The notability of persons I removed from the Korean Americans article is far from established--merely being a journalist isn't enough. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going through the lists so far, and I do see some problems. Don't get me wrong: I think that Castncoot is a good editor and he's doing a great thing by creating these lists. Compared to the editors and issues that I'm normally am asked to handle and resolve, the problems that we're seeing here with these lists are definitely minor when comparing it to someone causing vandalism, abuse, harassment, or disruption... lol. I just wanted to make that clear. :-) We just need to fix these issues that we're seeing so that these lists demonstrate and show the upmost quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness that we can write and provide for viewing and reading. :-) ~Oshwah~ 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And I have no problem with that. I only have a pet peeve when someone who's contributed nothing to an article before suddenly swoops in rudely and deletes thousand of bytes and potentially hours spent of hard work without significant discussion first. Castncoot (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Castncoot - That's completely understandable and I don't blame you for feeling that way at all. Can you and who I refer to as "Bob" (this IPv6 IP user) collaborate and go over things together so that you're both on the same page (no pun intended) and can work together to resolve some of the concerns mentioned? I'm willing to help too if required; just let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~ 17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• We should only include people who actually have articles in these lists because that's the only way we can be sure that we're not just including names willy nilly. And, no, it does not follow that we would end up in an infinite circle of logic and no articles at all. The fact of the matter is that articles on people are vetted by the community and survive only if the person is notable. Names in a list, on the other hand, are not reviewed by the community for notability and anyone can pop in a name and probably get away with it. I'm trying to assume good faith here but linking to surnames smells of trying to avoid having to deal with names getting removed because there are no linked articles. regentspark (comment) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm taking one at random: "executive manager, five-star luxury Hotel Park Hyatt New York in Midtown Manhattan". Doesn't sound remotely notable to me and I, for one, would prefer to see a linked article to make sure that the person is actually notable enough for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding, then, is that the problem is that I "rudely swooped in"--sorry for the quotations, but there we are. The hours spent adding all those non notables now translates into a time sink for anyone who subsequently goes down the lines of inadequately referenced and unlinked people. The path forward would be for the editor who wishes to introduce the names to first create the stand alone articles, rather than deflecting by arguing that I've ventured into vandalism or using multiple accounts for no good. My first question is why these were all added to begin with. My second question is whether we remove unlinked names in these two articles en masse, or do a line item veto. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the accepted criterion for these lists is that they have to be shown notable in the sense of having an article or being obviously qualified for one, and there has to be evidence for their connection with the place or whatever. I normally remove any where the information given shows lack of obvious qualifications, but if there's no indication other than the name, I search to see who it is. It might be someone notable as Politician, for example. In that case I add the qualification and the reference, tho ideally I should make a stub article. (and for names removed from the list, it is unfortunately necessary to check they have not been added somewhere else equally inappropriately). DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. First of all, requiring that there already be a standalone Misplaced Pages article about a notable person should be a non-starter. To begin with, this would require changing the definition of WP:NOTABILITY on Misplaced Pages. It would also be a great way of closing off expansion of Misplaced Pages when we should be putting our best efforts into growing the project, rather than stunting its growth. Now, let me also put another issue into perspective - the issue of what makes notability on this list. See, you have to remember that this is an article about notable Koreans or Korean Americans in the New York City metropolitan region. Therefore, people who are local journalists are notable because they cover the local NYC area news and will be familiar faces or names to the local population. That's what the whole purpose of these regional list articles is, to bring out people who are locally notable in their own communities throughout the world. So for example, a Jakartans in journalism article or a Koreans in Jakarta article would include people of local notability. I don't see the distinction between the notability of local politicians, who are explicitly spelled out in local Category:Municipalities in New Jersey articles, even without their own standalone articles, versus journalists. There should be no distinction between a politician and the journalist who covers those politicians (not to mention other matters as well). I hope I've explained my rationale clearly. This will encourage the growth of other similar local and regional articles as well. If you shut the process down with arbitrary rules, it's simply a disservice for our readers not to be able to refer to information about local communities by putting a chilling pall on expansion. Castncoot (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no on all counts. We don't include people because they're known by some people in a local area. Misplaced Pages has notability guidelines, and those aren't moveable goalposts simply because you or I have seen someone on local tv or read their articles in the local paper. Then there's the contention that there's no distinction between a politician and the journalist who writes about them, which is amiss on a fundamental level, per WP:NOTINHERITED. We do expect that a standalone article precede a listing, as several administrators have concurred here. That's a fundamental and non-controversial premise. I'm glad I've brought this here; the misunderstanding of notability guidelines is profound, and suggests a more thorough look through the edit history, beyond the two articles I've noted. As arguments for expansion, they exist outside the realm of our guidelines. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The regional lists are not to show people that are notable in a region, but to show people in a region that also are notable beyond that. We are not a who's who database, which is the argument that you are using. We avoid having articles on people that are only known locally since we are a global encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Not every admin in this thread concurs that there needs to be a pre-existing standalone article to determine notability, as you see in the discussion above. I'm obviously not an admin, but I've expressed my opinion for whatever it's worth, in the event that a policy or guideline is in the works now to be communicated to all Misplaced Pages editors, many (if not a plurality) of whom likely have the same understanding I do. It seems to be a circular argument with a fundamentally flawed premise that there must be a precedent standalone article to determine notability. It's the presence of adequate sourcing which determines the potential for an article and its notability. That's precisely why we don't use other Misplaced Pages articles as reliable sources. Also, this is a global encyclopedia to learn about locally and globally significant topics. Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's just not correct. Notability is based on independent coverage from secondary sources. And because of the promotional issue, WP:AUD says that topics that can only be sourced to local sources are not considered notable. We're also a who's who - just because we might be able to make these lists of all documentable people in an area doesn't mean we should.

This doesn't mean we absolutely need a blue-linked article, but the evidence to include should show a high likelihood that we would create a bluelinked article in the future. Such as if the person met WP:NBIO or if you can show a couple secondary sources. Keep in mind we do not have inherient notability, so just being a local politician or journalist or the like is not sufficient at all. But most of the time, these lists will only contain blue-linked names. --Masem (t) 02:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a third article above. And I've only gone back to mid-February. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a fourth article. Take, for example, the two Hofstra university professors in the list. If we added every Indian American professor (even just the tenured ones) we'll have a book length article in place. The "locally-known" argument is completely against policy not only because it goes against our definition of notability but also it implies that an editor could add anyone they happen to know as long as they can attach a profession to their name and, perhaps, a website somewhere that verifies the existence of the person, a bar that includes almost everyone today. --regentspark (comment) 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's standard to only include people/objects on a list that have an article written on them. I thought that was a given. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. I agree with you that that's a good rule of thumb but it is not currently, to the best of my knowledge, a requirement. The only requirement is "notability" in the sense that the person would qualify for an article on Misplaced Pages, even if one does not correctly exist. We probably need an RfC on this but, in the meantime, I think we can safely delete names that are not sourced to independent sites that demonstrate notability. I also think that we can use WP:BRD to push the onus for demonstrating notability on the editor adding an item to the list since we're only removing names from a list rather than deleting an article. --regentspark (comment) 05:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw this before but wasn't totally sure that ANI is the right place to discuss it. But since we are, I think we should try to separate the issues. From what I can tell, nearly everyone agrees that for a list of the sort outlined above, every entry should be notable. This means that an article could be created on the subject that would survive AFD. I think most of us also agree that at a minimum, every entry needs a ref that establishes this notability. If someone adds a bunch of names either without sourcing or without sufficient sourcing to establish notability then they should stop. Some random hotel manager is probably not notable without further evidence of notability.

There is disagreement on whether it's useful to add people who are notable before articles exist. From the little I've seen, the community has often rejected such lists when they get unwieldy i.e. there are too many people who lack articles. This is in part because with sourcing, it can be confusing to contest notability when it's not in the form of an AFD. AFAIK it isn't unheard of to impose a requirement that only blue links are allowed.

In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

While it may seem WP:LISTPEOPLE technically only covers stand alone lists, it makes no sense that such a requirement may exist for a stand alone list but not a list within an article where it generally matters more it doesn't get unwieldy. Besides the next section seems to refer to articles. By the same token, a common solution is that all entries should be wikilinks, whether red or blue. (To articles on the subject.) This tends to make it clearer that there is a problem i.e. too many people have been added without articles.

This does create BLP risks, if we link to the red link Axe Murderer intended for the future article on the Korean American in NYC and then someone with the name Axe Murderer gets famous for something dodgy, like killing people with an axe, and one of our editors creates the article without checking existing incoming links. But still, I don't think we ever agreed red links on LPs are banned and it's not like people don't sometimes blue link a LP without checking the target is the right subject.

I definitely don't think the whole name of the person should be wikilinked to articles on their surname. These sort of WP:easter egg links are too confusing to the reader. If you click on a link for "Michelle Yeoh", you expect to end up on an article for Michelle Yeoh and not Yang (surname). If there is really cause to link the surnames, this should be only on the surname not the whole name. Frankly I'm not convinced there is sufficient reason since it's not like there will be a direct link once all the articles on these notable people are create.

I also question how well the information has been verified if we lack a stand alone article and we're just relying on one or two sources. As always, editor WP:OR should be discouraged. For example, someone with a Malaysian Chinese father and a South or North Korean mother living in New York may very well identify as a Korean Americans in New York City so may reasonably be included in such a list. They may also identify as a Chinese in New York City or something similar, but even if they do, there's no guarantee all sources are going to note that, nor the info on their parents. If their name is Jennifer Lee, linking to Lee (Korean surname) could be weird if their surname actually comes from their father's Li (surname 李).

Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Some good points raised by people above. But I would implore people not to turn Misplaced Pages into an elitist platform, but rather one that really is open and relevant to everyone. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that local journalists and businessmen of prominence within Kigali, Rwanda simply don't have the same platform to become prominent in the same way that people under the glaring lights of NYC the media capital do. If we don't encourage the acknowledgement of their local notability, IMO we are depriving the people of Rwanda and states within its vicinity the encouragement and motivation to join the Misplaced Pages community en masse. Misplaced Pages abounds with obscure local human-geographic as well as local non-human geographic topics; why can't this same notability leeway be extended to local human non-politician non-geographic topics?...something to think about. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To the last sentence: WP:Other stuff exists. We are certainly aware that there is bias towards the developed, English-speaking world on en-Misplaced Pages, but we simply can't afford to extend notability to "people who could potentially be notable under our current rules if they were located elsewhere" - that would be entirely unworkable. ansh666 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Before this gets archived, is there a consensus on these articles and edits? It doesn't appear that Castncoot accepts the policy yet. 2601:188:180:1481:DC58:C3F7:4619:B4D9 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

GA/FA nominations by user Векочел

Векочел (talk · contribs) has a history of nominating Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine articles for GA, MILHIST ACR, and FA that have mostly been written by other editors. While this is permissible, it is at least expected that the nominator will have a knowledge of the subject so as to assess its completeness prior to nomination, as well as the knowledge, will and ability to deal with any issues that may arise during the reviews. This is where the particular editor fails.

