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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The text of the template reads:

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

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

This is also an issue which is under discussion at TfD, [7] which the OP is well aware of, having participated in that discussion, part of which concerns the use of the template. Their opening this report in the middle of that discussion is pure WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and should therefore be closed. I have nothing more to say about this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I followed up on HappyOrNot and found another copyright issue:

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

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

To avoid confusion: The quoted passages were since rephrased ([8][9][10][11]), but the quotes were accurate as of the time of writing. Blablubbs|talk 14:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side point, but if you watch the video [12] [oops, wrong link, here's the right one:] [13] the gravity thing turns out to make sense. EEng 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jesus, don't get your bowels in an uproar. I accidentally pasted in a link to the wrong video – the one used in my post to this thread [14] which, even if I do say so myself, was one of my better efforts recently. If you can't take pleasure in Terry Jones' celebration of letting people be what they want to be, in or out of bed, then I feel sorry for you. And if you didn't know that this was Terry Jones' celebration of letting people be what they want to be, in or out of bed, then make the effort to inform yourself next time before getting your knickers in a twist. A quick note on my talk page ("Hey, is this really what you meant???") would have made a lot more sense than high-handed talk of a block. EEng 21:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright violations by Jjanhone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• March 21 (after final warning) - [16]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [17]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [18]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive edits continue. [19]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Recent creations (in the mainspace originally) include things like

• Draft:Källeryd (everything is a problem, from the first sentence to the ridiculous section on "Other names", or the fact that none of the 10 sources should ever be used as a reference on enwiki)
• Draft:Mubarak Al-Abdullah (with the sentence "According to Airbnb, amenities in Mubarak Al-Abdullah include kitchens, Wi-Fi, pools, free parking and air conditioning" as icing on the cake)
• Draft:Nugunek (intro: "Nugunek is a town in Turkmenistan without earthquakes")
• Draft:Cotrilla which is just a farm apparently
• Draft:Ruanaich, which not only informs us that it has three minerals, but also that "The BNB in Ruanaich, Ruanaich Bed and Breakfast, was rated 7 of the islands' 12 inns and BNBs, averaging top reviews in location, cleanliness, service and value, with the hotel style being described as 'quaint' and 'charming'.", or that "Shops in Ruanaich include 4 model shops, 1 craft store, 1 coffee shop and 1 other shop.", sourced to a site[20] which not only isn't reliable (just like most sources they use), but also that none of these shops are in Ruanaich actually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for a WP:CIR ban instead?

Instead of a ban on creation in article space, I wonder if we shouldn't just skip the hassle and go straight to a WP:CIR ban. Their latest creation, during the above discussion, is Silas, Texas. It looked like this when they were finished with it. User:Fences and windows did some necessary cleaning and removed a few major errors already[21], and then I tagged all(?) remaining errors[22] and explained all issues on the article talk page[23].

Tablesalt then undid my tags[24], and reverted again[25] after User:Star Mississippi reinstated the tags. The tagged version was then again reinstated by User:Moriori, after which TableSalt started a section on the user talk page of all three of us[26][27][28], instead of taking it to the article talk page.

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

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

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

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

• Comment There is, of course, a time when the block will naturally become indefinite, based on the judgement of the enforcing admins, assuming zero improvement. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It’s not just about competence. They’re also resistant to learning/changing despite multiple editors giving them the same message. Two days ago they told Fram that they would go through AFC but then ignored it, generated a poor article and edit warred on it. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - at the very least, it's a CIR issue. Deb (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am not fully versed in this user's issues but based on what I saw on Silas and the response on my User Talk, TableSalt does not understand what the issues are and therefore will not be able to edit according to Wikipedia policies. I don't think AfC will solve these issues if they're just going to edit war to restore their version because they don't understand why it's problematic. StarM 13:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delving further into the issues IDed in the section above this and because of my own concerns on the sources used, I have draftified Silas, Texas. Leaving a further note there. StarM 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There is just something odd going on with all of this. Compare this user's stab at Silas, Texas (revision linked above) to this Texas State Historical Association entry for Silas, Tx. It is like this user is finding these sparse entries on these tiny, tiny communities or in some cases patches of uninhabited land, and dumbing down the wording even more. Bad writing, questionable subject matter, hyper-fixation on the minutiae of the subject matter. This isn't teachable, and is only gong to be a time-sink. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment TS' response to me: but I proved them wrong? is not confidence inspiring and unserscores Fram's point above that this editor does not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. StarM 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a review of their editing confirms the CIR concerns for me. Just to take one example, the line in Silas, "In 1899, the demographics of Silas' children across 2 schools were mainly 66% white and 33% black," [29] is cited to a source that says, "In 1899 it had two schools, one with ninety White children and another with fifty-four Black children." I could understand that a reader might not pick up on the fact that there were two schools, one was a white school with 90 white kids, and the other school was a black school with 54 Black kids (which makes sense given that in 1899 schools here were still segregated). To change that into "2 schools were mainly 66% white and 33% black" makes it sounds like they were integrated schools. Also, the percentages are wrong, it's 62% white and 37% Black, but even aside from that quibble, the presentation of the source is... well, misleading, even if unintentionally so. But that's why I think CIR. After this discrepancy was pointed out, TableSalt342 wrote [30] "Adding to the previous edit, the edit makes the page look messy. Just read the sources. For example, the original source states a number of white and black students, because we can’t copy from the source, we had to reword it into percentages. This was a foolish edit". That edit summary ("we had to reword it into percentages") is what clinches the CIR concerns for me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, in summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

El_C, For what it's worth, I agree with your description of "borderline outing". Deb (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deb. Honestly, I didn't know what else to call it but that. Obviously, it hit a nerve, though. I guess the matter of OUTING (softened or otherwise) is a bit of a soar spot right now, for obvious reasons. Anyway, a "borderline outing" warning was issued to JB, while IOMB seems to have left the project in dismay. No admin tools were used, so further back and forth staccatos here, as is happening above your post, is probably not helping anything or anyone. Just sayin'. El_C 11:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, he was in Starlume, and he has played with people famous enough to have Wikipedia articles, for instance Jana Kramer.[31] He's not a Nobody, nor is he a Somebody per WP:NMUSICBIO. And without official credits or WP:SECONDARY confirmation he's not getting wiki credits. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm having some issues with Aleyamma38 and am looking for assistance. Others that have been involved include Drmies, Onel5969, Fizconiz, Celestina007 They have a communication style that is challenging to work with in good circumstances, full of bolding and all caps (and bolded all caps!) Excuse me please first you go and learn English! You are ACCUSING me of personally attacking. Like seriously, BIG LOL. Anyways, no thanks for this USELESS ADVICE of yours. Keep it yourself. Because I know I'M ON JUST SIDE [32] When they get into an editorial dispute, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, with personal attacks and conspriracy accusations [33]. They recently created Priyanka Choudhary that I felt had some issues around notability as this is a fairly new actress with only one significant role. Tag removed, added back, and I get a somewhat aggressive and hostile note on my talk page. I asked them to calm down some and use the article talk page and it went south from there.

After some back and forth, I started a talk page discussion Talk:Priyanka_Choudhary#Notability_concerns and their response was not helpful You just TARGET certain EDITORS. Well, it was already clear when a Wikipedian Admin along with two editors were bugged to cleanup a single sentence of the article Udaariyaan, from the moment I added it. Fine! Keep up this GREAT WIKIPEDIAN WORK![34]. I left them a second NPA warning after that and their response [35].

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

Disruption, false allegations, yelling, harassment...

• Aleyamma38 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Seems pretty courageous of the OP to complain here when they are attempting to edit-war[36][37][38] poorly-sourced medical content into the article – and they know it's poorly-sourced as elswhere they're trying to gets MEDRS changed to lower its sourcing standards: see WT:MEDRS#Primary sources usage. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:TPO Violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang?

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

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

[39], [40] - Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:AFGFactChecker has engaged in several disruptive edits and reverts on the Ahmad Zahir page within the last 24 hours. They have admitted having a personal connection with the topic of the page here: [41], so there is a conflict of interest on top of inappropriate editing. I have reverted their edits several times, considering it to be vandalism, and asked for appropriate references. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This could potentially be a new attack vector if left unpatched- a user could easily nuke a heavily-watched page by simply moving it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, sock and master CU-blocked by Ponyo. JavaHurricane 03:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• WP:NOTHERE We do not need more disinformation spreaders or conspiracy theorists disrupting the encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm already a hair away from indeffing this user for their disparaging comments about other religions ([43], [44]) and this COVID conspiracy BS. I was giving them WP:ROPE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have to agree with Deepfried, at this time, the comments made by this user could be very dangerous. I support a site ban, maybe not an indef, but a few months to let the user reflect on what is and is not acceptable. Allowing them to stay with no consequences teaches nothing and will most likely result in a repeat offence. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Folks, this is just a young person who screwed up a bit. I've left some advice on their talk page, and they've made an unblock request that I support. It's not perfect, but I think we should give a kid a second chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• With a COVID-19 TBAN. No point throwing out baby with bath water. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The devil, as they say, is in the details ... and I see another: [45] (I'm not a robot, I swear. The jury is still out vis-a-vis the devil ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Matthew Austin and the associated Fly Stop article have been the beneficiaries of promotional campaigns here, though neither appears to meet our notability guidelines. Today, in response to my nominating the latter for speedy deletion, a new WP:SPA attacked me for ignorance of the subject and accused me of a disruptive agenda [46], [47], [48], [49]. I can't see that any credible WP:RELIABLE sources which would establish notability have been added to the article since its promotional creation in 2015, and rather than add any today, the user is choosing to go on the attack. I'd appreciate more eyes on the article, as well as the WP:COI accounts. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Please check if User:Thereal19 and User:Therealdeal19 are sockpuppets or not. I noticed that the two users edited same articles as the latter do so. Please refer to the edit history of this two users for more. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at WP:SPI rather than here, but since there's no temporal overlap in editing and neither account has been blocked this isn't really a violation of the sock puppetry policy, they might have just lost the password to their first account. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to blocking Aac hunter (talk · contribs), it may be necessary to rev/delete all their edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Account and IP blocked and revisions deleted. Thanks for the heads up. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Acroterion. Some of their edits at a few bios are still visible. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was interrupted by a call. All should be deleted now. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Happens here all the time, though often the interruptions involve care and feeding of multiple dogs. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several times to deescalate the situation at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale, but EEng has persisted in making posts that denigrate Lonsdale for asking to use neopronouns. EEng is of the opinion that Lonsdale was joking when using the pronoun "tree", which may or may not be the case—no reliable sources have suggested it is, but I suppose it's a possibility. The article currently uses no pronouns to refer to Lonsdale, which is an approach editors have taken elsewhere (for example at SOPHIE), and EEng has agreed twice now that this is acceptable to them. For clarity: I think this is the best solution at the moment, and have not suggested the article should be changed to use the neopronouns.