Instead of actually engaging with an article, the common editing pattern is that of a "takeover" of an existing article, with a slew of copyedits to get some work done (and give the appearance of having edited it), and then a nomination. Typical examples are, recently, at Basil I (some superficial edits on 10 March, followed by a GAN on 12 March, and this in an article where even a layperson can see that it is nowhere near GA content-wise), and, most egregiously, in the abandoned Sons of Antiochus VIII article, which is an indiscriminate mash-up of several other articles in an effort to create a main article for an eventual featured topic. I note here, as I did at the discussion there, before it got deleted that he failed to consult the author of these articles (Attar-Aram syria), he failed to attribute the copying over of the material, but felt competent to rearrange and rewrite large portions of their densely cited text without doing any research on the topic himself (he began work on 28 February and moved to mainspace on 8 March , a timeframe that renders utterly impossible that he consulted even a sample of the sources in the "new" article he "wrote").

Indeed, this highlights the user's very problematic relationship with sourcing his edits. Perfect examples of this can be found at the ACR on Marcus Aurelius here (by Gog the Mild) and by myself and various other editors in the second FA nomination of Basil II, where the user merely copyedited around after a previous failed nomination by a different user, but without a clear grasp of the topic ("I admit that my knowledge about Basil is rather basic.") and without the ability to make proper use of primary and modern sources, or even distinguish which sources are reliable and which note, despite repeated pointers (example). This also shows a typical problem when dealing with him: when confronted with a fundamental problem during a review via an example, he always takes a minimum-effort approach, by "fixing" (by adding/removing/moving around, often without much context or insight) the example in question, but without actually taking the time to consider the actual problem being pointed out, which is his editing pattern that consists mostly of excessive copyediting, adding random tidbits from various sources, and then nominating and hoping to pass under the radar. For example, he now has 788 edits (65%) on Basil II, but the article's structure, content, and even size, are still fundamentally the same as they were before he started systematically editing it in October!

Unfortunately, the editor in question appears to be WP:NOTHERE: he focuses on getting GA and FA stars, rather than actually writing quality articles for an encyclopedia. Regarding his choice of topics, it is clear that he lacks the necessary knowledge to write about them, as well as lacking the ability to discern the quality of his sources, or differentiate between primary and secondary ones and incorporate them accordingly in his articles. It is therefore very much also a WP:COMPETENCE, issue, and neither I nor the other editors involved with him can be expected to tutor him line-by-line into writing an FA. These problems have been repeatedly pointed out to him, but to no avail. I therefore ask that Векочел be banned from nominating articles himself for any level (GA, ACR, FAC) that he has not himself substantially written (not simply copyedited to death), in the hopes that he will learn how to actually write articles first. Constantine ✍ 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support by Attar: Sadly, the editor in question does not care about ruining the quality of an article as long as he can edit it. He created an article called Sons of Antiochus VIII by copying the featured articles of those sons and merging them together. He then went on to add wikilinks in those featured articles into his newly "created" article, but not into the article of Antiochus VIII himself! Thats because the article of Antiochus VIII is of low quality, and the editor is only interested in high quality articles written by others, which he try to take over, hoping to get a golden star eventually for them.

Several times, he added mere synth or wrong information to featured content (such as here, where the source does not state what the editor wrote) or inserted photos that dont fit, or have no context or dont actually represent whom they were said to represent (see Talk:Cleopatra Selene of Syria, the photos discussion). As long as he can edit, then its all fine, even if its just the deletion of an Oxford comma (which he likes to delete). But his most worrying behaviour is those nominations. The editor was also able to bring Ptolemy IX Lathyros to GA even though the article is missing practically most details about the reign of that king!. To mention a few: no word about the circumstances surrounding the marriage to Cleopatra IV which led Cleopatra III to force a divorce. No word about the campaign of Ptolemy IX in the Levant which culminated in a regional war that included two kings of Syria, the king of Judea, Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X in addition to Ptolemy IX himself!!! No word about Ptolemy IX's role in elevating Demetrius III of Syria to the throne...etc etc etc. It is not the duty of the reviewer to know that stuff are missing. The nominator should make sure that his article is ready before nominating. But when we have an editor who simply pick an article because it looks good and copy-edit it and inflate it with photos then nominate it, then its no wonder that articles that dont deserve a GA or an FA status end up acquiring it. The reviewer of Ptolemy IX, Gog the Mild, agrees with me. This behaviour really damages Misplaced Pages as the articles advertised to be the best, are in reality not!.

I therefore agree with Constantine. I ask that he is banned from nominating articles himself for any level (GA, ACR, FAC) that he has not himself substantially written. I also ask that he is notified that a featured article should not be mass-copy-edited with no good reason that can be explained in the talk page, and by good reason, I mean a new scholarly source that can change the knowledge already in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: I'm afraid I would have to agree with Cplakidas. The Roman-Byzantine and Hellenistic era are topics of interest, so I'm aware of about every single GA/FA nomination. I can't help but to admit that "Векочел" efforts mainly look like point-scoring, rather than actually "building" this encyclopedia, a core WP policy. Veteran editors such as Cplakidas have spent time to write heaps of text to adress their concerns (hoping he'd improve his editorial pattern per WP:GF) but they get little more in return than short, unsatisfactory responses. Unfortunately, this charade has been extremely time consuming, and it needs to end. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just completed an extensive c/e of Basil II requested by Векочел (talk · contribs) at WP:GOCE/REQ here; the request shows s/he is certainly capable of communicating clearly when it suits her/him. I also noticed the user rarely uses edit summaries. It doesn't mean s/he's not here and there's nothing on the user's talk page trying to engage the user in discussion and telling her/him that communication is not optional. Another user informed Векочел about copying within WP on 9th March this year; there are no earlier warnings or discussions.

I also can't seen any discussions about the editor's GA and FA noms on his/her talk page; that would be a good place to start a centralised discussion about problem or disruptive nominations. If s/he still refuses to improve his/her style and/or discuss his/her edits, that's a cause for escalation. I think it's a little early to start dishing out topic bans though.

I normally stay off the dramah pages but my c/e makes me marginally involved, but I'm happy to strike my comments if required. I've informed Векочел of this discussion on her/his talk page. You're welcome. ;) Baffle☿gab 19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the attempts to engage him/her were made on the articles' talk pages after he make un-helpful edits. I did not want to bite new comers, so I did not open a whole case in his talk page (to which he would have replied with a oneliner, if he reply at all). So, here you see me asking him to use the talk page and after asking I opened a dicussion. He totally ignored it and few days later made the same edits, so I begged again for a talk page discussion and finally got a oneliner. You can also read here and here to see attempts at telling him what he is doing wrong. Also, you can read here where both me and Constantine tried to give some advices, but did not get much replies (actually he simply blanked the page, but it was restored by an admin). Not to mention two clear requests on the editor's talk page asking him to use edit summaries, and a long text from Constantine explaining why he failed Basil I and what should be done, also on the editor's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs Attar-Aram syria; without trawling through his/her almost 9,000 edits, I can't see any disruptive GA, A-Class or FA noms that would warrant a topic ban from these areas of the project. Being a major contributor to the nominated articles is nice, but is not required. I *am* seeing a lack of communication on the user's talk page saying "hey, your edits and noms are disruptive; please stop". Pinging an editor to a discussion doesn't guarantee s/he will see it; I have pings turned off—a note on the user's talk page is more likely to be seen. Cplakidas didn't even inform her/him of this discussion, which is mandatory. WP:BITE doesn't say "never post a note or complaint on the user's talk page". Finally, if a topic ban is to be enacted, the requesting parties need to show a clear pattern of disruption at those venues; at the moment this to me smacks of "this is our little topic area, please go away". Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

because I had faith that he will evenualy understand the way to create good material, I did not spread those warnings on his talk page so he will not think that Im against him. Plus, he have those pages on his watchlist because he used to edit them everyday! Maybe that was a mistake. As for "little topic area go away", I cant see how this statement is warranted, but ofcourse everyone gets to think how he wish. No one have a problem with any editor trying to get the quality of articles higher. But when you see an editor nominating articles randomly whithout improving them even though the GA and FA processes have clear instructions how an article should be, and when other editors take the time to review those low quality articles and their time is wasted, and when an article about Ptolemy IX, a king in power for more than 20 years, include nothing about the most important events in his reign and still pass as GA, then this is desruption. You can see the editor in the talk page of the FA nominations asking why he needs to wait 14 days after his last failed nomination to nominate again.... I just wonder how many articles he will nominate without first making sure they are ready when it comes to comprehensiveness and sourcing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose partially per Bafflegab above: GAC, FAC and PR are crying out for involvement and it is completely perverse that we are actively looking to topic ban a keen editor when some good may come from their involvement. Yes, they should ask the major contributors for permission, and failing that, at least give them a co-nom; but I'd rather assume that they are doing what they're doing because they want the project to have more quality material. One could of course assume the opposite. Combined with the fact that no-one's actually talked to them—and WP:ENGAGE goes both ways.If anyone's scared that they will get "free" FAs as a stepping stone to adminship, then they haven't been to RfA lately  :) In any case, if they willing to immerse themselves in moribundity and work at FAC for the long-term, then a little training and encouragement will be a greater help to WP than their exclusion.And if they're trolling as some believe, well—that's what WP:ROPE is for. ——SerialNumber54129 19:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: normally, I would totally agree; and I think myself, Attar-Aram, Gog, LouisAragon, and every other Wikipedian want to see people involved with bringing articles up to speed and getting GAs and FAs. But let's be frank: articles concerning a Byzantine emperor or an obscure Hellenistic ruler are not exactly the mainstream of Misplaced Pages. This is not a field where one is likely to get an FA by jumping in in media res, without prior knowledge, and without researching the topic, which is an experience that can only come from actually writing a few articles from scratch. Векочел doesn't have that knowledge, and hasn't demonstrated the patience to acquire it (witness the nomination of Basil I, it is entirely spurious; note also that the first thing he did after bringing Sons of Antiochus VIII to mainspace was a GA nomination); he goes for the quick-and-dirty approach, hoping to slip through because, let's face it, on these topics, there are very few people on Misplaced Pages who actually know or care enough what to look for in a review, in order to satisfy the two must tricky criteria (comprehensiveness and sourcing). If I hadn't weighed in on Basil II, it probably would long have passed FA now; if Gog the Mild had not done in-depth detective work on Marcus Aurelius' ACR, likewise. Now, I also have done FA reviews where I have (largely) AGF'd on sourcing and coverage, but this was always with nominators who had actually brought the article from Stub or Start to the brink of FA, in other words, who had researched it, obviously knew the topic, and could be assumed to also care to do a proper job of it (else why invest the time?). I don't see this passion and ability here, not yet at least. And with the whole Sons of Antiochus VIII story, and the comments of Attar-Aram, speaking for myself, I no longer trust this editor to behave ethically. And as long as Векочел is going to meddle in these obscure topics, it will mainly fall on me and a handful of other editors here to actually be vigilant about whether his nominations are actually up to scratch. But this is not our job, it is the nominator's. Until he learns the ropes, and proves he is able to write an article from the bottom up (and experience what that entails), we all have better things to do than cleaning up after him. Constantine ✍ 21:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Try teaching them instead. ——SerialNumber54129 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I have some experience teaching at a university, and there are, broadly, two kinds of students. Those who will understand, when you explain a problem, using a couple of examples, what they did wrong, and, out of a desire to improve themselves, learn and correct the rest of their mistakes accordingly; their skills may vary, but there is sincerity to do a good job. And then there's those who care only about getting a passing grade, no matter how, and will keep returning to you with infinitesimal tweaks to the same old stuff, hoping to either wear you down or elicit precisely what they need to change to get a passing grade, essentially having you do their work for them, only much less efficiently than if you had done it yourself in the first place and simply given it to them, or if they had devoted the same amount of time and effort to do a proper job of it. That is not teaching; it is frustration, and that is how I have come to feel after several months of interaction with Векочел. I don't like the fact that I am making this proposal, but I see no willingness to learn, not when the same mistakes are being repeated again and again, not when I and others have to repeatedly clean up after him. If it were just me, I'd think that I am weird and perhaps too demanding; but I see the same frustration with everyone who gets a closer look into his work. What I want to achieve is to remove the temptation of the "passing grade" in articles that he has not substantially written himself (it bears repeating, I don't propose to ban him from all nominations), and get him to work on an article for the article's sake. That is IMO the only way for him to learn how to do this properly. And if he does, I'll be the first to support lifting the ban. Constantine ✍ 00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129. I agree with you, generally. But in this case, we are not talking about an editor who is improving articles. Just copy editing (and not always resulting in a better version) and spread images in an article is not an improvement. It only mean getting a bad or an unready article to the nomination page, only for other editors to waste their time reviewing then declining it, or passing it when it does not deserve to pass, rendering the whole FA and GA's processes useless. So this isnt because someone is afraid that the editor will get stars, its because we dont want an article that it not featured material to become featured. Allowing the behaviour of the editor is damaging to the FA and GA, even if they are crying out for involvement, because some involvements are damaging. I agree he/she needs to be guided and taught, but this means that they need to start an article from scratch, learn how to collect sources and use them, rendering them unfit to involve themselves in GA and FA articles anyway, until they can produce a good quality article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Extremely reluctantly. I enjoy training up new GA and FA editors and usually have a few on the go. Other editors cut me a tremendous amount of slack when I was learning the ropes. However, I am currently into the 14th hour of work on what I had thought would be a simple ACR source edit. This is not a typo. Anyone making a decision on this proposal may care to read through Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius#Source review - fail and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius#Further comments on source review. They will see Векочел repeatedly failing to address points, tinkering with peripheral points instead of addressing very clear issues, ignoring very clearly phrased requests until the forth time of asking, after the review has been failed, when suddenly, "I'm sorry, Gog, if I had some trouble understanding your comments". My AGF has been stretched to the point of incredulity. Since this thread opened I have reviewed Marcus Aureleus as it was before Векочел's involvement. I suspect that his overall input has been to make the article worse.