EEng is continuing to post on the talk page and now on other pages to make fun of Lonsdale's pronoun, and neopronouns in general:

• 17:39 22 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "let's get real: tree is now a pronoun? WTF? Are there no limits to this nonsense?"
• 21:55 22 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "All this gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair is just unbelievable. What -- his own PR firm is misgendering him (or, you might say, mistergendering him)?"
• 04:35, 23 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "If he really wanted to be called tree they'd be calling him that, but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope."
• 00:57, 25 March 2021‎ at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously. I may want to be referenced by the pronoun Lordthygod but if people don't do that it's not transphobia or any other kind of phobia. I keep returning to the idea that this may be a grand hoax along the lines of the Sokal affair, designed to test how credulous Wikipedia editors can be."
• 01:01, 25 March 2021 at a completely unrelated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: "Maybe you'd like to be called tree [50]"

The 00:57 25 March comment to me seemed particularly over-the-top, and so I removed it and left a note on EEng's talk page (User talk:EEng#Please stop): "Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns. I understand that you don't like the pronoun, nor believe it is a genuine preference, but this is becoming cruel." EEng replied by insulting me as "an otherwise very sensible and respected admin and former arb" and claiming that they're "not denigrating anyone. I am trying to give a short, sharp shock to editors somehow unable to see through the fey pretension of [51]". They restored the comment.

In my opinion this is not an acceptable way to speak about a BLP subject, and furthermore it is cruel to those who use various neopronouns. It is altogether too reminiscent of the 2019 Signpost "humor" article which has remained embarrassing proof that Wikipedia is not a welcoming place for trans people, and given that EEng is involving a specific BLP as a target of their jokes I think it requires intervention here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is unblockable. Nothing is going to come out of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One way to ensure an "unblockable" remains that way is to shut down any ANI discussion of their behavior with the suggestion it will be pointless... GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GorillaWarfare. Even if this were a hoax it would be insensitive to others who use neopronouns to mock like this. Hopefully they'll revert their comments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so we're currently at that point where we await EEng's fun band of enablers who make light of everything until the point that someone else can close the discussion as unproductive? Well, before we get to enjoy that, certainly insinuating that the subject of one of our articles could be an 'affected dope' if they disagree with EEng is about as clear a blp violation as one can get. Doubtless, they will claim that they were not insulting the subject, just the abstract notion; but since the two are so intertwined, it is impossible to one without the other. And such a claim would hold more water if they then didn't double down on it by restoring their comment rather than taking it under advisement. In any case, and this is non-negotiable, it is not EEng's job here to be giving anyone a 'short sharp shock' with regard to anything or anyone here. ——Serial 14:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, my brigading contract is currently in re-negotiation, so I won't be jumping in to defend him. Seriously, though: you know better, EEng. This was not okay. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for a week. Asking them to tone it down was reasonable and proportionate. Restoring the comment after that reasonable request is trolling and a block is necessary to prevent further disruption. And since I couldn't find one in their talk history, I've given them a BLP DS alert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, HJ Mitchell. I've added a gender DS alert as well. Should the re-added comment be removed again? GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed it. It had already attracted a reply, which (while in much the same vein as this thread) is precisely what we want to avoid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. This kind of conduct is entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 14:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proportionate and necessary. This instills confidence that no one is exempt from conduct issues, even longtime contributors. Shushugah (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well, while I was typing, I see EEng was blocked. I spent all this time typing, so I'll post it anyway. The problem with the signpost essay was that it was mocking people who want to use actual neopronouns like xe/xem/xyr (etc, etc, etc, there are a lot). People can have different opinions on that, and the whole pronoun thing is in flux, but making fun of someone's good faith desire to have pronouns of their own was deeply uncool. Regardless of whether you think xe/xem/xyr is a good idea or a bad idea, mocking those who do not fit comfortably into a rigid he/she dichotomy, and do not want to be called he or she, sucks.
  However, if anything, treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark.
  IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block. I assume this makes me part of the fun band of enablers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the train has already departed. At this point, if you want to join the fun band, you need to unblock EEng with the comment "block shortened to time served" or similar.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that would be a good idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Me neither, but if you look at their block log, they have been blocked 14 times, not counting a one second block, and unblocked, up to date, 8 times.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam: For what it's worth, I have not suggested anywhere that we should use "tree" in the article–only that we should avoid using pronouns that differ from the ones Lonsdale has specified.