The proposed remedy may be over the top, and/or premature. In an ideal world Векочел would voluntarily desist and enter into one or more mentoring and training arrangements. It is what seems indistinguishable from a deliberate and sustained attempt to game the system which is riling me, and probably other editors. That, together with what seems a disinclination to learn, leaves me as a reluctant backer of this proposal. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate instructions from more experienced editors. I do not wish to ruin Misplaced Pages. Векочел (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Векочел: Thank you for that. We appreciate it and realise that it is not an easy thing to say. I am about to go to bed, but I will try to get back to you tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Векочел: Indeed, we do not doubt that you mean well. But writing articles is not easy, and the only way of learning how to do it is by doing it yourself, not relying on others' work. Our problem is with your methods, not your intentions: specifically, when you edit an article and want to bring it for review, you simply must have done some research and know the subject. That is something that takes years, and you obviously, and by your own admission, lack that knowledge. If you lack that background, you cannot judge whether it is complete, or whether the sources you use are trustworthy. Also, and ultimately, it is a matter of experience; particularly in the area of assessing the quality, reliability, and suitability of sources, where your work is unfortunately sorely lacking. Taking an almost-ready article and simply copyediting around or adding a few tidbits here and there, without at the same time researching it yourself, is bound to lead to trouble of the kind you are now facing. Instead of launching GA/FA nominations, take time to research, go to some WP:PEERREVIEWs, and only if you are absolutely certain, based on your own work, that the article meets the criteria, submit it for nomination. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A GA topic ban at least. Don't know what ACR (something to do with A class I presume) is and FA people are probably best to deal with FA competence. We have a newish editor, but not a complete newbie (9 months and 9000 edits) interested in our quality processes. That is not a bad time to get into editing good articles. The Basil I article is a long way from some of the worst articles that get nominated there. Talk:Faisal of Saudi Arabia/GA1 is pretty standard as far as reviews go. As the OP says there is nothing stoping someone nominating articles they are not the main editor of. It seems like a keen editor and given the above exchange one that is now willing to listen. I am not seeing the level disruption or previous discussion to justify a topic ban. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a formal ban at this time, Векочел appears to appreciate there is an issue and has expressed a willingness to listen to others, this more gentle and collegiate approach can/should/could have been tried without a formal ban being mooted first. If those attempts fail then by all means come back here, but to start the dispute resolution at ANI, suggesting the concerning behaviour is chronic and intractable, is going at things the wrong way round. Fish+Karate 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Third report about RBL2000 and Venezuelan articles

Summary: RBL2000 has disruptive discussion on Venezuela-related talk pages for the third time

Diffs:

• Use of the term "censor" against the admonishment to not to "use 'you', 'censor,' or 'revise history'" 1
• Unreliable sources: 1, 2
• Assuming bad faith on other editors: 1

Information about previous warnings:

• Special:Diff/884265375#2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis - Level Four Warning by SandyGeorgia
• First incident report by MattLongCT
• Second incident report by ZiaLater

Background: Yesterday I filed a checkuser request of RBL2000 because their behavior led me to believe there was enough evidence of an edit pattern of a sockpuppet account. Now that the checkuser demonstrated that the accounts are unrelated and that investigation was closed, I think the best course of action may be to open again a discussion regarding if an administrative action is needed. RBL2000 was given advice on how to improve editing, but they didn't seem interested; on the contrary, when notified that the discussion was closed because "the posting editor agreed to a 'last chance.'", they replied by saying "Wish it was also last chance for him, lying SOB." RBL2000 started editing on Venezuelan-related articles with a similar pattern as before only five days after the discussion was closed. If I count correctly they have already been given two "last chances", so a community ban may be in order. I'd recommend to examine if any of this behaviour is repeated in articles about North Korea. Pinging involved editors: @Dlohcierekim, Fenetrejones, MattLongCT, SandyGeorgia, Simonm223, The Four Deuces, and ZiaLater: --Jamez42 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You couldn't get 'em with a SPI, so you're trying again here? How does the clean SPI report improve your position? DlohCierekim 08:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: This isn't about "getting" an user, I'm notifying the admins and the users involved that the behavior has not improved despite several warnings. Quoting the last closing user, "RBL2000 should be aware that if the other editors do not see improvement, they will probably bring them back to ANI and the result will probably be different." Sockpuppet investigations only discuss evidence related to other accounts, regardless of policy violations; for example, as it can be seen in the investigation request, I provided diffs on bare URLs referencing as evidence, even though it hasn't been discussed in the noticeboard. I think that other users that have followed better the case should give their opinion, but I thought it was important to bring the issue to the noticeboard. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: SandyGeorgia is right. The NYTimes is more clearly reliable than the grayzone. You should try a more neutral voice using the Times. DlohCierekim 08:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: I can see how other editors have problems with your sources. Why are we here? Again? A dispute over sources? It shouldn't need ANI to sort this. DlohCierekim 08:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: This is a collaborative project. People offering feedback about collaboration and problem areas is not stalking. People are trying to work with you. DlohCierekim 08:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000 has not edited since Monday. Hard to have a conversation. This is our third thread. DlohCierekim 13:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On the bright side, RBL2000 has been better at discussing than before and has branched out into less controversy ridden areas. Be nice to here from MJL and @SandyGeorgia:. DlohCierekim 13:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, I will be honest edits like this concern me. If we are going to say that the CIA had any involvement in a break-in on a North Korean embassy, then we certainly can find better sources than El País to cite for it. I will defer to SandyGeorgia's judgement in the matter, though. I rather would want to hear from TFD since I haven't a clue about anything concerning this. Hope that helps some! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐ 01:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with using one of Spain's best newspapers as a source for something that happened in Spain. The story has since been picked up by BBC, Tbe Guardian, Fox News and other outlets. TFD (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using El Pais here; there are, though, in the diff given above real indications of the WP:CIR issues that have been a factor in this situation all along. For starters, there is copyvio in the text sourced to El Pais.

Since there have already been FOUR (not three) reports of the ongoing problems here, with exactly ONE admin paying attention while non-admins close and archive discussions, and many people promising to watch over and help this editor, yet doing nothing when the problems continue (as they have), I find little point in using my editing time to work up all the diffs. Just before Jamez42 filed this report, RBL continued personalizing on talk, as they have since Dlohcierekim's first warning. If someone deals with the copyvio, and deals with the fact that the very first warning given in the first thread has not been heeded and continues to be breached, and if any one of the people who claim to want to mentor this user actually do that, follow their edits, and remind them to stop personalizing discussions, then maybe it would be worthwhile for me to weigh in with all the diffs.

I also find it curious that we do not hear from RBL2000. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well said –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Jamez42, I am MattLongCT (global rename). The best way to ping me is to now {{u|MJL}}, {{u|MJL|MattLongCT}}, or {{ping|MJL}}. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐ 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  You might have put that on Jamez42's page, rather than here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Jamez42 saw it, so I think I was good. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I get what you mean now. That's certainly noted for the future. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

I posted this on the vandalism reporting page, but it got removed by a bot (perhaps because of wrong formatting in my request?).

• This IP address User_talk:207.241.251.130 has recently been used again for vandalism - and as far as I can see by some spot checking on previous contributions, never used constructively.

I don't think that 4 levels of warning at this point would help, based on the pattern of erratic vandalism. If never used for proper editing, is there any reason why it shouldn't be blocked? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I see one edit in the last 6 months from the IP (check contribs). AIV is still generally the right venue to report vandals. If you had difficulty filing a report, you could try using twinkle to make reporting (and many other standard Misplaced Pages tasks) easier. At this point, the report would be considered stale however, and it is possible that a bot removed your report because it was already stale when filed. Captain Eek 21:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: See above. Captain Eek 21:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @CaptainEek:. I do have Twinkle but haven't tried using it for reporting as yet. When is a report considered stale? (I know that this IP has only made a few changes over the years, but they have all been disruptive, so thought this may be reason enough for blocking.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: The blocking policy for IP's can be found here. Since IP addresses tend to be dynamically assigned, an IP address may be used by many, many individuals. Furthermore, the IP at issue is from an educational institution, which means that it could be a public computer or assigned to any number of folks. Possibly hundreds of folks could be that IP address. If the IP is not actively and persistently causing disruption, they are unlikely to be blocked. Even if blocked, IP's are usually only blocked short periods. Indeff IP blocks are very rare. Captain Eek ⚓ 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: yes, I noticed that it said that it was an institution, but thanks for the link to the policy. If the only people trying edit are being disruptive, I thought that there might be a case for a longer block. Oh well, here's hoping they don't return. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: If they do return, take them to AIV (reports go stale 4-8 hours after being reported btw), and if the problem persists, bring em here again. One edit in 6 months usually won't get folks blocked, but several in a day is definitely cause for a block. Captain Eek ⚓ 09:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks @CaptainEek:. I'll try to remember to check again over coming days. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Some eyeballs on 2016 Oakland warehouse fire

Looks like politicin’ and legalizin’ and conflictin’ of interestin’ Qwirkle (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. An edit topic that has moved to the talk page for discussion keeps getting reverted after sourcing, even trying to resolve a objection revert, then the reverter reverting, without the reverter discussing. P37307 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you pointed out the problematic edits with diffs and the name of the editor which brought you to this page. Liz 02:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Another user edit was made that included that the fire department Battalion Chief in charge of the fire scene intentionally decided not to send firefighters in even after learning as many as 25 people were inside and intentionally didn't tell responding crews. Qwirkle reverted saying it was actionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=887652863&oldid=887652382 I edited to include the quote, his actual quote, which included his rationale, from the Chief in the citation. At the same time a discussion was started by the orginal editor on the talk page. Qwirkle reverted again https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=887663569&oldid=887661874 giving the reason "No, no attempt was made to rescue them because they were obviously already dead, donchaknow" without discussing and I assume came here at some point. The discussion is ongoing here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire#I_added_information_about_the_prevention_of_a_rescue_attempt_and_it_was_removed to avoid an edit war and come to a consenus with the main objector Qwirkle, who started this notice, not participating. Qwirkle is disrupting editing without participating and then coming here for your attention/resolution? in the matter P37307 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle has been exhibiting the same sort of behavior on Lynching of Shedrick Thompson - objections for the sake of objecting, personal attacks, and ignoring requests for support for his positions. Of course he sees it differently, and will probably tell you what a biased, irresponsible asshole I am. Currently being discussed on POV noticeboard. deisenbe (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The source does not support, and in fact, refutes, a significant portion of the objectionable edit — the claim that "no attempt was made to rescue people inside." The source instead states that firefighters did push inside the building in an attempt to make interior attack, but because of smoke and debris, the fire commander made the determination that it was unsafe to proceed further. I agree that some form of the material belongs in the article, but the original version did not present facts in a balanced way, and instead attempted to fix unwarranted blame on the fire commander. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a complex editing situation that requires diffs. Simply look at the sequence of about half a dozen edits that took place on March 14. The background is that a fire in a building that all reliable sources describe as a firetrap killed 36 young people attending an unpermitted dance party. The immediate controversy has to do with the conduct of a fire commander, James Bowron, who led the response to this inferno. This is a serious BLP issue because recent edits include innuendo implying that Bowen's inaction prevented a rescue of the victims. All based on Bowen's frank assessment to a conference of professional firefighters about the catastrophic debacle that he faced that night, and his attempts to prevent the deaths of firefighters he commanded. Any content added to this article about Bowen's role must be the product of careful consideration leading to consensus. A man's career is on the line, and we must be very, very careful about this content. Full disclosure: I visited the site of this fire a few weeks later and two of my photos of the wreckage are in the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very serious issue. Friends and families of the 36 victims want to know who is responsible for their deaths. In addition to Bowron's career being on the line, so are the lives of the 2 defendants, Derek Almena and Max Harris who are about to go on trial for 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter and could spend the rest of their lives in prison. The official Origin and Cause report http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak064503.pdf states on Page 5 that when firefighters arrived at the scene approximately 7 minutes after the fire started "Some people were outside the warehouse, stating there were still people inside." Everyone who was attending the concert knew that it was taking place on the second floor. That is where the majority of the victims were. The Firehouse article states "Bowron's main focus given the difficulties with gaining entry was to keep the fire contained to the warehouse and avoid losing the whole block to the blaze, and he quickly struck a second and then a third alarm." Why wasn't his main focus rescuing the people trapped in the building, isn't that an important job of the fire department? Buildings can be replaced, people cannot. Bowron states in the article ""As I'm making my way toward the alpha side and toward the bravo side, I'm getting people coming up to me and they're telling me, 'Hey, there's people in there,' and I'm just trying to take it in and make sure I can stay task focused and get my lines placed and my people placed."" So he admitted ignoring the people who said there were victims trapped in the building. Bowron further states ""Had I made that announcement that there might have been 50, 60, 70 people in there, my crews—which had already pushed and pushed and pushed as hard as they could— would have probably made decisions or pushed themselves to a further limit which may have caused potential loss of life for the fire department on our end."" There are some very important issues here. The first is why Bowron didn't tell the crews before they "pushed and pushed" that people were trapped in the building. Another is why didn't he tell the crews the victims were on the second floor, so the crews could focus their search there. Bowron also stated ""As I was doing my 360, what I could see was that the only access into this building was a man-made door that was cut out of a commercial roll-up. And it's not like it was a clean door that was welded up all nice and neat."" He was very wrong, there was another door on the west side of the building. The Origin Report on Page 25 states "A victim was located within 10 feet of the west wall door opening". So one of they victims died 10 feet inside the side door. All of this raises serious questions about whether Bowron's behavior was negligent. And my statement that he intentionally prevented firefighters from knowing there were a large number of people trapped in the building is backed up by Bowron's statement that he didn't tell them, to prevent them from attempting a rescue. Firefighters train for mass casualty events, and unless I am mistaken, the number one goal is saving people's lives. This is not the first time a building caught on fire, there are established procedures for finding if there are people in a building. From what I read in the Firehouse article, Bowron seems to have completely ignored procedures and in addition somehow missed a very obvious side door where at least one victim died. He seems to have completely discounted the pleading of the witnesses that he save the people trapped in the building. I think these are important issues that should be discussed. There is no evidence whatsoever than any of the victims were already dead when firefighters arrived. To the contrary, an MD has stated that it "seems likely" based on the autopsy results that some of all of the victims were still alive and could have been rescued if the fire department had attempted to save them. If you friends or family were trapped in a burning building and the fire department ignored your pleas to save them, what would you think?Russ Tilleman (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

All of the above falls under WP:Original research, and can't be included. You are giving analysis and ascribing motivations which are nowhere to be found in the source (which is a primary source, anyways), and thus it doesn't belong anywhere close to Misplaced Pages, being more suited to maybe a blog post or something like that. ansh666 22:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf

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

I originally filed a AN3 report on the editor (here) for multiple 1RR violation in 48 hours, but upon reviewing their User talk comments, their incivility is glaring.

This user seems to have a history of inserting personal attacks, trolling, and snide comments under the guise of WikiLove messages. Just to name a few:. User account is 6 years old, was shown BLP and AP Ds notices back in August and February, but shows a complete disregard for consensus. The very rich history of warnings on their talk page isn't convincing that this isn't a WP:NOTHERE account. Actions may be required for this such rigorous violations. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked the user for 72 hours to stop their blatant, repeated edit warring. That should not prevent a discussion here about whether there should be additional or longer sanctions for their disruptive behavior. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In the latest edit-warring spat they have also violated WP:COPYVIO. Please see the details in my comment at the article talk. Dr. K. 03:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I see this is JohnTopShelf's second block. Black Kite blocked them for 48 hours in February. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have noticed this editor's behavior over the past few weeks. To me, he seems incapable of working collaboratively with other Misplaced Pages editors. His edit-warring and POV-pushing on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and ludicrous edit requests like this one - "of course, I understand that Misplaced Pages editors and administrators are overwhelming liberals who no doubt share the opinion that President Trump is a liar" - are really indications of little to no willingness to work with other editors . In addition, his WikiLove taunts fall way outside the boundaries of basic civility and respect that editors should be exuding here. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I reverted this editor at a BLP about a month ago, and it resulted in a lengthy discussion split between my talk page and their talk page, which was a very pleasant disagreement in which I was left with two barnstars, two beers, a goat and a cookie. Unfortunately, the editor was blocked just a few hours later. Since coming off the block, there are more warnings on the talk page and now another block for edit warring. I haven't see any personal attacks from them myself–in fact they seem rather polite to me–and they clearly can communicate, write prose, and cite sources. While the account is old, they have very few edits, and mostly in the last two years. Their source selection is lopsided but other than a few Daily Mail links its mostly Fox News which is allowed. The POV is definitely there in their edits, but not to an unusual degree. The problem IMO is the editor's steadfast refusal to use or respect the consensus system that is used here in Misplaced Pages. If they went to the article talk pages, presented their sources, and shopped their copy like everyone else, they'd probably get a lot further. But they just keep edit warring and wikilove-arguing. I feel like they could be a useful contributor if they wanted to. Leviv ich 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: That discussion on your user talk looked like an intimidating wall of text with an astounding degree of WikiLove abuse and trolling. I'd remove it on sight per WP:DENY. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've had such less pleasant conversations though, even with proper formatting and whatnot. I mean, haven't we all? He didn't call me any names or make any accusations. Calling another editor's statement "nonsense" and saying that Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias are not outside the range of reasonable opinions to express. If it's trolling, it's very calm and polite trolling. I can live with bizarre wikilove messages if they're polite, but I can't live with habitual edit warring, and SPA POV pushing is also tiring. To me those are bigger concerns than civility or personal attacks. Leviv ich 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The message left on my talk page was definitely sarcastic, but I sort of get the sense that this editor is under the impression that wikilove messages are the preferred way to communicate with other editors about article content -they've hardly ever used an article talk page. They also seem confused about the meaning of consensus. Maybe this is a WP:CIR problem, but I don't think they're purely trolling. Nblund 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Copyvio update I have since found more extensive copyvios for the edit of the now blocked user. Please see this updated copyvio report for these paragraphs. Dr. K. 05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• More copyvios by the same user I am copying from my message at Justlettersandnumbers's talkpage. It seems many of the large-scale edits to articles by this user are copyvios. Copyvio from Kansascity.com, copyvio from Washington examiner.com, copyvio from politifact.com, the usual copyvio about Greenpeace but pasted to a different article. In addition, Justlettersandnumbers has revdeled two additional copyvios from the Alexandria Cortez article: copyvio 1 and copyvio 2. Dr. K. 23:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothere user refuses to communicate

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

User_talk:HCC_World_Cup page history shows this user keeps fiddling with some fake game even though his user talkpage, a draft and template are all at deletion discussions Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Asia Qualifier

I asked him to explain his edits twice and he just deletes my questions and the deletion discussion notices. Can an Admin impose a block to get their attention. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Strips the notices and carries on Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

657 edits, and the only 4 to mainspace were vandalism/test edits... Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've indeffed the user pending a good explanation. I'm going to bed now, so I'll leave it to others to deal with the pages up for deletion. If I've messed up, any admin is welcome to unblock. Deor (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The MfD and TfD will close as delete soon anyway. No one will vote to keep the pages. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User blocked by Deor - thanks Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)}}

HCC World Cup still has rights to edit their talk page and rather than use it to discuss this block they continue to delete the notifications and use it as a test page.Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

34 edits since their block (none of them constructive) and counting. To be clear: I think they need to be blocked completely. Spike 'em (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Those pages all clearly qualify under speedy deletion criteria (G3, U5) and there's no need to waste time at MfD and TfD, so I've deleted them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A previous user,Tariqmehmood8575, was blocked in January for exactly the same reasons / editing style, so I suspect these are the same person. Spike 'em (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I thought there was something familiar - well spotted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on National Hockey League articles (revisited)

Revisiting a case that was closed as I believe that there was no long term solution to resolve this case. An explanation of this situation is provided on the previous report that I have linked. The user that I have concerns with is NicholasHui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as they have been making persistent disruptive edits on certain NHL articles. Yowashi (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do you have any specific examples? SportingFlyer T·C 07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Don't expect people to wade through the wall of text from the previous ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on other account: NicholasHui had another account with which they edited with before. I had asked them to mark it as retired, or they could have stated a legitimate reason to keep it around, but they did not respond. I have since blocked the other account..—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples of NicholasHui's contributions that were incorrect. (, , ). I made corrections to these at a later time. The thing that I can't understand is why they can't just wait for the information provided by this source (which they don't use) to be updated.