  As for your latest* suggestion that I am "overreacting" to an issue by bringing it to ANI, I tried in several ways to end this issue: first by attempting to end the talk page discussion by reestablishing that EEng had agreed to the decision to avoid pronouns in the article, then by quietly removing EEng's BLP-violating talk page comment, and then by politely asking them to stop on their talk page. They responded by restoring the talk page comment (explicitly saying in the summary that I needed to go to a noticeboard if I think it should be removed) and then insulting both me and Lonsdale in a user talk page reply. It was clear that the behavior was continuing despite my several attempts to put a stop to it without broader community involvement. I'm not sure what else I could have done, aside from turning a blind eye toward EEng's abuse of a BLP. Is that what you would have preferred me to do? Am I to stop posting to ANI entirely, lest you suggest for a third time I am overreacting to problematic behavior? Floquenbeam, I very much respect and often agree with you, but this refrain that I am overreacting in coming to ANI is confusing to me–particularly given that in both this instance and the previous there was general agreement that there was a legitimate issue.

  * For context, the previous time I am referencing was at the February thread "WGFinley reversing protection without consent of protecting admin". I can't link the diff because it was hidden, but ctrl-f "G: Please don't bring minor issues to ANI". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd forgotten about the WGFinley thing. I don't think, and don't mean to imply, that you habitually over-react. I often get involved in ANI threads by blind luck; when I happen to check my watchlist, there happens to be a new ANI thread with an intriguing thread title at the top of my watchlist, and sometimes i happen to have the time to get involved. Of all the times I do that, twice in the last 2 months they've happened to have been threads you started. And those two times, I happened to think (and still think) that you were over-reacting. But I assume you start a lot of ANI threads I never read, and I assume I wouldn't think you were over-reacting if I read those. If you go back and look at comments I make in ANI threads that don't involve you, you'll probably notice a pattern of me thinking people are over-reacting in those threads too. I think a lot of people on WP over-react a lot of the time. Obviously a lot of people disagree, or things would change. But I don't think it means I need to change my basic opinion that we should let some stuff slide more often; "letting the small stuff go" is the lubrication that allows a large, unwieldly, disorganized machine like ours to keep working. Escalating every "violation of policy", however minor, is like sand in the gears.
  For the avoidance of doubt, and to directly answer your question: although this is much less clear-cut than the WGFinley issue, yes, personally I think you should have just let this go. If there was a hint of an undercurrent of homophobia or transphobia, I wouldn' think that, but I don't think there is. EEng thinks respecting the pronoun "tree" is dumb, and I agree. He says it too forcefully and didn't deescalate either. Apparently almost everyone else here disagrees with me. Including you. That's OK, as long as you don't think it's evidence I don't respect you because of that difference, and as long as I'm allowed to keep thinking people over-react here far too often, without it being discounted as a "refrain" or that I'm singling you out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. I think perhaps that is the source of my confusion. I actually don't start very many ANI threads (or at least I don't think I do, I suppose each individual's bar for "many" probably varies), and I also participate in them similarly rarely to you and so haven't seen that you express this belief often. When you showed up at two of the three ANI discussions I've created in the past two months and expressed that you thought I was overreacting I took it to mean you were seeing a pattern. Thank you for explaining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Points taken. However, I remember Fæ going on at great lengths in some thread on meta about this sort of behavior from EEng. At the time, I thought Fæ was off-base. It saddens me that EEng has proven that point. A little more consideration for the impact of one's words would make Wikipedia less toxic to those with gender related issues. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I like EEng, I think he needs to re-equilibriate. He's been like a run-away locomotive. Picking up speed and crashing through crossings. Need to put on the brakes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^{Just an aside I once met someone who did a lot of work on rail/road crossings ...they were intersex ... i just called them by their name which was gender neutral. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