Some information I add in to the GAA average for Goaltender Statistics comes from the NHL Teams 2018-19 regular season stats. An example is I changed Anthony Stolaz's GAA average to 3.43 because I saw it from the Edmonton Oilers regular season stats. But even though I put it to 3.43 GAA average, Sabbatino informed me that the information Yowashi gets is from http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?report=goaliesummary&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&playerPlayedFor=team.22&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=wins. I even said that on my edit summary from the Edmonton Oilers 2018-19 season page history. NicholasHui (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasHui (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the issues raised by OP, I am concerned by edits like this (possible sock?) and this (CIR). GiantSnowman 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is that NicholasHui (evidenced by their own statement above and by the last ANi report) is not using reliable sources. As far as I could tell, NicholasHui was coming up with numbers on their own (failing WP:OR), taking them from live TV broadcasts of the games, or using unreliable sources (a fact which they warned about by Sabbatino here). I'll note that the last ANI was closed with this warning about about WP:V and WP:OR (as well as not socking). Captain Eek 20:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with Captain Eek. Nicholas Hui calculates the information on their own, and then publishes their information on an article. This is the reason why the numbers for the goaltenders don't always match with the information provided from official sources. I honestly don't know why someone like Nicholas Hui would even waste time calculating all these numbers when you can just simply refer to a reliable source. On the plus side of using a reliable source, there is a 100% chance of being correct rather than calculating all these numbers and end up being incorrect. That's what makes me have so many questions about this individual. Also, here is another example of Nicholas Hui's contributions on the 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article . I'll give them props for fixing it, but again, they are still calculating these numbers. Yowashi (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that I admit to calculating the playing time for Ottawa Senators goaltender statistics incorrectly was because the game was not totally finalized yet. That was why. Also, stop complaining how my updates are like when they are correct. Note that when you updated the Calgary Flames 2018-19 season player statistics when they lost to Arizona Coyotes 2-0, you forgot to add in the Games played for Garnet Hathaway and it was on your behalf. So that was partially on you. You look at the Ottawa Senators 2018-19 season stats and you find that another IP User editing the Ottawa Senators page does it similar to how my edit strategy is because I was following that user's example on the Ottawa Senators season page since. NicholasHui (talk)

I didn't forget. In my defense, for whatever reason, NHL.com had Hathaway's GP listed at 61. Every other player on the Flames roster had been updated so I assumed that Hathaway's was updated as well. My mistakes are different from yours, as mine are not intentional, yours are, because you intentionally provide incorrect information. If you want me to stop complaining about your edits, then listen to what myself and other people have been trying to tell you this entire time. Other than that, I'm gonna keep complaining until you learn how to edit the proper way. Yowashi (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm being accused on my talk page for not updating the stats correctly even though I explained the situation in my comment above. Honestly, in my opinion, this individual is not here to build an encyclopedia. Yowashi (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment @NicholasHui: I'm unclear what you were trying to achieve by making accusations on Yowashi's talk page as well as here at this ANI discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Most recent update @NicholasHui: For your most recent edit to update Toronto's stats (looks like an hour or two at most) after the end of their game, can you explain the specific sources you use to edit those stats? Thank you.—Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk about confusing and Template:TheFinalBall

Can someone take a look at this and make sure that I'm correct with what's going on?

Last month the TfD discussion involving Template:TheFinalBall as closed with the outcome being determined as delete. Today, following a request on WP:BOTREQ by GiantSnowman, I filed a Bot Request for Approval to remove all of its transclusions and successfully completed a trial run of 50 edits. Around 6 or 7 hours later I received this message on my talk page bordering nonsensical, to which I requested clarification. Following this, Talk about confusing reverted the bot edit (this time placing the full URL). I subsequently warned Talk about confusing that its re-addition was contrary to consensus and requested that they do not restore. However, they have continued to revert the bot edits. --TheSandDoctor 06:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC); updated 06:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping was broken by typo @GiantSnowman: ^ --TheSandDoctor 06:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There was clear consensus at the TFD discussion that that template should be removed and the source should not be used (in any form) because the website is non-RS. @Talk about confusing: is disruptive. GiantSnowman 08:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

1. The bot was so bad, it had fails all over the place. I think I found about 10 errors.
2. I called the owner, but wasn't given any sensible reply. 12:35
3. I knew that the templates {{Final Ball}}, {{ogol}}, {{zerozero profile}} were being deleted. I didn't see that the underlying site was in danger. Nor did the message on bot said nothing.
4. I got nothing from anybody after the "clarification" from user:TheSandDoctor. Nothing from anybody.
5. I've got better things to do than this. Talk about confusing (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the point they are trying to make is that the bot is removing the template but leaving a set of <ref></ref> tags in the edits they have reverted? This was never explained by them though, and the attempt above is similarly opaque. Spike 'em (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the interim version of the page (just after the bot edit and before the revert), it had a big red cite error where the template was removed: As of 15 December 2017 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Spike 'em (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The bot code being not quite right is not reason to blindly mass-revert and add back a source deemed to be non-RS. GiantSnowman 09:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it would have been far easier for everyone to remove the tags and raise it with a clear explanation of what had gone wrong. Spike 'em (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Talk about confusing: I was requesting clarification from you as it was unclear what you wanted with that message, not giving you clarification. @GiantSnowman and Spike 'em: The issue with the empty ref tags is being investigated and I believe I am fairly close to a fix. The issue overall affected 19/50 (39%) of the edits made and was acknowledged at the BRFA once I discovered it through the similarities between reverts. --TheSandDoctor 13:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC); updated 13:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Spike 'em: It appears that I have been able to correct the programatic problem in a couple sandbox tests and have now requested an extended trial to trial these fixes. --TheSandDoctor 16:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I endorsed zerozero (and the same site that under other web domain) is not reliable as user-generated content. @Talk about confusing:, if you like, after cleaning the template, we can start a thread which may be snow close for adding those sites to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It had consensus to remove it in the past and if you like , in the future in the black list. If you don't know the consensus , here is the chance to know it. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal (the third ANI filing for the same range within a year)

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive994#User:2405:3800::/32
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive997#Range_block_needed_again_for_Malaysian_nationality_vandal
• 2405:3800:502:1047:ccaa:3003:bae7:df77 (talk · contribs) (vandalize full name and change lede nationality )
• ‎2405:3800:400:7bf6:4c0c:5ef4:ce08:5df5 (talk · contribs) (vandalize nationality to hoax value)
• 2405:3800:483:97E0:ECB3:A26B:74EA:9F19 (talk · contribs) (full name vandal)
• Fernando Muslera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Uruguayan to hoax value: Malaysian, just like last two ANI filings)
• Wan Kuzain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sporting Kansas City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fuad Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
• Faris Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
• Ariff Farhan Isa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Khairil Anuar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ki Sung-yueng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (hoax given name, change medal to hoax value to gold)

5df5 had a short block (36h) recently within this week, but it seem it need longer. Matthew hk (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Update. After 5df5 was blocked for 2 weeks, immediately ip hopping as usual to 2405:3800:483:62C7:8C9F:D50D:7AD5:84A2 (talk · contribs) and vandalise Sporting Kansas City again. Matthew hk (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest is 2405:3800:402:7B3E:2425:BDA3:322E:5A8A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nzd (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And now 2405:3800:401:2D2B:E967:2598:3310:7D03 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nzd (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Again with the promotion of Brent Alden

Referring to the the Dec 2017 case Promotion of Brent Alden, False Alarm band, rangeblock needed and the Jan 2018 followup case Rangeblock for Meg Maheu?...

Promotion has resumed at various pages including the NOFX and False Alarm (band) pages, with a similar range of IPs sand also a named account User:BrentAlden. The name "Norman Alden" is being added here and there, without any reference. List of involved IPs below. Binksternet (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 2600:1:B18D:1E69:EC3A:A4AB:3AC2:A8D6 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B128:5475:AA62:7EC4:A0F1:86A5 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B172:68B7:2BB1:ADAC:C2E2:20FD (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B1AD:85AD:FA9D:DF53:95C9:50DB (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B121:4DB6:3445:EBE1:AE49:5B13 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B139:ED10:BF4F:D0EB:E151:4643 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B114:5AFA:9CCF:5D35:1EC3:9B96 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• A range block here is problematic - you're looking at 2600:1:b100:::/40, which is a big chunk of Sprint mobile Internet. There is a lot of Mr Alden from this range, and quite a lot of vandalism, but there are also good contributions as well. I've ECP'd the False Alarm page, and watchlisted NOFX, but in the end probably the only way of hitting this problem properly will be with an edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, huge range. A filter would also be difficult because the disruption takes various forms. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's see what Special:AbuseFilter/975 gets. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

175.143.166.187+175.143.166.162 (same user)

Ip user on 175.143.166.187 was given several warnings to not add unsourced content to GeForce 16 series and Nvidia PureVideo. User has refused to stop removing the unsourced content (1650) despite leaving a message on their talk page. User also decided to make an attacking comment in one of their edits on the GeForce 16 series insulting the editors that reverted the ip's edits. Ip's edits also caused several users to request page protection for Geforce 16 series page. After issuing the warning, user decided to change to 175.143.166.162 to readd the unsourced info. Due to persistent addition of unsourced or improperly cited material and after being recommended by one of the admins on the requests for protection page to report the user here if it were to continue, i decided to post this message here since the user appears to refuse to remove the unsourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmartbird (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

After some time, 175.143.166.162 decided to remove the notice and the warning by blanking the page. User proceeded to re-add the unsourced/leaked info that ip admitted to doing, on Geforce 16 series, Nvidia PureVideo, High Efficiency Video Coding, and High Efficiency Video Coding implementations and products. The user did not blank the page on its other ip, but has shown that it has disregarded the the avi notice and warning that was posted on one of the talk pages the user has access to. Thesmartbird (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GeForce 16 series semi-protected for a week per WP:RFPP, but I'd like to see some discussion on the article talk pages. Miniapolis 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this Copyvio?