• Yeah, can't disagree. But I have to say, we mention the neopronoun thing in the article, which is based on one comment made by Lonsdale on social media three years ago, and is illustrated with a long quotation which doesn't exactly make anyone reading it think the subject is the brightest ("I want people to call me "tree", because we all come from trees, so it doesn't matter if you're a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone's a tree.") ... or alternatively, of course, it was a joke, or even a barbed comment about identity. And we have no reliable sources dating from then that actually use the neopronoun, anyway. So do we even need to mention it ourselves? Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a better conversation for the article talk page, but have no terribly strong opinion on the inclusion (or exclusion) of the quote. I mostly added it as a way to explain to readers why the article was avoiding pronouns, but it could be shortened or removed entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to see the block reduced. And since anyone supporting such a sentiment has already been preemptively painted with the brush of being one of his "enablers", I feel compelled to say that that's not me. Paul August ☎ 15:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On the topic of "EEng's fun band of enablers", we've now got Roxy the dog continuing the behavior that EEng was just blocked for at User talk:EEng#Blocked... "I've seen silly blocks, but taking the piss out of a bloke who wants to be called "tree" seems spot on. Well done, I lolled a lot." ([52]) and "But yes. Taking the piss out of somebody that wants to be called tree is fine. Good grief. He's a bloke." ([53]) GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  GorillaWarfare, we should be careful to not label all resistance to the usage of neopronouns as denigrating. It's easy to see the logistical nightmare of allowing any single person to create a new pronoun in a language that already has established non-gendered pronouns (they/them). Nihlus 15:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a difference between 'resistance' and outright mockery. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct. The difference was demonstrated by the two individuals in question. Nihlus 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nihlus: Nowhere in here have I labeled all resistance to the usage of neopronouns as denigrating. I don't agree with those who object to neopronouns, but it is a valid opinion so long as you are not ridiculing those who use them or questioning their identities. "Good grief. He's a bloke." is doing the latter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This has been taken to a level that could have been avoided. For instance, Lonsdale has said this: "The more I'd been building confidence as an out black man..." regarding homophobia, "They’ve got to watch me as a Black man play a superhero, and then they compare it with the fact that I’m an out queer Black man who plays a superhero" about other work of his. He has a sponsored post on his social media that states: "Yo it’s ya boy, holding ya guy @keiynanlonsdale, who’s the new @oldspice man, man". He even has an album called Rainbow Boy. I struggle to see how calling him a bloke is offensive. Nihlus 16:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I didn't know that Lonsdale self-identified as a man. For a little bit of background, I only became involved in this issue when I was clearing RfPP one day, and so don't actually know all that much about Lonsdale besides what I've gleaned through cleaning up the page. I did go searching for more statements on the pronouns Lonsdale uses since the 2018 source, but didn't come across much mentioning gender identity. I do think continuing to suggest that we should be "taking the piss" out of BLP subjects is questionable, but perhaps they have gotten that out of their system. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to these issues as BLP is involved, but I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere when it comes to the reasonableness of the request. It doesn't help that some of these pronoun requests are made in jest while to some it is pretty serious. That being said, we should use the English language as is and stick to he/she/they until a time comes where other pronouns become standard; we should be following the language rather than being ones to guide it ourselves as an encyclopedia. But that's probably best to discuss elsewhere at this point. Nihlus 17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I said that on E's talk page, yes, after the block had been issued, and now I'm involved? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We can't legitimately add "tree" as a pronoun choice to like the infobox (a passage discussing their "treeness" in the article is fine of course, if deemed notable), but this went way past articulating that simple point, IMO. Would support unblock if the transgression is genuinely acknowledged and a commitment to avoid future disruption on this point is made. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block, this kind of conduct is unwarranted and hurtful, and the thing is, EEng already knows this. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block, highly experienced editors should know its unacceptable to mock BLP subjects. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a number of thoughts. I think GorillaWarfare was doing the right thing by trying to de-escalate the situation and use language that didn't invite controversy. I recall a similar discussion on Genesis P. Orridge some time back (which seems to have settled on singular "they" as I look at the article now). Now, having said that, irrespective of everything else (don't want to play the "one of my best friends is transgender" card, but she is), if you use the name for a large plant from which wood is produced as a pronoun, many many people will not be able to understand you. That's not intending to insult, degenerate or belittle anybody - it's a plain old fact of life. In that respect, it's like using Wikipedia policy on a newbie without context, they don't know what you're talking about. I assume this was the point that EEng was trying to get at. That said, edit-warring comments after multiple editors have told you to stop doing putting them back in is just asking for trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of Order - Some of us are indeed trees (my pronouns are fim/fir or tree/trer). And before anyone drags me, I am non-binary/genderqueer. We can make fun of ourselves occasionally. </sarcasm></humor> An unfortunate but good block for the restoration of the edit and the repeated edit summaries. EEng should know better, even if the subject was using "tree" in jest. A simple "this was not a serious statement, see talk page" would have sufficed. I don't expect neopronoun ridicule to occur again, but should it I think a t-ban under WP:AC/DS's reviewed Gamergate case would be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Brigand reporting for duty! Though EEng did sit through my 2019 block (without an unblock) — all 24 hours of it. Like Paul, I am in favour of reducing the block duration, but do not in principle object to it having been imposed as such. El_C 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that EEng seems to regard WP:TPO as some sort of holy writ and has been known to edit war his joke images back into closed ANI threads, I'm not surprised he reverted GW's removal of his post to Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale. I think calling the pronoun "lunancy" and a possible hoax was a bad idea on a BLP, as was restoring the comment.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're on the topic of Keiynan Lonsdale, could someone help with User:Jiveviced and also perhaps the RfPP request? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I ECP'd to stop the disruption, unless my part in this discussion makes me involved. However, User:Jiveviced was not edit confirmed, and SP might srve. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I requested ECP simply because the last time it was semiprotected (five days ago) it needed to be bumped up to ECP due to involvement by confirmed accounts. That said the Twitter thread about Lonsdale has probably died down some so it's possible ECP is not needed, though it's not a hugely edited article either way and I doubt ECP will stop many editors trying to make productive edits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the quote where the BLP subject discusses "tree", and the subject goes on to express the hope that everyone will call everyone else "tree", which I think takes it out of the realm of a request to use one's preferred pronouns for oneself, into the realm of what Floq quite aptly compared to an "imagine there's no heaven" type of statement. I'm not personally interested in whether or not that makes me some sort of enabler, but I do think there's something to be said for trying to read quotes from sources in context. As I see it, GW came to this from a position of wanting to do the right thing and made a good-faith effort to resolve it without escalation, and EEng was correct to raise the issue of it maybe being something to not take seriously, and was incorrect not to drop the stick. Somewhere in there, there's a joke to be made about a tree and a stick, but I'm too disheartened to make it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, making a joke about it would require you to go out on a limb. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not exclude stuff because it looks foolish or silly. We exclude stuff because it is not supported by WP:RS. If RS say that someone claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte or the Queen of Sheba, or both, that can be included as an asserted fact. We can leave the hoots of derision to RationalWiki. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• EEng has requested here that the following comment of his be copied from his talk page to this discussion:

Except taking the piss out of the real, living subject of a Wikipedia article, on the talk page of the article is not what I was doing, and your comment shows you didn't actually read the discussion on the article's talk page and the earlier ones linked from it. What I was doing was taking the piss out of the people who actually believe Lonsdale wants to be called tree, when (as is perfectly obvious) he has no such desire; I point out for the millionth time that Lonsdale's own PR firm continues to refer to him as he [54]. Floquenbeam has it spot on:

treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark. IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block.

There's definitely a place (though not on WP) for discussion about whether there's liberation value in a thoughtful campaign to get people to understand and use xe/xem/xyr – very much like the movement to bring Ms. into common use 50 years ago. Such a consciousness-raising campaign around a considered addition to the language is completely different from random individuals picking random words to be their "pronouns". If people want to do that, that's not my business. If other people want to invest their mental energy in referring to their friends by tree or bunny pronouns [55], that's also not my business. But when people show up at Wikipedia insisting that articles refer to people that way, that is my business, and I'm going to say something about it.

I wasn't denigrating Lonsdale for any choice of pronouns, because it's patently obvious that he made no such choice; my disdain is for those who keep insisting that we actually refer to Lonsdale as tree in his article when (as linked at the start of this post) Lonsdale himself doesn't do that. But we have editors so focused on falling all over themselves in the RIGHTGREATWRONGS department that they can't see the forest for the, um, trees.

EEng 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless, they will claim that they were not insulting the subject, just the abstract notion [56]. And so it goes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read and re-read what happened multiple times now, and I think a case can be made that EEng wasn't insulting Lonsdale, but was insulting editors who wanted to use the term "tree" in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This case could only be made if you assume that Lonsdale does not genuinely use the pronoun, which is not a given. "but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope" and "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism." are both BLPvios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that calling people lunatics, stupid, cretins, is clearly offensive, and clearly not what I want to see on Wikipedia, no matter who is being called that. It sounds to me (and I haven't examined the source material as carefully as I would have if I were actually editing the article content) like there's some basis for concluding that Lonsdale intends "tree" to be understood lightheartedly, but not enough basis to conclude that Londsdale definitely feels that way, so it's appropriate to err on the side of deference. That said, I think EEng really is trying to say that editors who reject the premise that Londsdale was being facetious are those insulting things. This may have been a block for BLP violation that should have been a block for NPA violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but this is where I come down as well. I suspect EEng was substantively right, but as a BLP, we really need to err on the side of caution, and though I don't think it was intended as such, it was not unreasonable to see EEng's behaviour as belittling all users/advocates of neopronouns. I look forward to slightly more measured irreverence upon EEng's return. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if Lonsdale is really keen to want to be referred to as "tree", despite the best intentions of his PR company or his ash's Wikipedia article writers, and if enough people oblige him oak, then "tree" will indeed become a pronoun. Not sure it's happened just yet, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: and why have you now used the incorrect pronouns? Laziness or ignorance? GiantSnowman 21:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone needs to dial down the intensity here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, you're just barking up the wrong pronoun again. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Tryptofish: not when there's edits like this taking the piss?! GiantSnowman 21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I said it was wrong to call other editors lunatics, stupid, or cretins. To that list, I'll add lazy or ignorant. I think it's generally better to try to de-escalate conflicts, than to escalate them. I also think it's good to try to respect the pronoun preferences of BLP subjects, to the degree that we can find out those preferences from reliable sources. I also think that we can do that without trying to virtue-signal one's woke credentials. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think I'm ridiculing all non-gendered people here, or just Lonsdale? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both. GiantSnowman 21:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was ridiculing non-standard English usage. But I guess you could block me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. but thanks for pointing out that I'm either lazy OR ignorant.[reply]