User:Michaelmarilyn appears to be adding copyvio text to the article Tara Chambler and possibly other articles as well. Can someone please look?: 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:COPYVIO, but seems to be confined to this one article. The pattern of inaccurate edit summaries is universal however. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Page semi-protected by BOZ . However that might not do the trick, as User:Michaelmarilyn is already auto confirmed. Temp full protection may be needed. Note that User:Michaelmarilyn using misleading edit sums to add clear copy-vios . In fact a look at their contribs shows that the only edit sum they've ever used is "Fixed typos". I've warned user . Captain Eek 21:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@BOZ: Courtesy ping per your recent page protection, page may need temp full protection instead of semi. Captain Eek 21:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I already have the page on my watchlist, so if the user ignores the warnings I think it is fair to block them instead of resorting to further protection. That said, do you think I should remove the protection from the article? BOZ (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is only one problem editor, then per WP:PP In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection ... when blocking individual users is not a feasible option I think the page could be unprotected. Captain Eek 21:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP sock of blocked user

The IP 97.71.138.2, almost certainly the sock of the recently blocked vandal Fiji123, has taken to adding bad-faith PRODs to articles created by editors who have reverted him. Examples: , , . See also the IP's latest comments/edit summaries at User talk:97.71.138.2: , . Pinging Drmies who blocked the named account on March 7. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I was on my way to block them for the "assburger" comment but Drmies beat me to it. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, indeed, but I see no evidence of socking. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, Fiji123's last edit was vandalism to Maurice Ravel . Three minutes after it was reverted, the IP PRODs it and then PRODs another article created by the editor who reverted the vandalism at Maurice Ravel . Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Voceditenore, Interesting. I have a magic tool, but it's possible that there's other users who know better how to wield it. In other words, a real CU. I found no connection. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinions on this are (1) Drmies is perfectly capable of shaking the Magic Checkuser 8-Ball; and (2) when you have an indeffed editor and an IP doing things that would get them blocked regardless of what logged-out editor they might be, there's no purpose in running CU. It also tends to be against the checkuser policy to compare accounts with IPs. I didn't do much evaluating for sockpuppetry here because it was not a good use of time that could be better spent pushing block buttons. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit talk by Cold Fusion 2019

• Cold Fusion 2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user contacted ජපස (aka jzg) about an ongoing lawsuit against Misplaced Pages ( ). WP:NLT seems to apply to this, but I'm honestly not 100% sure. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean jps? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I did... I don't even have a good excuse for that. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you have a decent excuse for that; CF19 left an identical message for JzG. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh! That's where I saw that... somehow mixed up ජපස's signature with JzG EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've indef'd Cold Fusion 2019 for NOTHERE. Their ONLY two edits are to post about a lawsuit filed against Misplaced Pages? Chances are it's very likely a sock as well. Either way, block applied. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, my guess is SF-banned User:Abd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw this elsewhere. CF2019 is not the one doing the suing. I am not sure NLT applies in this case. spryde | talk 19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because CF19 says they aren't the ones doing the suing, doesn't mean they aren't the ones doing the suing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI if you're interested in the plaintiff's perspective - I couldn't access the actual lawsuit. ] TimTempleton 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really. I just remember him from long ago in the WP community and other groups. spryde | talk 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if this is not the person pursuing the legal case, they are making demands based on the legal case, and I'd say NLT very much applies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the WP:NLT policy says that "while you may sue in a court of law, Misplaced Pages is not the place for legal disputes" and that users "are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding". A block is removed if the threat is "genuinely and credibly withdrawn". Should a user make good on their threat, and the lawsuit is unresolved, I think a block would still be appropriate is the same spirit as this policy. And the parallel for a "genuinely and credibly withdrawn" would be the legal resolution of any lawsuits. (Maybe this could be proposed as an amendment to NLT through a discussion at VPP?) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Incivility from EEng

All participants in this discussion are reminded that civility is a requirement, and that this topic falls under the discretionary sanctions for gender-related controversies. Start playing nice, all of you, or admins should start handing out topic bans. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

In this discussion, it seems like EEng has just decided to heap abuse on another editor for no apparent reason. This comment calling the editor a "narrow minded scold" seems particularly personal, and (possibly unintentionally) a bit sexist. Fae noted as much and was given a rude response. I seconded the opinion, and suggested EEng should strike through the personal attack, and was met with more obnoxiousness. I assume that there's some kind of history here I'm not aware of, or else EEng is just having a day, but it's not moving the conversation in a helpful direction and I would appreciate it if someone else would step in. Nblund 03:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI I have notified EEng of this thread since Nblund seems to have missed the bright orange box mentioning the need to do that. MarnetteD|Talk 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like they did so after I made my post. MarnetteD|Talk 04:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You beat me by two minutes. I was trying to figure out the template. Nblund 04:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec)How have you attempted to resolve this dispute before coming to ANI, Nblund? Liz 04:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I asked EEng to strike through the personal attack here. The response is linked above. IMHO, it didn't seem like posting another polite request was going to accomplish much. Nblund 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• If "scold" is uncivil but "fuck off" isn't, I have no idea what's going on here anymore. In any case, the discussion was already off the rails by the time EEng jumped in. I don't see anything remotely sanctionable here to the point of almost thinking this is a waste of time. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Although this thread might not have led to any action, I believe its closure by Legacypac was premature and improper, and the wording of the closure was unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is not a chance in anywhere that this is actionable. EEng is being pretty kind considering the pontificating going on in the linked thread. Liz knows better than to modify comments. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Your use of pontificating degrades women and reflects your subconscious identification with the hegemony of male-dominant religious oppressors. Watch it or the gendered-meanings police will be on you. EEng 10:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC) For the record, I don't think Liz modified anyone's comments. Perhaps you mean Fae .

FWIW: I don't think any sanction here would be warranted either and I didn't really think that was the sole purpose of this noticeboard. I was looking for someone to intercede in a discussion where one editor seemed to be taking a needlessly personal tone. Nblund 04:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean like —

What a bizarre personal attack to make against all editors with an opinion different from yours

and

the same old suspects trying to provoke and trigger editors with opinions they do not like to see freely and logically expressed so that their targets fall foul of Misplaced Pages policies

and

your own fantasy anti-trans conspiracy theories

— stuff like that? EEng 10:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no - not exactly. It seems like the tone was out of hand in general, but those comments lack the name-calling and personal tone of your comment about how unpleasant someone's workplace must be. Maybe you think the other editor has it coming (that seems to be Legacypac's attitude), but as someone who doesn't really know or care about the history, it just looked to me like one editor was kind of bullying another for no reason. It's obnoxious to read and it looked mostly one-sided to me. Nblund 11:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac also closed the recent MjolnirPants ANI thread and all its subthreads, which was then reverted twice. This is especially problematic if premature non-admin closures are used to shut down discussion of issues without admin accountability. So @Legacypac: perhaps stop doing non-admin closures at ANI unless they are just technical closures, or alternatively run for adminship. Thanks.--Pudeo (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That maybe your opinion but it does not impress me. Two different Admins closed down discussion about GiantSnowman claiming nothing to do and yet when taken to ArbComm he was put on probation and restriction because there was an issue. Admins don't have any special powers to assess consensus better than experienced editors. Sometimes it is better to have a a regular editor close threads and it is certainly allowed by policy. If you are offering to nominate and support my RFA then my opinion of this may improve. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You know - if people want to discuss, let them discuss this. Maybe sanctions are warrented here. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No comment on the substance, but as the discussion is clearly not finished I have reverted Legacypac's close. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As I noticed that Legacypac reopened this thread on EEng's request on their talk page, diff, it may be worth adding the same reminder here that I added to the GENDERID discussion before it turns into forum shopping.

As a general antidote to heated discussion, how about everyone takes a chill pill and consider Arbcom's reminder to everyone in a very similar case, more than 5 years ago: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Misplaced Pages, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not."' ref

This would include making provocative statements like "Shouldn't you two be at a seminar somewhere? Oh, sorry... an ovanar?", even if intended as a very funny joke which accidentally has the effect of demeaning women. diff

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, he did not ask me to reopen the thread. I reopened it because several people were into the whine and cheesy. Now what do people want to do about Fae's behavior? Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I reading you correctly, by "whine and cheesy" you appear to be saying you would like to create more drama.

I disagree, there have been enough "jokes" at the expense of others in the GENDERID discussion. I recommend reducing the drama, rather than asking for more to be piled on.

In that spirit, I'm taking a break from it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fae did not read me correctly. Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Someone please close this; I'd do it myself except I commented in the Arb case request which in Fae's mind probably makes me 'involved'. We are not going to introduce "nobody is allowed to make any statement with which Fae doesn't agree" into policy, and these constant attempts to redefine "incivility" as "had an opinion different to mine" are starting to cross the line into intentional disruption. ‑ Iridescent 11:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent: you realize Fae didn't bring this to ANI right? I'm confused about the feedback here and that's definitely not a fair description of my complaint. Are personal attacks toward this particular editor permitted because they've irritated people, or was all of this totally fine talk page discussion? Nblund 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC) edit: In case it's not clear: I've interacted with EEng a handful of times on the past, and I've never interacted with Fae and I have no interest in side taking here. It seems like there's an attitude of "we didn't ban this person, so now it's just open season on antagonizing them". That's probably not fair to Fae, but it's really unfair to other editors who don't have a dog in this hunt and who just don't want to slog through a long Festivus-style-airing-of-grievances on an article talk page. At the very least, please post a memo so that uninvolved editors know that we've all decided to just let these editors flame each other at will, and efforts to intervene will be met with condescension and insults. Nblund 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

EEng is a popular editor who frequents ANI a lot. Complaints about his insults will get you nowhere, I'm afraid. I agree entirely that calling a female editor a 'narrow minded scold' is wholly inappropriate, sexist, and insulting, but you'll never get a retraction, an apology, or any action at all. Gender-based insults are the last bastion of acceptable prejudice on Misplaced Pages. Back to the kitchen, girls! Fish+Karate 16:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Who's a female editor? Fae? How am I supposed to know that? Not two weeks ago I got it drilled into my head that they're a they ; now I guess I'm supposed to know they're a she, and adjust my diction accordingly.If you really want to know, I literally learned the word scold as a noun from this passage . in which William Bennett is referred to as such; I had no idea the word was "gendered". But yeah, if you're gonna act like a dyspeptic old woman I'll treat you like one, whether you're male, female, or unknown. EEng 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Scold...
   • Oxford: (archaic) A person, in particular a woman, who nags or grumbles constantly.
   • Merriam-Webster (underline added): a. one who scolds habitually or persistently; b. dated, now sometimes offensive : a woman who disturbs the public peace by noisy and quarrelsome or abusive behavior
   • Dictionary.com: a person who is constantly scolding, often with loud and abusive speech; common scold.
   • Collins: a person, esp a woman, who constantly finds fault
   • Vocabulary.com: "Scold can also be used as a noun to describe a person who irritates people by finding fault in everything. Your great aunt Merna, who during the holidays complains about her gifts, criticizes your weight, says the turkey is too dry, and the stuffing is soggy? She's a scold. Maybe she's cranky."
   • Cambridge doesn't even seem to have a noun entry for scold at all.
   • Wiktionary's definition of scold: "A person who habitually scolds, in particular a troublesome and angry woman." Ahh, the dictionary anyone can edit.
2. While we're talking about civility on that thread, am I the only person bothered by this: Let's be honest, because we all know the real reason... the article exists only because of their trans status, in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL by trans activist editors.? Leviv ich 17:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