This is ANI, so there's no joking here, but if we were somewhere else, I'd say that you are both.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that Lonsdale has ever used "tree" as a pronoun outside of a single Instagram video from 2.5 years ago? On the contrary, there is evidence that Lonsdale does not in fact use the pronoun. Here, LGBT site PinkNews refers to "His welcomed casting announcement in Step Up". MTV also uses "his", etc. As noted above, so does Lonsdale's PR firm. Lonsdale also refers to self with male terms as noted above by Nihlus. The MOS' direction is meant to avoid misgendering and to show respect for people's gender, but we use common sense and what sources say when applying it. I don't think a possibly-nonserious social media post from years ago that reliable sources don't take as a serious pronoun preference means that we need to write the article as "Lonsdale...Lonsdale...Lonsdale..." According to policies, we are supposed to follow reliable sources, not act like we know better. Twitter people policing others' actions don't set our standard. EEng should have said some things differently, sure, but we need to keep this matter in perspective. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lonsdale has used the terms "man" and "boy" but has afaik not used either tree or any other pronouns (which is unsurprising given most people don't often talk about themselves in the third person). But we can't assume that because someone refers to themselves as a man, they use he/him pronouns (or vice versa). As I've explained on the talk page, I do not think avoiding the slightly awkward wording caused by not using pronouns is worth potentially using the wrong pronouns. Regardless, this is probably a conversation better had at the article talk page, since my post here is about EEng's BLPvios or personal attacks or whatever they were decided to be, not about their opinions on if the article ought to use pronouns, or which. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought: if EEng's comments were about some other BLP or situation where gender and neopronouns had nothing to do with it, would it have been a week-long block? I've seen ANIs dismissed as a mere content dispute for worse behavior than this. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lonsdale in 2020: I felt like I had finally returned home to myself, the version of me that wasn’t here before. I tried to work so hard to change him, which we all can do in some ways. [57] gnu57 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is. Proof positive. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading EEng's statement above I read the entire talk page thread so I could see the offending statements in context. I think it's a reasonable interpretation that EEng was indeed ridiculing the Wikipedia editors who would try to use "tree" as a pronoun in a Wikipedia biography, and not the subject of that biography. In that light I think this is a bad block. ~Awilley (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that it can reasonably be interpreted that way, but even so, are we not to avoid calling other editors lunatics, "affected dopes", etc.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did he say that about any Wikipedia editor? After reading the reverted comment, he seemed to be speaking in a hypothetical sense. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am referring to Awilley's comment. I don't think EEng was referring to Wikipedia editors at all (generally or specifically), as I've said I think they were referring to Lonsdale. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't possibly read it that way either. Lonsdale doesn't use tree as a pronoun, anyway, as we've now established. And this level of sensitivity about speech about a BLP is truly unprecedented. I see far worse about other BLPs all the time. Some BLPs get rallied around more than others, I gotta say. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done the same and I tend to agree. But I don't think "cretinism" and "dopes" were good word choices. A bit too non-standard perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Awilley. While the words still shouldn’t have been used against the editors, the block is about the sensitivity around a subject’s supposed use of neopronouns (per crossroads earlier comment). In its true context it wouldn’t normally have resulted in a block. DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock per above - this is nothing but misunderstandings upon misunderstandings and there is no doubt in my mind that the volatile nature of the topic played a role in the reactions. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• From a review of the thread and EEng's history, he appears to enjoy sailing as close to the line as he possibly get and has a pattern of going over it, getting blocked, then backtracking and saying he didn't really mean it or the silly admin took his remarks out of context or a brigade of humourless editors is determined to rob him of his fun. He knew, or should reasonably have known, that his conduct wasn't appropriate; if he wasn't aware, GW very politely informed him and asked him not to repeat his edit; he belittled GW then reinstated the comment he'd been told was disruptive and a BLP violation. That got him a week off. A newish editor with a clean block log would have got 24–48 hours. EEng is neither new nor clueless, nor does he have an unblemished record; given the usual practice of escalating blocks, he gets a week. I strongly oppose any early unblock (to the point that I would have made the block a discretionary sanction if it weren't for the techinicality of alerts), and will seriously consider filing a request for arbitration against any admin who does so without a very clear consensus. Have your fun, by all means, but don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and don't have your fun on the talk pages of BLPs, whether directly at the subject's expense or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I realize you're dancing as fast as you can, but that's nothing but handwaving until you answer the challenge -- issued to you twice now [58][59], and twice ignored by you even as you were posting the above exercise in alternative reality -- to provide actual, specific diffs for my alleged BLP violation. Or maybe Gorilla Warfare can help you out with that? EEng 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) (Posted on EEng's behalf by nagualdesign)[reply]

  I linked them in the first ANI post. 04:35, 23 March 2021 and 00:57, 25 March 2021 are the two I would consider the actual violations, most of the other stuff was just rude. I can't speak for HJ, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear oh dear, what a shambolic waste of time! But since we're all here I'll throw in my two cents, and if anyone wishes to call me an enabler for doing so I'm fine with that. I read through Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale last night after seeing User talk:EEng#Please stop, then rolled my eyes and went to bed. It's disappointing to see that this nonsense has escalated to ANI. A few points:

1. Tree asked politely to be referred to by the pronoun "Tree" - That simply isn't true. To quote; I don't want to go by "he" anymore, I just want to go by "tree". [...] So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I'm going to say "tree". That is a statement, not a request and, as has since become evident, wasn't even entirely serious.
2. Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns - At no point did EEng denigrate those who use neopronouns. He clarified this multiple times on the Lonsdale talk page. It seems rather disingenuous to ignore those clarifications. What he did do, arguably a little too vociferously, was point out that "tree" is not a pronoun, and anyone who takes Lonsdale's flippant remark at face value is being rather credulous.
3. EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses neopronouns - This is specific to the accusation of BLP violation; at no point did EEng actually ridicule Lonsdale. He reasoned that Lonsdale was joking on the grounds that "of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope." In other words, EEng is saying that Lonsdale is not a dope.
4. EEng is unblockable. Nothing is going to come out of this thread. - Ymblanter throws mud into the mix and 30 minutes later EEng is blocked. Am I the only one who finds this rather reactionary? Do we accept that EEng has actually been the victim of bad blocks in the past, or are we seriously just going to tott up the total and assume that that should add weight to the current procedings?
5. Ah, so we're currently at that point where we await EEng's fun band of enablers who make light of everything until the point that someone else can close the discussion as unproductive? - That particular tar brush is no more or less eggregious than EEng's alleged NPA violation(s). But ultimately, that sort of comment should be like water off a duck's back, much like EEng's colourful choice of words.
6. The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. - Bingo! It is not an English pronoun. If Wikipedia was to proceed as if it was we'd leave a lot of readers scratching their head, or worse, pissing themselves laughing that WP editors would be so credulous. We need people like EEng who are willing to put their neck on the line to stop that sort of nonsense in its tracks, since we appear to have enough editors who are all-to-quick to entertain it.

TL;DR - Support unblock. nagualdesign 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock - At the risk of being labeled part of "EEng's fun band of enablers" I can see where they are coming from and their statement supports that. Time to move on. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-admin here, I don't think this block is helpful any longer. EEng should've posted their full explanation on the article talk instead of having to come around to it here, but I think it's obvious they were making a simple, legitimate point about commonsense use of pronouns within the context of standard English. But I'm glad to see the preview of the UCOC implementation is going smoothly ;). -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock - I am disconcerted that HJM didn't accept EE's very reasonable explanation, and I see no way in which the block is in any respect "preventative" any longer. If EE is unblocked and picks up again -- which I highly doubt he would do, in my estimation -- than it's simple enough to block him again for a longer period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". I tend to think EEng is more often the second kind, and that this case is more of the second kind. I don't know; maybe that makes me an enabler. But the WP:AGF explanation that EEng thought, maybe accurately, "surely this request for a pronoun was always intended as a joke and therefore it's ok to treat it as a joke" seems to have been repeatedly missed. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I reverted Jledsham's edits on The Secret (treasure hunt) due to him not providing a reliable source. He then posted this message, threatening to take legal action if I revert his edits. Eridian314 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see DFO has left a warning on their page. I know a lot of people like to block on sight, but let's give the warning a chance to sink in first. Eridian314, hopefully this doesn't count as "chilling discussion" because you know how pointless and silly the vague rumbling about "slander" was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave them an NLT warning and some other education. We will see if/how they respond. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we should have an educational page telling people the difference between slander and libel. Happens so often, and nothing on Wikipedia can be slander by the definition. Canterbury Tail talk 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the jurisdictions that just lump them together into "defamation", myself. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the misleading case of Chicken v. Ham, in which the question of whether a gramophone recording was slander or libel made its tortuous way up to the House of Lords; where, unfortunately, the fifth of Their Lordships on the panel expired just as he was about to pronounce judgment; so leaving the question undecided. The distinction between slander and libel, which originated in a dispute in England between the church and the common law courts, is irrelevant in all modern jurisdictions. Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Afif Bashar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Faisalceaser90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.97.161.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been repeatedly removing the CSD template from Draft:Raju Ahmed using various IPs and account, despite multiple warnings. The article was initially created in mainspace by Afif Bashar which i had to WP:A7 tag as there is no indication of importance. Faisalceaser90 removed the deletion tag moving it into draftspace. I instead of reverting their edits (which would reinstate the deletion tag and move article back to mainspace) tagged the draft for deletion as it sounds promotional and appears to have been created by the subject himself or someone close to him. Which they keep removing from IPs and sock account.[60][61][62]--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Umakant Bhalerao: You need to notify them on their talk page about this ANI discussion. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruptive editing; falsely accusing me of unconstructive edits. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC) @Mvcg66b3r: Difs please. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: These two (look at the edit summaries): [63] [64] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusing me that the problem! Frank6292010 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's attacking me on my talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them, and you need to back away too. Neither of you "own" anything on WIkipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New IP user 92.0.241.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making personal attacks [65] and advocating genocide ("If a population of a country is largely white, then the white portion must be purged"). [66] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of a week per NOTHERE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Belevalo Can someone warn this user? Even though dozens of editors warn this user User:Belevalo. He/She continues to unexplained & disruptively editing on infoboxes even without source. Not to mention personal insults..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cengizsogutlu: You need to notify them of this ANI discussion on their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

CorbieVreccan, an admin, has acted in what I feel is a very unprofessional and unbecoming manner at the page KHive and associated Talk page. They have removed all direct references to allegations of harassment by KHive members, not once but twice, in violation of BRD [67] [68]. (I voluntarily am refraining from engaging in an edit war in this regard, but I have no doubt this user would cross 3RR if prompted. I have performed exactly one partial revert, including words such as "alleged" and "who?" templates that the user added, which was reverted by this user [69].) This material is cited to HuffPost, which has been determined by the community to be a reliable source source with no consensus on reliability re politics. Regardless, the user called the report "libelous" and wrongly stated that one of the named individuals, Bianca Delarosa, did not have a chance to respond [70]. They later said various "intel reports," which had not been cited and which I could not find through some genuine research of my own, had contradicted the report, and that HuffPost is not reliable on issues of race [71] – that's only tangentially related to this specific issue, and is not the belief of the community at large per WP:HUFFPOST or, to my knowledge, anywhere else. To be clear, I have no issue with some of the edits made to better balance the article, including noting that examples of harassment are "alleged", noting that the alleged targets were primarily Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supporters, and including the response via Twitter from Bianca Delarosa. I have, in fact, noted my willingness to better balance the article on the Talk page [72]. However, mass removal of sourced content with accusations of libel, belligerence both in reverting and on the Talk page, and unfounded statements saying that the report has been debunked are, suffice it to say, not a level of professionalism that I would expect from an admin. I have started a discussion here from the advice given in WP:ADMINABUSE. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a content dispute. WP:BRD is not policy, just good practice. However, I don't see how the removed comment violates BLP (no individuals are named, and the comment appears to be centred around events on the site rather than around alleged perpetrators [who are not named in the source neither]). Neither the sentence nor the source are saying that Delarosa themselves wrote that content, as far as I can tell? Content does not appear to be libel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although, HuffPost appears to be NC for reliability for political topics, per WP:RSP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]