How about you quote the primary definitions instead of archaic and unused examples. Hyperbole much? Valeince (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are the primary definitions of the noun "scold." Leviv ich 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've checked the links for what you posted and found this: Oxford: "Remonstrate with or rebuke (someone) angrily" No gender mentioned. MW: "one who scolds habitually or persistently" No gender mentioned. Collins dictionary: "If you scold someone, you speak angrily to them because they have done something wrong" No mention of gender. These are the primary definitions from your links. Not the ones you listed with the archaic use towards one gender. Valeince (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: have you considered the option of just refraining from name-calling all together? Nblund 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For Oxford and Collins, you are quoting the definition of the verb, not the noun; for Merriam-Webster, that portion was quoted by the poster. isaacl (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Revdel needed ASAP

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

Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And these. User need to be blocked for inserting links to video of mass killings. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: May need to remove their talk page access so they don't post it to their talk page instead. Let them eat UTRS. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. For people who wonder how nasty the Internet can get, this is a prime example. --Rschen7754 06:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to remind users that this page is not a good place to request RevDels. As this has been resolved, it shouldn't be necessary to revert and RevDel this section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And guess this is as good a place as any to suggest that the WP:AN/I edit notice should include a link to a list of admins that have been active in the last few minutes or so in mop-up places - WP:AN/3, WP:AIV, CAT:CSD - to avoid this perennial problem. Yeah, encouraging editors to post on admins' talk pages instead of here is sub-optimal, but a kind of least worst alternative. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been here for years and I dont use IRC. I have no clue where to ask for quick revdels such as this above.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL, or more precisely, it's subsection WP:REVDELREQUEST. Or the massive pink header you see whenever you try to edit ANI which says in huge bold letters If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs via this form or to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Revision deletion may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel connect Fish+Karate 10:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I never understood why we don’t have a web form where you can pop in a diff and hit submit to request revdel. Why is there no on-wiki way to request revdel? Leviv ich 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there basically is: Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

By “on wiki” I meant not via email. I don’t want to reveal my actual email address, and I don’t want to set up a dummy email just to report revdel issues (nor do I want to enable email at all). So I just don’t report revdel issues, which is fine. But it would take like five minutes to set up an ordinary web form to submit revdel requests, and captcha can stop spam bots, so I just never understood why that hasn’t been done by now. I assume there is a good reason, just wondering what it is. Leviv ich 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(apparently edit-conflicted with close) I guess one of the issues there is that there really isn't a "revdel team". The form would just have to email every administrator, all 1500-or-so, and that's a lot of load for a mailing list. Maybe we could set up a form that could notify a bot which could post on #wikipedia-en-revdel or #wikipedia-en-admins to get attention? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Emailing oversight should be the first thing you do; their mailing list is generally seen by someone within a few minutes any time of day, and they do act fast. Oversighters are also bound to much more strict privacy guidelines than the rest of us, so you should not be afraid of revealing your email address to them. If it's especially urgent then asking for revdel here is fine too. It's only if it's a matter of privacy or a very serious BLP issue that you should not post here - drawing unnecessary attention to matters that need to be hidden is an undesirable result. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've emailed Oversight many times and not once have they spammed or cyberbullied me. EEng 14:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

IPs removing references to MH17 and MH370

I'm not sure if this goes at SPI, AIV or somewhere else, so I'm reporting it here. Someone seems determined to remove references to the downing of MH17 and loss of MH370. Pops up every couple of days from a (slightly) different IP, removes the same content, and uses similar summaries (eg Remove unrelated content). Is a rangeblock possible? IPs involved: Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6054:B009:6F7C:436A:9395 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6AC8:4126:7AF9:45CF:F435 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6AC8:49A:F255:7D39:77CE Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:440C:C941:D626:E9DD:E915 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:7306:934:60E3:D02E:16F9 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:56A9:60F3:A227:2241:6010 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:654E:18CA:7125:18C8:A2B0 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:5F70:3F:E9FF:E7A3:3044 Probably not related: Special:Contributions/219.92.42.162 Special:Contributions/219.92.43.151 Question: Is there an exception to the requirement to notify editors when reporting them at ANI if it's a bunch of ips? I'll go ahead and template them now, wondering for the future Hydromania (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural note, it's probably impossible to notify an editor whose IP changes that frequently. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Every edit from the associated /48 since December 3 seems to be this same vandal (see Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9::/48). I put a one month block on the range. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Hydromania (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's effectively impossible to notify an IPv6 editor (the long hexadecimal ones) because their discrete IP can change with each edit, and you can't notify a range. Our guidelines don't consider that technical detail. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked socks need talk page access revoked - Evlekis

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Blocked sock Thumb boy 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to have TPA revoked per this, because Evlekis will just keep on adding crap on the talk page until TPA is revoked (just like all of his socks do...). - Tom | Thomas.W 09:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The same goes for Heavy Loader Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per this. - Tom | Thomas.W 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: Character from Slokmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet another blocked sock of Evlekis needing TPA revoked for posting the same crap as the ones above (see their contribs...). - Tom | Thomas.W 09:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it. For vandals like this I suggest not bothering reverting until after TPA has been revoked - they just enjoy the recognition and the edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: ... and now it's Perkerose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for the same reason as the others... - Tom | Thomas.W 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep lining them up... ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Lawrence Duvail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's obviously keeping a record of all of his old socks, this one was blocked almost three years ago... - Tom | Thomas.W 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Yunshui: Might as well remove TPA from these too, before he decides to use them again. They were all CU-blocked as Evlekis socks on the same day as the one above (21 April 2016), but still have TPA enabled:

I just like to edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Taxi Thomas M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Sweet Sound of Rain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Tom | Thomas.W 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Was just going through and checking them - I've got all of those now (and a bunch more). As an aside, he doesn't need to keep a record of his old socks, as we helpfully do that for him at the SPI (and if he always uses the same password...) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reblocked about 20 accounts from around that period which still had TPA enabled. Obvious lesson - always block Evlekis socks with TPA and email disabled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Grotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a brand new sock, see contribs. - Tom | Thomas.W 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and 27-stevenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: ... and he's now using Kebabvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked about three weeks ago with TPA enabled (see contribs...). - Tom | Thomas.W 11:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I have to go out for a bit now, so just list any new ones and someone else will get them if I don't. There's no rush really - his puerile ramblings are harmless (and are amusing nobody but himself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Threat at Ainu people

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

At Ainu people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 58.178.8.7 has stated "I have given the scientific sources to such facts, if wiki removes this I will be making a video about racist mods defending old 19th century racism". This isn't a legal threat but is still chilling, particularly to those of us who are open about our identity. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean Ainu people?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, somehow it got saved while I was trying to fix it, leaving odd characters in the section heading and my error. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I was reverted the disruptive edits (Tromdor (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

IP blocked for righting great wrongs, and while the threat is not a legal threat it's a threat to engage in harassment of specific Misplaced Pages editors. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent Non-Free Content violations

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

I went to leave a message on this user's Talk Page... It is flooded with WP:NFC notifications (which they have obviously chosen to ignore). There was even another notification added last night. DarkKnight2149 14:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another one of these. Zero edits to talk pages, scores of image warnings. I have indefinitely blocked the editor until they decide to communicate. WP:CIR. Fish+Karate 16:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Salavat who seems to spend a lot of his time adding all the fair use licensing information to the various images this editor uploads and may have a view on whether this user is contributing any actually useful content. Fish+Karate 16:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of this users uploads were being used in an appropriate way when I came across them and I believe the majority were kept. Whether the articles were lacking images before the User uploaded them or whether they were replacing existing images that I am not sure of. I can say though that the uploader put no effort in the upload, not even a description or source. Salavat (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

ViperSnake151

This is on the way to a boomerang. Do not report an editor to ANI because they reverted an edit. Seek dispute resolution on the article talk page first. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

He had reverted my edit again because of his actions. My edit was on the article “Entertainment Software Rating Board”, and, although I put based in the United States, he had to still revert it. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetricSupporter89 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Your POV issues relating to North America were quite obvious in that edit, as you distinctly removed the statement that it was an "American self-regulatory organization" because it is used in other North American countries. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Review of block I imposed on My Lord

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

I have just blocked My Lord (talk · contribs) for 31 hours because I believe he may still be abusing multiple accounts.

I was reached out to by email from an anonymous user who has presented evidence of continued socking. After reviewing it, I have come to believe that there is reason to believe that the claim is true.

On January 30th, 2019, Abecedare filed an appeal on behalf of the user and unblocked them to allow participation in the appeal. The appeal was closed as successful by Oshwah on February 11, 2019. The thread can be found here.

On February 13, 2019, 112.134.66.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started editing making the claim that they are a long term IP editor with no registered account. They also left an edit warring warning to Gazoth.

On March 13, 2019, My Lord left this warning on PakEditor's talk page linking to the warning the IP left Gazoth's talk page with the claim of having already warned them before.

Not sure if this was intentional or not, but I'm left with the impression that something is still amiss here. It also seems behavioral evidence is really similar between the IP and My Lord. Even if this is stale, it would suggest the issues were still ongoing while the appeal was open.

I submit to the community to review my block. I made this block with the best of intentions for the project, so if this is a bad block, I, or any admin, will happily reverse it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• I find ML's explanation that their warning to PakEditor was a cut and paste of the IP's warning to Gazoth, and not an indirect admission of being the IP, to be credible. Also, afaik, the IP geolocates to a different country than ML's. As a side note, I am wary of evidence concerning Indo-Pak editors being emailed around since in the past I have seen photoshopped documents being presented, and while that may not be relevant in this instance we should note that there were apparent attempts to set up ML as a continuing sockpuppeteer as recently as Feb 12. Pinging @Berean Hunter and Ivanvector: for further input. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Abecedare, That is definitely good to know. So it's possible I may have simply fallen for the setup. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

•  No comment with respect to IP address(es) but the accounts that were possible technical matches on the ranges I checked while reviewing the current block did not look to be My Lord when I looked at the behaviour, to the point where I'm not even going to bother to list them here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, and on that note, it's safe to say I fell for a bad report trying to get him blocked. I have unblocked him. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  (responding to ping) The block issue seems to have been resolved while I was edit-conflicting with everyone, and I have nothing new to add anyway so I'll just leave it at that. On the subject of South Asian editors anonymously emailing allegations of sockpuppetry to apparently random administrators, I advise any administrator who receives such a message to forward it to the Arbitration Committee. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, Noted. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And regarding the IP, I personally find it doubtful that the same person wrote "interminable obfuscation and stonewalling" as wrote "What you meant from Do not add text that is still under discussion? Neither I have to entertain your WP:IDHT nor you WP:OWN this article." But those were both the same edit. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What I mean to say is the "long term IP editor with no account" is being fed false accusations by some third party meaning to cause trouble, a very clear violation of WP:MEAT. This is not the first time we've seen this on this board. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Ivanvector: Unless I'm missing something they should be sending to the functionaries' email list and not Arbcom. The checkusers should not miss the information by diverting to Arb. The Arb members can see it there. We need to see what is being said.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If it involves off-wiki accusations involving privacy, arb is likely better, which is what I think Ivanvector was getting at (and if he wasn't, my apologies for reading it that way). Yes, the functionaries list would also be a good place to send this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, functs is fine, but as far as I know there isn't a convenient way to email that list on-wiki. I guess that's not a good point since you'd be forwarding from your own email anyway. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The title of this thread leads me to ponder the theological question, "Can God impose a block that He can't overturn?" EEng 21:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about the Christchurch Mosque Shooting New Zealand

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

Hi, I want to know that can we add an external link to the incident's video on the talk page ? As there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page of article and no is pretty clear and some of them are taking about consensus. Can you admins please make it clear. Thanks Dog-pox-is-a-disease (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesus fucking christ no. We're not MurderTV. What is wrong with you?--Jorm (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Leaving out my own feeling (which is the same as Jorm's), it's not an admin decision and you have to wait for and go with the consensus (whatever that is - I haven't looked). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

OP is now checkuser blocked, fwiw. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

my talk page is being vandalized

review my edit history. look at the articles i've written for context. make a decision. I dont want to participate in the wiki project anymore if it's like this. I dont see any substantive reason for the warning and the warning message is written to make me look bad. I'm not getting any reasonable replies. all or nothing, just delete this account if you think it's inappropriate.

Verify references (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Verify references: Howdy hello! I understand that warnings don't feel good. But the warnings are just that: only cautionary notes about behavior. Even folks who've been on this project for years and made tens of thousands of edits still get warned about things. The warnings on your talk page asked that you be civil and not use pejorative language. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and we prefer to keep curses and pejoratives out of interactions. We invite you to continue editing Misplaced Pages, but remind you that there are standards for editing and interacting. TLDR: you are free to keep editing, but please don't use slurs. Captain Eek ⚓ 21:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org//b/tard

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fb%2Ftard

https://gawker.com/5609419/4chan-founder-tries-to-explain-b-tard-to-federal-prosecutors

it's not hateful language by any means. it's a term used with ownership among his community. the content i posted was specifically about that. if you want to debate that stupid people make bad choices, i'm happy to dig up old books i havnt read in 10 years for references to debate it but i stand by what i said. The shooter is just a retard from the internet not some ex-mil serbian nationalist like news sources were suggesting earlier in the day.

Verify references (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh oh. EEng 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see how using the word "retard" as a pejorative is offensive, then we have a problem. Competency is required at Misplaced Pages, and that term is highly offensive for people with intellectual disabilities, and those who care for people with intellectual disabilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Verify references: Whether or not you think its offensive, consensus on Misplaced Pages holds that its pejorative use is very offensive. My recommendation to you is that if you'd like to continue editing Misplaced Pages, you should pledge to not use offensive language and to be civil, retract your above statement, and not attempt to argue whether or not it was offensive. You were warned already by DrMies to never use the term ever again , and yet you immediately and brazenly disregarded that You are on very thin ice here. Captain Eek ⚓ 23:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

imagine you made an edit to say...Arab–Israeli conflict and all people could see was a warning description saying, "NEVER CALL PEOPLE THAT NAME EVER AGAIN" you may as well be banned because people will only twinkle the **** out of anything you post anyway. the notice should reflect the offence. Verify references (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that the notice did reflect the problem. The warning template was a template warning about disruptive editing. While you may not have intended to be disruptive, its outcome was disruptive. An action that impedes the building of the encyclopedia, such as using a conversation stopping slur, is considered disruptive. Thus you were given a standard disruptive editing warning, with an addendum dealing with your specific action. Captain Eek ⚓ 04:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Innocent Conflict of Edits Issue Needs Ace Editor

I'm working on my draft article for the NIH Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office which was finally submitted it for first review earlier today. This afternoon I improved there article with NASEM source material from last month and much of that work was lost to the ether. I don't see what I attempted to publish in the page history but I do see the +53 character reference citation correction made by some unknown party (to me at least). I have not hit any save button since only made attempts to recover my edits which where side by side with another version when I made a switch to vista editing and it all went kaboom. Please don't make me reinvent the wheel. I got a notification that my work was saved somewhere but I can't find it.Mrphilip (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mrphilip: So what probably happened there was that someone made an edit while you were making an edit, and they published it before you did. When that happens, a page will open where at the top is the revision by the other user, and if you scroll all the way to the bottom is your version. That then lets you reconcile your version with the new version. If you have already left that page however, your content is likely gone, and there's not much an admin can do to save it, as your revision was saved on your computer's cache and not Misplaced Pages servers. It sucks to lose edits like that, I've been there. My advice is to save often, or work on the edit in your sandbox and then copy it over once its ready. Captain Eek ⚓ 22:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If the edits aren't in the Edit History or are deleted edits, there is no way I know of to recover this content. Like the Captain says, this is the result of an edit conflict, when two editors are trying to edit the same page at the same time, and it happens frequently on noticeboards like ANI. You can cut & paste your edit if you are taken to an error page but after you've moved on from the page, the content is gone. Liz 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

More at Help:Edit conflict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

is there a way we can ask for these conflict pages to be more visual edit friendly for future contributors? I like the left right portions but they can be disorienting when looked at with upper and lower text. Might it be possible for an algorithm to intercede and asses significance of conflict edits, which both could be meaty, but as in this case, fixing a reference date was given preference over 1,000+ characters. Shouldn't a draft article writer (specifically) be granted first veto power over the lessor edit, as opposed to the BOX WARNING SUGGESTING NOT TO HASTILY COPY AND PASTE all your work (which I should have done before hitting the visual button.) Or can we minimally improve the system to offer better advance notice of multiple users working on one project not as of yet approved for public viewing before either editor hits publish? Simple thoughts for preventing replication of efforts.23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrphilip (talk • contribs)

|answer=yes Mrphilip (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings

There is currently an RFC ongoing about whether the suspects names can be included in the article (Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about keeping suspect's/suspects' name in lead). One of the suspects names has been widely published and it is becoming difficult to keep it off the page. Considering this is a BLP concern is it possible to create a tempory edit filter to prevent the name bring added until we reach consensus at the talk page. More eyes would be useful in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is not possible could we at least get an edit notice? AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I posted five good references. so long as it is worded appropriately there should be no problem. it's unlikely to cause problems because major international news outlets have already published the name. furthermore, it will become difficult to edit the page because they've started using the name in the headlines and the name is likely to appear in any new references anyway. the arguments against it were that by using the name will only grant power to the forces of evil.

Verify references (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Offensive and disruptive comments by User:Calton

User:Calton made offensive and disruptive comments on my talk page User talk:AndreyVorobyov. He wrote this: "Your inability to understand Misplaced Pages policy regarding edit-warring, reliable sources, and due weight -- not to mention your inability to count, write English prose, or understand the templates you copy-and-paste -- is not my concern". I did a mistake with making reverts while editing an article. I apologize for this, and I've already been blocked for this situation for 24 ours. Admin explained on my talk page that I was wrong trying to find a consensus on User:Calton page, and that in English Misplaced Pages I should discuss on an article page if 2 opponents involved. I didn't know this rule, because in Russian Misplaced Pages, where I mostly edit, you can choose: to discuss on a opponent user's talk page or on an article's page. I wrote suggestion to discuss an article in a wrong place, on User:Calton talk page, he ignored it. Yes, I did a mistake, but it doesn't give the right to any user to leave such rude comments. I feel that comments User:Calton left on my talk page are offensive or disruptive. What does it mean - "your inability to count, write English prose or understand the templates"? I think, it is not polite and very rude to talk about person's "inability". Yes, my editing is not perfect, but I'm trying to do my best. User could simply explain me in polite manner, that in English Misplaced Pages this rule - all consensus discussions should be on article page, and not on opponent users' page. I want to edit in Misplaced Pages further, and I honestly believe that this project should be aware of editors who use such rude offensive phrases. I feel it is absolutely uncivil. It is not the 1st time User:Calton did it. There was repeated use of derogatory racial epithets in edit summaries by User:Calton. When I asked user Calton on my talk page to stop it and discuss an article: "Dear Calton, you write abusive phrases, but you don't reply to the main question", he wrote this: "Free clue: I don’t work for you" . I therefore call on any administrator to indefinitely block User:Calton until he acknowledges the gross misconduct involved and publicly commits to the community that he will not commit such misbehavior again. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another custom on the English Misplaced Pages is to put new messages to an editor on the bottom of the talk page, not the top. I have moved your messages to where Calton might see them. Liz 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Talk!, my suggestion to discuss an article was added to user's page before notice, at 12:32, 14 March 2019. Notice was added at 23:13, 15 March 2019 , . Why did you put older message at the bottom of the page? I will correct how it should be in English Misplaced Pages - I will put new messages on the bottom. OK?

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndreyVorobyov reported by User:Calton (Result: Blocked). Having gotten EVERYTHING wrong, Andrey -- and let me add sockpuppetry to the list -- wants revenge. Note that he STILL hasn't gone to Talk:PayPal. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Calton, you are mistaken about revenge. Many users argue, and discuss, and revert... it's not the reason. 1st time in my editing history I report user, and it's you. And I want clear explanation on why you say about my "inability". PayPal page protected from editing, and I don't have a wish to edit that page anymore. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• you are mistaken about revenge

• Nope, I'm going to stick with that.

• PayPal page protected from editing...

• Essentially, you're complaining that you're now unable to continue your sterile edit-warring.
• Yes, the page is protected against new and IP editors SO YOU CAN USE THE TALK PAGE. In fact, the article was semi-protected BECAUSE you REFUSED TO USE THE TALK PAGE. In fact, in your entire time on Misplaced Pages you have NEVER used an article talk page. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Calton, I'm not going to fight with you. My sourse added to PayPal page was not reliable, I agree that I was wrong with a source. Here is another topic, and you changes it to fight, again. I apologized for my behavior on PayPal page in the begging of this topic. And I don't understand, why you are changing the topic. I still need your clear explanation about why you talked about my "inability".

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Calton You reverted my edits on your talk page, which I did as Liz suggested - I added my messages in order as newest should be in a buttom. Why did you revert it? My suggestion to discuss PayPal page was previous this notice. And why did you archive all messages where other editors talk about your personal attarks to another users?

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @AndreyVorobyov: I came here because you left a message on my talk page. And I have reviewed the info above.

My conclusion is that that AndreyVorobyov was way out of line: edit-warring to add a clearly non-reliable-source. In substance, Calton was entirely right.

Calton's comment, which forms the substance of this complaint, was all accurate. However, AndreyVorobyov is a "new" editor (only 96 edits in 5 years), and WP:BITE applies. Calton should have been much less bitey, and sadly Caltons' block log shows a long history of uncivil communication. I really wish Calton would remeber that this is a collaborative project, and policies/guidelines like WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL and there to keep it working.

But even considering Calton's poor track record, this incident doesn't need a sanction.

I say WP:TROUTs to both parties, a quick close.

AndreyVorobyov: don't ever edit war, and do read policies and guidelines. And Calton, don't use a stick when a civil explanation would suffice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Osanna M. Kazezian-Rosa' auto bio

Since the last week or so, the user User:Osanna M. Kazezian-Rosa has been trying to create an autobiography of herself. The page was deleted more than 4 times, and yet is being created. People have explained her about notability policy but she doesn't seem to have read it or understood it.

Based on her talkpage, She seems to be a children's book author. Her nearby library decided to have a site with all their authors having links to a wiki page of their own(just the link). This user too has her page on that site and created a corresponding wiki page since she believes wikipedia to be a catalog, I genuinely believe its not vandalism, but a case of a misinformed user. But she does not seem to be responding or caring about the warnings at all.Daiyusha (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards