Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Generally pointless TEEdit

Can someone uninvolved please have a look at this, this and this (or indeed the rest of that recent talk history) and kindly suggest an attitude adjustment? There appears to be a pattern of pointless antagonism here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also this. If someone could apply a quick cluebat to stop this nonsense that'd be great. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Whew -- pointless antagonism is right. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
There's a competence issue also, as the edits cited left paragraphs with ungrammatical mixed tense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, even the first sentence ("Fulling ... was a step ... which involves ....") was broken. --JBL (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, words like "plonker" and "silly" clearly constitute a WP:PERSONAL attack. Even that aside, the user's editing pattern has been generally disruptive across other articles. What I have noticed with Roxy is that he (or she?) consistently engages in edit wars, (often with the help of his friend Guy Macon), refuses to discuss the issue (or any relevant issues, for that matter) when questioned, and instead insults the users with whom he disagrees. I have dealt with this user on more than a couple of occasions, and I must say that his editing significantly hindered real progress being made. If he doesn't show any signs of improvement, I suggest we do something about it - whether it be a 1RR restriction, a block (next time a similar issue inevitably arises), or anything else. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 03:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not reasonable for you to notice my comment at Roxy's talk then pile on here without mentioning that you have been indefinitely topic banned from creationism after many disputes with Roxy and other opponents of WP:FRINGE ideas (ANI permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is that not reasonable? I have had many problems with the user, which is why I want to do something about it. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Also, should I mention my topic ban in every comment that I make? Should I make it part of my signature? I don't really see how it's relevant here, given that the disputes that I had with Roxy that contributed to my topic ban were probably one of more minor disputes that I had with him, and they definitely weren't the first ones that I had with him. By the way, I am a WP:FRINGE opponent (including creationism opponent) as well, as you can see on my user page, so, once again, I don't really see how WP: FRINGE is relevant to the discussion. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 13:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Why did I only receive a notification about this discussion two days after it started? Why didn't the OP notify me? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-Shave

--EEng 08:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC) (and Levivich and creffett)

Note for future readers: the above originally read "WHEN YOU POST / TO AN/I / YOU HAVE TO TELL / THE OTHER GUY," thus the "guy" discussion below. creffett (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thumperward: He was being kind to you. [1][2][3][4][5]. -Pudeo (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Banner)Edit

This banner should be adopted to replace the current banner. It's eye wrenching catching and has high nostalgic value.-- Deepfriedokra 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC).*AS proposer.-- Deepfriedokra 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Humurous alternative (or default) templates would be a fantastic development; apart from UPEs, none of use are getting paid, so lets enjoy more. Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - more likely to be noticed, read, followed, and remembered. Levivich 14:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - what if the person is not a "guy"? sadly, English stress patterns make this complicated, e.g. when you post an incident / you have to tell / the defendant. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • In many dialects of English spoken in the northeast United States, "guy" is gender-neutral. But I have seen at least one or two AN/I incidents in which someone took offense as a result of that usage. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That would be someone like me. It always seems to be men who try to explain to me why it's okay for them to use "guys" to refer to me, somebody who is not a man. We have better terminology, although I admit the rhyme is catchy. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 21:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have zero issues being referred to as part of the collective "guys". Support silly banner. Natureium (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't support new version. Not as funny. Natureium (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Once your case is AN/Ied \ be haste to tell \ the other side. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    SashiRolls, Alfie, thanks to you both for pointing that out to me, I was going for the rhyme but hadn't considered that I was gendering the message (and I do come from areas where "guy" is colloquially used as a gender-neutral plural). I'll change it to the gender-neutral version I suggested below. creffett (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you 💜. It is funny, but I also think that getting out of the habit of using "guys" to refer to people who aren't men is a noble goal. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment WHEN YOU POST / TO AN/I / DON'T FORGET / TO NOTIFY ? Unfortunately loses the part about _who_ you have to notify... creffett (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, it's perfect. Truly, you are the poet laureate of Wikipedia. With luck we will reduce all policies and guidelines to Burma-Shave ads, limericks, haikus or (in the case of MOS and Arbcom cases, respectively) sonnets and epic poems. EEng 18:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    frivolous report
    content disputes and vandals
    admin noticeboard
    creffett (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    when arguments do turn to heated strife
    harsh words 'tween editors and tempers flare,
    tell not the oth'r one to "get a life"
    soft! hostilities will go nowhere
    creffett (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you make the words flash and maybe add animated gifs of flames on each side?   // Timothy :: talk  22:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support IF "guy" is changed to "person". Or "human", "lifeform", or "earthling" if you want to be quirky. (ETA) I just realized you're trying to rhyme. It didn't click because my brain pronounces "AN/I" as "annie".Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Place a post on AN/I
Place a post for free
Place a post on AN/I
And (andand) you gotta post to notify me signed, Rosguill talk 00:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, I should not have been taking a drink while reading that. (wiping off screen) (and now that song's earworming me)Schazjmd (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This is all my fault [6]. I've crated a Frankenstein. EEng 01:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User editing from a U.S. government office, with a long term disruptive agendaEdit

WP:NOTHERE, per [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18] and associated edits to Nathan Phillips (activist). Primarily disruptive, trolling and using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox. Perhaps the Defense Department should know if this is the activity of one of its employees. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If we do block them, WP:SIP probably needs to be followed. The DOD is not specifically listed there, but I would be cautious and notify WMF as described there. --Jayron32 19:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, only the first two ranges listed for the U.S. House and the range for the U.S. Senate are tagged with class mw-tag-congressedits on contrib lists. The other ranges listed at WP:SIP have markup no different than any other IP address. Other than having a browser user script tag them (is there one?), where should I go to suggest expanding the tagging to these other ranges? I'd like to be able to style these so I notice them in histories/contribs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Even if they aren't explicitly in the list of sensitive IP addresses, if we believe that the IP address or range is just as sensitive as others listed in the table (or if we believe that they even might be), we should follow the guidelines and procedures as if they were. It's much better to be safe than to be sorry. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I've left a custom warning message on this IP user's talk page (diff, permalink). If further disruption occurs from this IP address, we should treat them like we would any other user. If no admin is willing to do so, I will - just message me and let me know. I've done it before under circumstances that warranted it, and I'm not afraid to do it again. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Oshwah: WP:DYK DoD has a lot of IP addresses? I've submitted an edit request for some DoD IPv4 addresses to be added (specifically, the 218,103,808 from their 13 /8 blocks plus the /21 this was from). They own a lot more too, just too scattered about for me to bother finding them (Apparently DoD owns 20% of all IPv4 addresses, but this is only about 5%.) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Mdaniels5757 - Good call; thank you for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The person, or persons, keen to edit Shamsheer VayalilEdit

I am one of several editors who'd never heard of the name Shamsheer Vayalil until begged to help in countering this or that claimed injustice in its editing. (For the plea I received, see User talk:Hoary#Help.) The article is the obsession of a person, with or without his brother, who uses Bharti Airtel IP addresses that geolocate to Patna, Bihar, and also of User:Ankitroy1997, who has implausibly presented himself as a different person. These pleas for assistance, accusations of unfairness, etc, have gone on for some time and have been very tiresome; but they have hardly been actionable. Recently, however, this person has become more agitated, and offensive (example).

Although I don't consider myself involved (other than as a bemused/despairing onlooker and occasional voice of what I think is reason), others may disagree. And so I turn this matter over to one or more other admins. Do look through Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil and User talk:AlanM1. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for filing this. Note that the article's talk page has an archive, too, where they've been beating the same minutiae to death since June. The relevant IP addresses are primarily 223.230.128.0/18, though there is some involvement from 106.207.32.0/18 106.207.32.0/19. The 223 range has primarily only one other editor in it (contributing to Indian politics), so a block there might be reasonable. The 106 has a lot more. I'd also suggest a CU, given the overlap between Ankitroy1997 and the IP (careful examination of their edits makes it clear that they are probably either the same person or co-ordinate with each other off-wiki, pretending to be strangers here). Every time an editor gets tired of them, they move on to drag another into this time sink (as recently as today), conveniently not mentioning the wreckage left behind on the talk page in the hopes that the user won't look and they'll just get what they want. I even tried compromising on something that is a close call, and it didn't help. I've asked them to stay off my user and talk pages after today's attacks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

::Not interested in biased wikipedia. I have seen all the rules and regulations which are only for Shamsheer Vayalil article and not for others. I don't want to contribute anything here. Before leaving I'll point out some of your statement: Eagleash: His one of the kind statement: Some of the articles are only perfect on wikipedia. Which are these "some"? Are they Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jimmy Wales? AlanM1: His statement: Removing degrees from bio infobox is not correct because infobox without degrees is incorrect. For which article it's incorrect? Is that Jimmy Wales article or Mark Zuckerberg article? So, I don't want to contribute to that place where there is biased nature. Keep your wikipedia with you. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those are quotes or even correct interpretations of our comments, nor is there any rational reason we would have a bias against a respected, successful doctor and wealthy businessman or Indians in general (witness the amount of work I do fixing Indian subject articles while you're picking at nits). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1 Please don't show baby tantrums. I have read your every explanation or reason which you gave after reverting my edits which shows that you show biased nature. Degrees should not be removed from Jimmy Wales article but it can be removed from Shamsheer Vayalil article. Carefully read your reason which you gave after reverting my edit in Jimmy Wales article. I'll definitely leave wikipedia because it's the place where anyone can learn how to become biased. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ankitroy1997: I did not remove degrees from the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to all editors who showed a lesson in WP:Civility. These are the 99 100 IP addresses I collected until now, after I was similarly contacted on my talk page. My match was with User:Royankitkumar, but I see that user is blocked too now. Thank you for the intervention. Wakari07 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Wakari07, we must be talking about different people. I haven't sampled any of your collected IP addresses, but are you saying that they appear to be block evasions by User:Royankitkumar? I'm new to this article Shamsheer Vayalil and that's probably why Royankitkumar is a new name to me. I have looked at half a dozen of Royankitkumar's edits. Every one was simple vandalism. The edits are utterly unlike the edits of the IPs I had/have in mind, or those of User:Ankitroy1997. The latter edits aim to present the biographee in the best possible light. (This aim may be honourable; it's the demands, accusations and miscellaneous childishness that are problematic.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Hoary: There was a gap in time of almost a year, and then a mis-formatted unblock request in November 2019 that may explain this. I've also corrected the 106 range above for the record (I goofed the subnet). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Ankitroy1997 has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sock puppet of Royankitkumar. I'm striking through their edits. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, there were two comments above by Ankitroy1997; you struck through one and I have now struck through the other. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This is all very odd. If Ankitroy1997 is a sock of blocked Royankitkumar, then of course this is very wrong of Royankitkumar, whose activities should be limited to appealing for the end of his block. Yet when Royankitkumar attempted to do just that, he messed up his own attempt. And we know that he did this, thanks to mention above of "a mis-formatted unblock request". Of course what he really ought to do is carefully reread the instructions and make a new attempt; but we all know from experience that plenty of people can't/won't do this. Anyway, I've resuscitated his request. This says in part: Few months earlier I was new to wikipedia I didn't know that how it works,in that duration of time I made various mistakes which lead to vandalism but my intention was not to vandalise wikipedia. If vandalizing truly wasn't the intention, then I diagnose utter incompetence. However, CU says that Ankitroy1997 and Royankitkumar are the same; and if for a moment I put aside other problems (petulance, time-wasting, block evasion....), I have to concede that Ankitroy1997 is neither a vandal nor grossly incompetent. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yamla has already declined the appeal, and I certainly have no objection to that. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Update: Royankitkumar = Ankitroy1997 = the freshly invented "Alpha Rows" (see for example this appeal of theirs to Arjayay); quickly blocked by Bbb23. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:ElainaslaEdit

Elainasla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, I think this is the appropriate place to post this, but I apologise if I'm mistaken. This user continually goes against several guidelines: they make many edits to articles in quick succession clogging up article histories, mark all their edits m when many clearly aren't, and extremely rarely provide edit summaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elainasla

An example of all three of these would be their 12 edits to Medical Police in the space of 15 minutes on 11 Jan.

They also rarely engage with people who have posted about such issues on their talk page, including me, as evidenced here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#January_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#February_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#February_2019_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#'Show_preview'_button

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#Edit_summaries

- 115.70.7.33 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Their talk page is disturbing. At the least I'd suggest a ban might be appropriate to stop them from uploading non-free images. And the marking edits as minor despite warnings is unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The user appears to have undertaken 5 reverts on 14 January on page: Medical Police -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I was involved in some of their revert activity on that page, of which I'm the creator. They falsely claimed the preferred upload format for images was PNG (it's JPEG) and edit warred with me over the cover image. They are fairly disruptive, in my experience. Timdorr (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocked indefinitely for long-time disruptive editing and lack of communication. Any admin is encouraged to unblock if the user responds to the block and undertakes a) to stop uploading non-free images and b) to respond to posts on their talkpage from now on. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC).
  • Unblocked. The user has made the required promises, and I've unblocked them. I hope some people will add their user talkpage to their watchlists. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC).

AfD canvassingEdit

Tagging the AFD discussion with {{Notvote}} and tagging the accounts with {{SPA}} (see here) is the best thing to do. This way, the closing user will notice the tags while evaluating the consensus on the AFD, and give the proper weight to each vote accordingly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article was created by the inventor of the term. It has three Keep !votes: one is his, the other two are people he canvassed off-wiki, neither of whom has previously contributed to Wikipedia. Since I don't do much in this area I don't know what our current approach is to canvassed AfDs, whether we protect at some level or just tag them with the canvassing notice of joy. Can anyone advise please? Guy (help!) 09:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I added "notvote".-- Deepfriedokra 09:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, that was the one I was looking for, thanks. Guy (help!) 10:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Tagging them as SPA and leaving the notice is all you can do. If they engage in DE, they can be blocked via the ArbCom directive where editors acting in concert can be treated as one editor. --qedk (t c) 12:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Kazemita1 block changed from indef to 3 monthsEdit

Through Cabayi's advice, RoySmith recently indef-blocked Kazemita1 for block evasion. El_C changed this from indef to a 3-month block. The case could do with further feedback.

Some highlights from Kazemita's editing history to his current block:

1) For the last several months, Kazemita1 has been a SPA account at People's Mujahedin of Iran, where he has received an increasing number of warnings for edit warring there. ([19]) ([20]) ([21]) ([22]) ([23])

2) The edit warring led to Kazemita1 being blocked several times

3) While being blocked (for two weeks), Kazemita1 uses different IPs to continue edit warring (at which time I file a SPI)

4) The SPI leads to Kazemita1 being indef'ed for socking

5) Kazemita1 appeals the block by citing the US constitution. The unblock request is rejected by 331dot.

6) Kazemita appeals for a second time, this time blaming "lack of proper SPI investigation to at least relate these IPs to me", as well as blaming other editors and not admitting to socking.

7) I point out that the IPs edited the exact same text that Kazemita1 was edit-warring about, which was either an amazing coincidence or block evasion.

8) Kazemita1 removes my post and his claims about "lack of proper SPI" practices, and changes his unblock request now admittig to socking/block evasion.

9) El_C changes Kazemita1's block from indef to 3 months.

Only when it was pointed out that the evidence showed he was the one behind the IPs, did Kazemita1 admit to socking/block evasion. Kazemita1 has apologized in the past for their actions, and yet they continued to edit-war using purposely-deceptive IPs that wouldn't be traced back to them. In light of this, I think that the changing of Kazemita1's block from indef to 3 months, for an increasingly-disruptive editor, merits further feedback from the community. Alex-h (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I secured the permission of the blocking admin to amend the indefinite block. Note that I warned Alex-h against edit warring on Kazemita1's talk page.[24] El_C 10:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Alex-h: opening this thread may not be a good idea. All behaviors become open for scrutiny. In your case, your edit-warring on the talk page, but further, the subsequent revocation of the user's talk page access which was questionable to say the least. A can of worms, I think it's called. ——SN54129 12:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, yes, El_C did warn me about restoring my post on Kazemita1's talk page, which is when I stopped writing on Kazemita1's talk page. About "the subsequent revocation of the user's talk page access", that had nothing to do with me, although I disagree that it was "questionable" since Kazemita had been canvassing. Alex-h (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Alex-h: which users were canvassed? El_C 15:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I interpreted Kazemita1's pinging you as canvassing since the actual blocking admin had been RoySmith. Alex-h (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm the admin most involved in sanctioning the user prior to this block evasion incident — a ping to me or to the blocking admin does not constitute canvassing. El_C 15:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:HARASS violation, possible WP:THREATEdit

Hijuecutivo blocked one week by El C ((non-admin closure) Puddleglum 2.0 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am asking for input on what to do after receiving this comment in my talk page from Hijuecutivo. In a clear breach of WP:NPA, I was called a "political commisary", "inquisitor", "Stalinist" and received unfounded accusations of vandalism, just because I reverted some unsourced, tendentious IP edits at Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, Francisco Largo Caballero and Jesús Hernández Tomás (by now, it is apparently obvious that the IP is Hijuecutivo editing while logged out). While I'd normally be done with reverting such comments from my talk, I am worried after I was told that "after these actions, you better consider leaving Wikipedia" and after another comment was issued when I reverted the original one, calling me "imprudent", "Wikipedia guard dog", asking me to "resign" and somehow suggesting that this new comment was a "torture-like policy" on me; all of which would be a breach of WP:HARASS. Also, the remark that "Injuries are criminal offenses" made by Hijuecutivo within their first comment on my talk looks like WP:THREAT. Impru20talk 15:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hijuecutivo blocked for one week for general battleground behaviour that includes personal attacks and harassment. El_C 15:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

User:SharabSalamEdit

SharabSalam continues to remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. This user has been mentioned at WikiProject Islam and has been warned multiple times about obvious POV pushing. I've tried to be civil with this user, I've never reported anyone at ANI before, but I feel this is the only way to prevent further disruption. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please use DIFFS to support each of your claims. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Why not attempt to discuss the dispute on the article talk page, instead of bringing your content dispute to ANI? El_C 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page. This is not a simple content dispute. This user persistently attempts to remove potentially negative information from Wikipedia articles. This user is trying to paint their own picture on Wikipedia. This user also recently marked a large removal as a minor edit. I will provide diffs soon. I apologize that I do not know how to link diffs. I will try to figure it out. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool and El_C, this [edit] is the most recent one that I was talking about. I will provide more. The page is now fully protected, and the information that this user removed has not been restored. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
He rollbacks you, you rvv him — it does not inspire confidence. I know it's protected — I'm the one who protected it. El_C 17:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This link [[25]] is the page WikiProject Islam. On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
With this edit [[26]]], the user removed a large amount of information. In the edit summary, the user said that it's not what the source said, but it's actually exactly what the source said. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
With this edit [[27]], the user removed information regarding human rights abuses. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. With an edit summary explaining why. And I think the reason given (WP:BLP concerns when citing a webpage that is discussing Kuwait rather then the individual) is at least sufficient to justify discussing the matter on the talk page (or on WP:BLPN). On its own, without any attempt to discuss, it doesn't appear to me to be worthy of raising at WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Usedtobecool, El_C, here are the diffs and what exactly happened, this started when an IP editor removed a content without explaining why, I reverted but I investigated one of the sources which I saw was so uninformed about what its talking about. I did some research about the source and I found that it is famously anti-Muslim. I went to WP:RSN and discussed this there and JzG later removed the whole paragraph because it is sourced to apologists who are not experts in the topic. Here, where GrammarDamner came and reverted JzG saying "not sure why this was removed". I then reverted him and told him the reason why this was removed. He added the content again (with undo edit filter) but with a different source which is also an op-ed by a non-expert person and on top of that, does not source the whole content. I reverted again and said that the content is an op-ed written by a non-expert. He reverted me saying "well, yes, it's mentioning criticism, so it's fine. Thanks!" The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." Another issue is that how is this even criticism. I let the content in the article and went to his talk page then an editor posted stuff about me and I didnt want to continue. After 6 days an IP editor removed the content, Drmies reverted the IP but then Drmies probably noticed the source is an op-ed and self-reverted, then Grammar reverted Drmies while making an edit summary about the IP. After 7 days I reverted Grammar and here we are.
  • About the post in Islam or Quran wikiproject. There is an editor named Koreangauteng who is probably trolling and also following me during any dispute I am having with any editor he posts a message in their talk page, as a matter of fact, he posted in El_C's talk page and when this dispute happened he posted in GrammarDamner's talk page. He said in a post that because I am a Yemeni, my native language is Arabic, I love my religion, prophet, etc that I have WP:COI. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslim. He posted this after a similar issue happened between me and him in Taqiya article, he added some content that doesnt IMO make any sense using a book from LuLu a self-publishing company, I reverted citing WP:SPS and he reverted with a new book that it is again sourced to a christian apologist who is so biased and not expert in any of what he is talking about, the book even shows how biased it is at the beginning saying While there may be millions of peaceful and tolerant Muslims, many of them our neighbors, Islam itself is hardly peaceful and tolerant..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." — so? That's a prefectly valid scholarly position. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslimdiff? El_C 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    El C, he is not a scholar! and Grammar above that I have a COI just above and cited what that editor said:
    - suggest he/she should consider WP:COI
    --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    And not to mention that the editor has said that my edit is vandalism and yet saying that it is hard for him to be civil.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SharabSalam, please just keep it simple: El C, that ridiculous COI diff, it's this--a really shortsighted remark by Koreangauteng, whose contributions may need further scrutiny, and who shot themselves in the foot with this odd claim. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The removal by SharabSalam of the first section linked by GrammarDamner looks entirely justified to me. It cites a Guardian 'comment is free' piece (questionable in of itself as WP:RS) for quotations which do not appear in the piece being cited, and for other statements not supported by the source. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian is a reliable source, cited in many other Wikipedia articles. And just because an editor disagrees with you multiple times does not mean that they are "probably trolling". GrammarDamner (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian is a reliable source, and yet we still do not accept opinion pieces, unascribed, for this kind of content. The IP is absolutely correct and you, GrammarDamner, are wrong. I have not read the Guardian comment, but it seems the IP has and I'll take their word for it. And let me add that in all the cases where you provided diffs, SharabSalam was correct. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
All of those were correct? Is it correct to mark removal of content as a minor edit? Is it correct to mention that a source doesn't say something (when it in fact does and is directly quoted) in the edit summary? Is it correct to remove negative content? Or should Wikipedia articles present both sides of an issue for balance and neutrality? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The words in quotation marks in this passage [28] beginning with the words "Why must he..." do not appear in the Guardian opinion piece cited. Or are you suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I was not suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran. When I mentioned quotes, I was talking about this edit [[29]] where SharabSalam removed content and in the edit summary (falsely) said that it was not what the source says. GrammarDamner (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
As I previously stated, I was referring to the first edit you linked [30] in the article your raised in your first post (Muhammad in the Quran), after being requested to provide a diff. It contains a 'quotation' not in the source. Accordingly, the deletion was valid, contrary to your claim in your original post that SharabSalam had removed "properly sourced information". 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
GrammarDamner, wait.. what? how is that even related to this issue? Have you even edited in there? I dont recall seeing you there. Are you searching for an excuse for this ? I have removed the duplicated content and readded it because it was suggesting that the UN report has been released but the source says that the UN report has not been released to public and that it was only seen by Reuters, I did add it to the article with the accurate description from the source and removed the duplicated content. You are obviously trying to change the subject of this thread. This is an obvious case of WP:Boomerang.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, that was the subject of this thread. I reported that you continue to remove information that should not be removed. I was asked to provide diffs, so I did. GrammarDamner (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
GrammarDamner, you are desperately searching for an excuse for this embarrassing, failed attempt to report me, you even made it more embarrassing by searching through my edits trying to find something to report me for. I did add the content as accurately described by the Reuters exclusive report. How is this related to what you reported me for and I quote remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. How is an op-ed/commentisfree and LuLu.com are "properly sourced information"? .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, according to that diff, you only added some of the content. And as I've pointed out, your edit summary said that the content was not in the source, but it was. As for the op-ed, we're talking about criticism of something, which by definition will often be in an op-ed or opinion piece. Should the Guardian have published a second article stating "Some people feel that..."? GrammarDamner (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
No, we don't add content in Wikipedia about how some ordinary people feel per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we only add experts criticism. Also, for the Abqiaq thing the Reuters report says that the report was seen by Reuters, the content in the infobox was suggest that the report has been released. I have contributed in that article. Almost all of the content in that article is written by me. Again this is not related to Islam, you said "remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam". I need evidence for this accusation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Expert is a loosely defined term, and I respectfully disagree. I feel that it is not undue. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If a dispute about article content comes down to what you (or anyone else) 'feels', such discussion should take place on the relevant article talk page. It isn't a matter for WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: still waiting for that diff to that COI passage... You are unclear as to its origins. Also, asking GrammarDamner Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?[31] was not your finest moment, I challenge. El_C 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, see it now? Look up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: I see it, thanks. But I got the impression from SharabSalam that it was GrammarDamner who made that COI claim. Perhaps I misread, then. That's why having diffs from the outset is really helpful. El_C 18:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, I know, and I thought the same thing initially. SharabShalam is not an L1 speaker of English, I think, but hey, we found it, and that was indeed a crappy put-down. If that constitutes a COI, then we should all stop editing what we're editing. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, totally ridiculous. El_C 18:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
El_C the comment was made by that editor who has also posted a comment on your talk page just mins after I had with you some conversation, I linked it above in my long comment, also this editor has referenced the COI in this thread saying "On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out". I said that because the editor is ignoring what other editors are saying and editwarring. The editor has reverted a removal of content that was removed by JzG after we discussed this in WP:RSN, saying that he is not sure why the content was removed. Do you think that is true? Nonsense, JzG was absolutely clear in the edit summary when he said that the sources are from apologists not experts. Then when I reverted him, he undo my edit but changed the source with a similar source, an op-ed or commentisfree, from a person who is not an expert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't help but wonder who GrammerDamner is, and why they make so many edits to change a few little things, all marked as "grammar" when, certainly in this case, none of them are actually grammatical. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • What is wrong with that edit? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It's ten edits, and it's not about grammar. That's all. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Drmies which edits? The edit you highlighted is just a few grammar fixes. Also, I wasn't being rhetorical with my questions above. I'm actually wondering are all those things correct? Please answer when you get a chance. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
          • None of those edits were grammatical. All the diffs I looked at, SharabSalam was correct, particularly the one sourced to that comment in The Guardian. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Drmies, with all due respect, you must be mistaken. In those edits, I added a comma, removed an erroneous word, added a comma, changed a verb tense, added a preposition, corrected capitalization, added a comma, added a comma, added a comma, changed a conjunction (edit summary "wording"), and added a comma. How are those not grammatical? I'm genuinely confused. GrammarDamner (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
              • GrammarDamner, commas aren't a matter of grammar but of style. Changing a conjunction (from "but" to "and") is a matter of semantics. You didn't change any verb tenses or "correct" capitalization. (Capitalization also is not a grammatical matter.) I think your confusion is between grammar and style. Your comma after "22", for instance, is typically mandatory for US students but not in other varieties of English. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                • Drmies, with all due respect, all of those are matters of grammar. Yes, some of them fall under other categories as well, but they are all grammar issues. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
A question for GrammarDamnerEdit

In your second post above,[32] you state that you "attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page". Can you provide a link to the relevant posts? Because all I can locate from you in the history for User talk:SharabSalam is a section entitled 'Persistent vandalism' [33] followed by an ANI notification for this thread. [34] Are you suggesting that these posts constitute adequate 'discussion' by you, or has there been such discussion somewhere else? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It was also discussed on my talk page. Given SharabSalam's history of edit warring and personal attacks, I felt it was time to bring it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If the 'discussion' you are referring to is the one here [35], I suggest that you immediately request that this discussion be closed, before a WP:BOOMERANG appears. That does not even remotely constitute an attempt by you to discuss anything. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I see some tit-for-tat; but nothing I would call discussion – which should have occurred on the article TP. Someone should have brought this up at WP:AN3. But, I think it was a mistake for you to bring this here considering you were both warring. As for Koreangauteng, someone needs to inform them that their COI comment was way out of line. (Or, as I worship of beef bourguignon, I’ll need to remove my edits in that article). O3000 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I brought this to the wrong place. I'm not even sure what AN3 is, but I will look it up now. I'm still relatively new to all of this. As for "my warring", I thought I was doing everything right, not violating 3RR, trying to restore the article. Perhaps I forgot to mention SharabSalam's personal attacks in my first post, but that was part of the reason I brought it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You have repeatedly referred to supposed 'personal attacks' by SharabSalam. As far as I can see, you haven't however provided links to any of them. I suggest you do so, because repeatedly accusing someone of making such attacks, without providing evidence, may itself constitute a personal attack. And while SharabSalam's "Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?" [36] wasn't exactly polite, I don't think that on its own is going to justify sanctions against him. Better phrased, it might even have passed as a fair comment, I'd have to suggest, given your apparent lack of understanding of several key Wikipedia policies. Policies such as discussing disputed content on article talk pages, as was suggested in that very post. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that was the personal attack against me by SharabSalam. You can also look at SharabSalam's block log to see the user being blocked for personal attacks before. I'm sorry that I don't know how to post a link to a user's block log. I'm not asking for any sanctions against SharabSalam. I was hoping that someone else could help explain that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, meaning the articles should include relevant information, even if it's negative. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
GrammarDamner, Where is the personal attack? huh? I personally attacked you because I was blocked for personal attack? The content I removed is not negative or positive, it was a mix and I am not the one who firstly removed it, it was removed an admin first and you added it again. Also you edited warred, two admins and me removed that content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The personal attack was when you posted "Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?" on my talk page. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
GrammarDamner, What? thats a personal attack? I told you that because you were obviously not informed about reliable sourced and editwarring as well. Thats not a personal attack. That is saying that you are not informed about the wikipedia policies.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm too much of a softie (wouldn't be the first time someone has said that about me, haha), but I felt offended. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
What you did was like a new editor. You removed the content saying not sure why it was removed, yet there is an edit summary by JzG saying why he removed the content, you re-added the content using a source from commentisfree source in the Guardian, all 3 months old editors know that content like that, that make criticism should be sourced to experts per WP:FRINGE. We dont just add what an ordinary man said. We would have 1 million MBs if we are going to just write what a random person says. Also, you said that the there is a COI, right? Above you said [o]n point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. Do you still think that there is a COI issues with me?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thats not even assuming bad faith. You assumed bad faith and called my edit WP:vandalism at first I thought it is a typo when you said rvv but you went to the talk page said that I am vandalising, wow.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. You want to widen the discussion, not narrow it by limiting it to the two editors in dispute. Bring some outside input to the matter under contention. That's what the article talk page is for — and if that somehow stalls, there's dispute resolution and its accompanying requests. El_C 23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, El_C, I should have thought of that, even though SharabSalam first brought it to my talk page with a personal attack. I have commented on the article's talk page, and I hope others will too. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

An issue regarding any Wikipedia editor with (any) strong personal beliefEdit

I first raised the issue of a possible COI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

On 2 January 2020 I made an unreserved apology for the use any descriptor other than a belief system. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam&diff=933696430&oldid=933606413

I believe (note, that is my 'belief') it is not unreasonable to raise potential COI Wikipedia editor issues for any editor with any strong, self-identified belief system. Koreangauteng (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it is ever 'reasonable' to use the talk page of a Wikiproject to make COI accusations concerning a named Wikipedia contributor in the manner that you did. There is an appropriate place for such discussions (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard), and unless there are very good reasons not to, the individual concerned should be notified.
As for your interpretation of WP:COI policy, I strongly believe that the Earth is (approximately) spherical. Do I have a COI if I edit an article on our home planet? I assume not. But in any case, this isn't the place to discuss the limits of WP:COI policy, and Wikipedia certainly isn't going to ban people from editing articles on subject matter they have beliefs about. 86.134.74.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, what about this editor Koreangauteng who is adding sources like memri and stuff like that to Islam related articles and also following me in every dispute or conversation posting a link to his post which says that I have a COI. This is absolutely unacceptable. I told this editor before that it does not constitute as WP:COI if I love my prophet peace be upon him. Also, now the discussion that it is opened in the talk page of Talk:Muhammad in the Quran is about that link!--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
If you have an issue with Koreangauteng's behaviour, and you can't resolve it by discussing it with him/her (have you tried?), then maybe it should be raised here, but I really wouldn't recommend trying to find a resolution in this particular discussion. It is a disjointed mess already, and I doubt anyone will want to see it develop into a three-way dispute. Hopefully though, Koreangauteng will have realised that naming you in that way on the Wikiproject page was wrong, and won't do it again. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
well, I have told him that it is not a COI to be a Muslim and that his comment is polemic. After that I just ignored him although he is still following me. Also, I know that he is still adding poorly sourced content and using primary sources in his edits but I dont really want to bother right now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm on it. As for Koreangauteng consistently adding poorly-sourced content to Islamic articles out of righting great wrongs or whatever impetus, that is something which they may be sanctioned for. But the evidentiary basis for that disruption has to exist (be compiled in a cogent format) first. El_C 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Koreangauteng's understanding of our RS policy is fairly flawed.

E.g. [37] where they re-added a self-published (Lulu.com) source called "A 15 Minute Tactical Guide to Islam" by an apparently non notable author (I don't just mean because we have no article, but a search for this author only finds stuff like they also self-published "Islam: Y Tho?"). And used the argument below 'you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable' even though it was removed as an unreliable source, so by definition, an argument of a breach of a core policy was made.

They used the same argument when re-adding this [38]. At least that time it was not selfpublished (Thomas Nelson (publisher)) and the author is apparently notable Hank Hanegraaff. Still a quick read of the author's wikipedia article suggests there's no reason to think they has any particular expertise on Islam or the Quran. Anyway at least the argument for reinstatement made a little more sense there since it was in response to the removal reason 'The source is not reliable it is written by a Christian apologists'. But of course the point they seem to be missing is there's a big difference between an editor having a COI, and a RS having one. Although the big issue here isn't so much the COI, but as I said, there's no reason to think that work should be consider an RS for Islam or the Quran.

This case where they used FrontPage Magazine also caught my eye [39] although it's a complicated case since it's someone's reply to criticism of their work. In any event, they're still fairly new, so KoreanGauteng should be given the opportunity to learn about our RS policy before any action.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • No, religious beliefs themselves are never sufficient to constitute a COI (holding a formal position like a priest theoretically could, but I suspect it would generally only apply to things directly related to the religious hierarchy for that religion rather than the faith as a whole.) This is spelled out on WP:COI: Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. The pope's personal aide cannot edit Pope or other pages directly related to the papacy due to personal relationships, but ordinary Catholics can. Imagine if we, for instance, banned every Christian from editing articles related to Christianity - it would not be tenable. As WP:COINOTBIAS says, of course, such editors can still be biased and can get in trouble if they end up consistently falling afoul of WP:ADVOCACY, but note that that is fairly specific itself - Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view, ie. you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable, you can't just wave your hands at their strong beliefs and assume it. This is because in many cases (especially when it comes to religion) the most knowledgeable editors and the ones with the most interest in the topic are also going to have biases; we wouldn't want to just ban them all at once. Instead, the important question is whether they can edit constructively and evenhandedly despite their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion Thank you. Koreangauteng (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Humans are inherently biased towards humans. Let's ban humans from editing any article related to humanity. -- a lainsane (Channel 2) 04:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor WilliamJE refusal to discuss on article's Talk pageEdit

Context: This report involves aviation accident Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, and relates to sole survivor George Lamson Jr. Lamson is notable and has WP:LASTING coverage in reliable sources, but his notability is largely in relation to this accident. Per WP:BIO1E, I believe it's appropriate that Lamson is discussed in this article. (I'd recommend starting with this revision of mine for a demonstration.)

Editor WilliamJE removed substantial, sourced content from the page regarding Lamson, including both his name and the fact that a notable documentary was made about the sole survivor of the accident. I restored the content, added further content and sources supporting notability for Lamson in relation to the event, and added to the article's Talk page. WilliamJE then continued to revert my edits, but more importantly, has refused to discuss on the article's Talk page. He is only willing to explain himself via edit summaries, and he refuses to address the central point I made on the article's Talk page.

Here's a timeline (Edit: Now with diffs) (I omitted my most minor cleanup edits, which I don't believe are relevant to the timeline):

To be clear, WilliamJE has (as of the time I'm posting this here) not engaged on the article's Talk page, not addressed or even acknowledged the WP:BIO1E issue I raised, and continued to act like individual discussions on individual other article Talk pages somehow override general Wikipedia policies like WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E, which combined suggest that (1) Lamson is sufficiently notable and (2) the appropriate place to discuss him is on the article for the related event, which is Galaxy Airlines Flight 203. Reasonable editors could disagree, but he isn't being reasonable and he isn't disagreeing, instead he's just citing to "consensus" where there actually isn't a policy consensus so broad and rigid it can be explained in edit summaries. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. When you left a notice on the editor's talk page (if it was you who left it), you forgot to leave your name by striking the tilde key four times. You also left the message at the top of the page rather than the bottom, where the most recent messages should go. Would you want to correct those errors? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. I looked at the links you posted above, but unfortunately it is really difficult to ascertain the changes that the other editor posted. It would be far better if you could link to the WP:Diffs that you can get from the History page. Then we could easily tell what the other person did. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're here when the discussion on the article talk page had only been open for about 5 hours when you posted, and even now it's only been open for about 8 hours. This is by no means an urgent situation, so 5 or 8 hours is way too short to conclude no discussion will take place. While I understand it may be frustrating when an editor is reverting but hasn't yet joined the discussion, you still have to give them reasonable chance to respond. The stuff in December is irrelevant as neither of you opened a discussion [40], so you can both be blamed for the lack of discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to think we need to ask for $20 via Paypal as a deposit before someone opens a new ANI thread. We keep the deposit if the thread turns out to be neither urgent nor about a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. This is a simple content dispute.
ANI THREAD

PROBLEM ACUTE!

CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION

"CONTENT DISPUTE"

Burma-Shave

creffett

EEng 08:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • WilliamJE has not edited since he referred OP to the prior discussion. I don;t think it's reasonable to bring this here when the user in question has tried to discuss, albeit in a manner OP dislikes, and had not edited since OP reverted that attempt. Recommend we close this as it goes nowhere and OP should seek WP:dispute resolution. -- Deepfriedokra 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Deepfriedokra The reason for no reply? I was asleep. Anyone who studied my editing will see I rarely make edits between 2100 and 0600 Eastern standard time. Last night I was up later than normal because I played bingo like normal on Monday nights.
The original poster of this thread has been referred to three different talk page discussions (There is also a guidelines page[41] which I didn't refer them to. Something about me wanting to go to sleep) on the topic they are complaining of. Two of which took place in the last 6 months and one of which[42] was absolutely on target in relation to their edits. They are whining (Take a look at their absurd reply here[43]). about consensus and took it here because they don't like what they are reading....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: Exactly. I don't feel it was reasonable of OP to report here when you had not had time to reply. ANd I do feel like you have been responsive, even if they don't think so or like the manner of your replies.-- Deepfriedokra 12:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
And if you don't know who posts like this you can't have wiki'd very far Eeng/creffett-- Deepfriedokra 12:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All -- I apologize if this was the wrong place to bring this up; I originally wanted to request dispute resolution, but when I selected that I hadn't yet discussed on the article's Talk page, it said "It's best to discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution." When I went back and put that I'd tried to discuss on the article's Talk page, it then asked if the issue was about another editor's behavior, and then it said to come here. That's why I posted here. Since it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page, I'll take it there... Shelbystripes (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: To be blunt, I don't think there was need to start any form of dispute resolution either. Let me repeat what I said above. You waited ~5 hours before coming here. We are all volunteers. It's completely unreasonable to expect editors must just the discussion right this minute. Especially when there is zero urgency on the issue. This applies even if they reverted you. So your comment "it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page" is inappropriate. I'd even say offensive and almost if not crossing the personal attack line. You should stop expecting editors edit according to your schedule and instead give them reasonable time to respond to any discussion. And you should only try to use some form of dispute resolution when it's clear you cannot resolve the situation just with whoever joins the discussion on the talk page. This generally means you should give it a few days. Definitely not 5 hours. And you should only bring behavioural complaints when it's clear there is a intractable problem with an editor's behaviour and not simply because you are demanding they respond to you in 5 hours! Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
AT ANI
LESS STURM UND DRANG
HELPS AVOID
THE BOOMERANG
Burma-Shave
Guy (help!) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't work if one pronounces Sturm und Drang in accordance with the proper German pronunciation. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well then don't do that. DUH. Modification: AT ANI / YOUR STURM AND DRANG / MIGHT GET YOU / A BOOMERANG / B-S EEng 04:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Moaz786, eh? The "ang" of Drang is pretty much the same as the "ang" of boomerang. At least in the Hochdeutsch I learned as a singer of Schubert liede and the English I learned at my thousand-year-old school. Guy (help!) 08:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Um, well, did they teach you that the plural of Lied is Lieder? EEng 09:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) We must protest this treatment, Hubert / says each newspaper reader / As someone once remarked to Schubert / "Take us to your Lieder"
I can spell just fine, but I can't type for tooffe. Srsly. Guy (help!) 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
AND IF YOU HAVE
THE ADMIN TOOLS
JUST WHIP THEM OUT
AND BLOCK THE FOOLS
Burma-Shave
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet needs blocking pleaseEdit

Could someone please block Arr1333 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ars3nal311/Archive for background. No point wasting time waiting for SPI to deal with this, since the account is active now and making their usual disruptive edits. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, tagged, made a report to SPI, edits may need cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if that domain needs to go on the blacklist...it's on a number of pages, and might or might not be a decent source (I haven't actually read any of it yet), but this behavior is not okay. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Creffett: The domain used to be owned by the Gay & Lesbian Times (magazine). I'm guessing at a certain point of time, the magazine closed and someone took over the domain to sell their alternative medicine (read: bs) products. Either way, case archived. An edit filter can help probably (also to keep track of the socks and whitelist older links which use Wayback Machine or smth). --qedk (t c) 17:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

IP tagging articles with poorly written custom templatesEdit

See especially [44][45][46][47]. Note that they are edit warring over their tag at Criticism of postmodernism. Here's a weird edit summary [48] and here they're using a talk page as a soapbox. [49] They have no edits besides adding template tags and that talk page comment. Bringing this here because they have a suspicious familiarity with templates and the abbreviation "rv" for "revert"; they may be a sock or LTA that someone here can recognize. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Similar occurrence on MissingNo. as seen here where they argued weasel words, bias and a lack of 'negative reception' while also demanding The Cutting Room Floor, a wiki, be used as a source? They're also familiar with 'deletionists' on the site too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:David Gerard and The Sun sourcesEdit

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.". Given that no actual diffs have been provided of anything that is either "urgent" or "chronic and intractable" (despite myself and others requesting it), and since the OP does not seem to have attempted any actual discussion before opening this report, I am closing it. If the OP has a problem with WP:THESUN then RSN is the place to raise it. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know The Sun is depreciated, but that doesn't mean an outright ban! I am not sure David has the health of sources in mind, because he is systematically going through and removing sources with some strange summary comments which doesn't seem to match what the source is about. At the same time, there are a few occasions when The Sun is being used as a primary source and backed up with a secondary source, however questionable the content is I feel there are some issues with how David has been going about removing these sources and handling the content on offer. I am really questioning the method of this removal and asking for a more thorough review of the situation. Reviews of movies, football matches, analysts, summaries of events, these are some of the things that have been removed. Deprecated isn't a total ban so why is he trying to remove every citation from the newspaper. I asked this before, I don't want to shop around, but I feel there are some issues that need to be addressed and to make sure certain articles are not compromised. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

1) You have failed to notify David Gerard of this thread as you are required to do by several prominent notices on this page, and 2) WP:DEPS says Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. If the Sun is being used as a primary source and it is backed up with a secondary source, then clearly other more reliable sources exist and the ref to the deprecated source should be removed. As an aside, I think you might have WP:PSTS backwards, we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. But even if the two linked articles are otherwise identical, the non-deprecated source should be used and the deprecated source should be removed. The exceptions in WP:DEPS are very narrow and generally relate to a source talking about themselves. Do you have any examples of David Gerard removing references to The Sun where one of those exceptions applies? Where did you contact them to attempt to resolve that dispute? ST47 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any diffs that show the removal of the source in contravention of WP:DEPS, the relevant policy in question. Please note that deprecated sources mean the source is not reliable and should not be trusted for just about any use at Wikipedia; removing such sources is perfectly in line with removing ANY clearly unreliable source. --Jayron32 19:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes - I was about to ask this too. I just took a flick through David's contribs and all the ones I saw were either redundant refs or were tabloid reporting. None of them seemed to meet the criteria for being kept. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Jayron32: Wrong, WP:DEPS is not a policy, not even a guideline, it has equivalent status to an essay as WP:SUPPLEMENTAL expains. David Gerard has indeed countered arguments about policies and guidelines by saying that a source is "deprecated", although I am not suggesting that a wrong edit was done for The Sun. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of having WP:RS and WP:V if we can just allow any source at all; if someone adds an unreliable source (according to your rationale) we're not allowed to remove it, ever. Can you explain that? --Jayron32 20:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Peter is completely incorrect here - his misunderstanding goes against verifiability (policy), reliable sources (strongly supported guideline) and WP:THESUN (RFC finding with strong general consensus). Adding The Sun back without an excellent reason violates WP:BURDEN, a subsection of the WP:V policy:
  1. WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.
  2. WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. The deprecation RFC for the Sun says: the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article.
  4. WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Thus: removing links to the Sun is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.
WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.
Thus: if I remove the Sun and someone reverts that removal, they have to justify that revert, as it is a new addition of a presumed-unreliable source. "I like it" or "looks OK to me" isn't really enough to overcome the strong general RFC consensus, either in edit summary or even the talk page - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't overcome a strong general consensus.
In conclusion, Govvy and Peter need to review the relevant policies, guidelines and RFC findings. - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Rather than going into what Jayron32 and David Gerard seem to think I said, I'll say what I actually said, in full, as verifiable by looking right above. Jayron32: Wrong, WP:DEPS is not a policy, not even a guideline, it has equivalent status to an essay as WP:SUPPLEMENTAL expains. Jayron32 indeed said "WP:DEPS, the relevant policy in question", and is indeed wrong, it is neither policy nor guideline as its heading shows, and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL indeed says such things, "like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Notice the total absence of a reply to that in what Jayron32 or David Gerard say. David Gerard has indeed countered arguments about policies and guidelines by saying that a source is "deprecated" ... on the page that I linked to you can see that the argument pointed to policies/guidelines as I said, and that David Gerard's counter-argument was indeed about "deprecated" as I said, click and see. Notice the total absence of a reply to that in what Jayron32 or David Gerard say. ... although I am not suggesting that a wrong edit was done for The Sun. David Gerard says that what I say "goes against" WP:THESUN, well, saying that I'm not objecting is objecting, eh? And that's all I said, statements even vaguely similar to "allow any source at all" just don't exist in the post. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Govvy says I don't want to shop around - but is doing so. In addition, it turns out the source of his upset is that he has a relative who works for The Sun.

I'd suggest this present discussion is a waste of everyone's time - but if anyone is superlatively bored, feel free to come remove deprecated sources with me! I do it as a marginally more productive use of my time than playing Angry Birds, and it definitely improves the encyclopedia. Got The Sun down to about 1500, but there's 22,000 Daily Mail links to go - but chewing through them three or ten at a time is good work and makes the world a better-informed place.

I noted this on WP:RSN, but since it's been brought up here, it's worth mentioning again: In my now-considerable experience of the sort of claims The Sun is actually used to cite on Wikipedia, such links generally warrant a {{cn}} at best, or removal of the claim. References to The Sun are generally:

  1. redundant to existing cites
  2. citing quirky and eye-catching information that can't be verified anywhere else, probably because The Sun made it up
  3. tabloid gossip about BLP material, which will usually warrant straight-up removal under WP:BLP, or a {{cn}} if it looks uncontroversial
  4. early-life BLP claims that can't be verified in an RS - same treatment
  5. Past WP:CRYSTAL, often failed, about pop stars, TV stars or soap operas - remove
  6. Sun-only-sourced inflammatory stories about ethnic minorities, which should generally just be removed
  7. football scores, which are almost universally replaceable per the RFC.

That's not all of it, but that's most of it.

The Daily Mail is much the same, with an extra line in unusually-contrived sports statistics, which in science would be called "p-hacking".

You would probably believe how defensive Sun defenders get - including the one who we saw at WP:AN late last year, who was edit-warring back in controversial BLP claims that were sourced to literally a dead link, and loudly asserted that The Sun was a top-notch source for the subject because it was about sport therefore was wrong to remove, and berated me for my clear incompetence in not letting him keep his literally nonexistent reference.

One interesting issue with The Sun is that they changed their website layout a few years ago - so there's a vast number of Sun references that were dead links, any URL with /sol/ in it. The claims are literally unsourced already. Only some of this content was ported over to the new site - but I'm certainly not going to lift a finger to find a replacement Sun link to insert, and in any case doing so would fail WP:BURDEN. Replacing with a {{cn}} is literally not changing anything, just stopping us pretending to have a cite when we don't.

Quite a lot of the people objecting recently to my Sun removals are objecting, and sometimes revert-warring, over "cites" that don't work at all. Editors who aggressively defend The Sun are, IME, loud roughly in proportion to their misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I should note - all of these edits are made by hand in Firefox. You can tell by the occasional broken reference. I make mistakes, and I'm grateful to the editors who fix them. If you want to ask about any particular edit, I'm happy to explain what I was thinking, or go "sorry, that was my mistake". But in practice, I've been getting thanks for my deprecated source removals, and I think they get reverted less than my other edits - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard: Re: "references that were dead links" … "The claims are literally unsourced already" — from WP:KDL: Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with {{dead link}} for a long time. — content with dead-link sources generally isn't considered the same as unsourced content, as I understand it. There's a case to be made against that practice (and in my opinion working to put Sun refs in the bin is also quite sensible) but just thought I'd point it out. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|TalkContributions 23:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
oh, absolutely - as that notes, it "may" be useful, and in this case the only information the dead link conveys is that it's The Sun and therefore we're claiming a source that shouldn't be used in the first place - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

I am edit warring a bit, see Talk:Race_and_intelligence#RevertsEdit

Check it out if you are interested. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate well orchestrated tactics to spread pov and fringe theories.Edit

Hi, I would like to report a group of people who deliberately spread pov and fringe theories to undermine the Encyclopedia. The IP 2601:405:4A00:75F0:AC96:7624:1296:CA55 recently vandalised Wikipedia and I reverted the vandalism but the Land of Punt vandalism was not reverted, this was the second time this happened and editor Doug Weller using it. The tactics are not only vandalism 1 and 2 they also use stalking, threats of report, stonewalling, repeated edits meant to make editing very difficult for others to improve the Encyclopedia and probably others. I would like the committee to revert that vandalism as mainstream scholarship and science locate Punt in the Horn of Africa and do something about their tactics which undermine the improvement of the Encyclopedia. Thank you.Dalhoa (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to the IP who told me about this thread. There's clearly no vandalism here but a content dispute coupled with lack of good faith and personal attacks by User:Dalhoa. When they reverted sourced material at Land of Punt I started a discussion at WP:RSN#Are these apparently reputable Egyptologists used at Land of Punt fringe? where it was agreed that at least some of the material he calls fringe was well sourced. I commented there that I thought this was a POV problem, pointing to two ANI discussions starated by User:Skllagyook.[50] and [51] - note the focus on the Horn of Africa. Dalhoa, although notified and indeed urged to take part in both ANI and RSN discussions did not. I'm pinging User:EdJohnston who tried to get Dalhoa to reply to the ANI discussion and User:Flyer22 Reborn who also participated there. I rose some conduct issues at the 2nd ANI discussion which I'll repeat below:
"I see some conduct issues here. At Talk:Horn of Africa Dalhoa created Talk:Horn of Africa#Jebel Irhoud in Morocco obsession (the title itself is not civil) and accused Skllagyook of promoting/favoring a particular region. They accused User:Nezahaulcoyotl of the same thing although he hasn't edited the article although he did edit Jebel Irhoud in Sept/Oct. here they accuse Skllagyook of bias and lack of objectivity. Then Dalhoa (who I just noted has made only 215 edits) wrote "Your changes are not in good faith, your are mixing deliberately the fossils and spreading inaccurate and erroneous information around. The only reason you wanted to keep that section is because the article mentions Morocco and the dating coincides with your Jebel Irhoud dates, you were not adding it to mention East Africa and South Africa coalescence, the quote I added from your academic paper mentions coalescence of South and East-African source populations but you are not interested in that," and more in the same vein until the thread stopped in November. Dalhoa then started a new thread asking "if there are any Editors/Administrators doing editings in the background?" and then "If there are Admins with their own political agenda using this page as their playground we need to know." This seems to be about an accusation that the history of the article had been tampered with. Admin User:Maile66 tried to explain the protection but their explanation wasn't accepted.
This month there have been similar problems at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans. Here Dalhoa accuses Skllagyook of stalking and deliberately spreading misinformation. Then here[52] of spreading misinformation and "clearing(which seems to be a typo for "clearly" attempts to inhibit accurate information,". Further examples of this sort of comment followed but I won't bore people with them. ... Doug Weller talk 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If you look at User talk:Dalhoa you'll find continued personal attacks on editors and lack of good faith and at least one more example of him calling an editor vandal when User:Arminden made this edit.[53] Looking at Dalhoa's edit summaries you can see he uses the accusation of vandalism for content disputes several times.[54] Doug Weller talk 10:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The Land of Punt talk page was archived today for the first time for some reason but if you go look at the archive you would find that it is you using the word fringe for Sri Lanka and then it is added as a location along side Arabia, indeed both are fringe and they should not be there, I am not a lawyer, I am just trying to improve the Encyclopedia using mainstream scholarship and science, pov and fringe theories should not be promoted through vandalism or any other tactics to misinforme the users. Dalhoa (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you need to review how Wikipedia defines vandalism, specifically what is not vandalism. This appears to be a content dispute that others have made attempts to resolve, some ongoing. Throwing around the word "vandalism" when the edits clearly are not vandalism is disruptive in itself. You may also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
And I've made it clear to him that I'm not particularly concerned about Sri Lanka, but but reliable sources do discuss Arabia, whether or not they think it's the likeliest location is beside the point. But my main point is Dalhoa's personal attacks - his battleground attitude makes it impossible to have a collegial discussion and he seems unwilling to compromise or unable to understand our policies. If this continues I think he'll need a topic ban from articles discussing the Horn of Africa, which seems to be his passion. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Doug with all due respect I've had a collegial discussion with Skllagyook but it deteriorated with his pov pushing of Jebel Irhoud and even now if you try to make any change in a line in any Wikipedia page around that topic you are hounded down, you are doing the same thing as Skllagyook and pushing a pov not supported by mainstream scholarship and science and please people need to stop making threats and character assassination with boomerang and others, as for Arminden edit, if I had written in the Jebel Irhoud wiki things like For supporters of the concept that Jebel Irhoud represents .... I would have probably gotten a warning on my wiki page. I think people need to accept at certain point mainstream scholarship and science and not pushing pov. If you want to say Punt had trades with Arabia in the Horn of Africa section I have no objection, you can even say they had trade with Sri Lanka or even mention the spice trade but people need to accept mainstream scholarship and science and stop pov pushing Arabia and other places as location. Dalhoa (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
There's the problem again, accusing me of pov pushing for suggesting that the various locations that have been suggested in reliable academic sources should be mentioned in the article - not as the definite location, simply as suggestions made in the past. Meeks is a reliable source but looking at it further we need statements such as this quote "Based on the textual evidence, other recent suggestions about the location of the land of Punt include Kenya (Wicker 1998) and Arabia (Meeks 2003), but there are problems with these arguments (see Kitchen 2004: 29—30)." But that depends on Dalhoa dropping the stick. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Again with all due, if everyone uses the reliable source claim to insert a fringe or minority view in articles then it would create a dangerous precedence, it is the reason WP:NPOV has the word significant in it: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Dalhoa (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have warned Dalhoa on their page that they will be blocked if they post any further aspersions and personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
@Dalhoa: I don't know what you think "significant" means. Could you explain if, for instance, Meeks' view on the Arabian Peninsula is significant in your eyes and if not, why not? Doug Weller talk 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Meeks view is fringe on the topic, the only reason his is kept on the wiki is because there is a bias for the Middle East, Kathryn A. Bard and Rodolfo Fattovicht looked at all the sources including Meeks and they concluded that a location of Punt in southern Arabia seems less probable. If people want to claim his view is significant for Arabia and the Levant they can maybe create a Disambiguation page for a Land of Punt in the Middle East and cite Meeks but when it comes to the topic at hand, mainstream scholarship and science put the Land of Punt in HoA and Kathryn and Rodolfo in their 2018 book Egyptian Seafaring Expeditions and the Land of Punt: Long-distance Trade in the Red Sea during the Middle Kingdom confirm that again as per the consensus. Dalhoa (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing CSD tagsEdit

Indeffed by Ad Orientem. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t c) 10:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seanopegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sofidelonia has been tagged CSD several times as a hoax. The creator keeps removing the tags and blanking their talk page. MB 02:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, i already write in the top that my article is not real (From The Creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanopegs (talkcontribs) 02:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed. Page deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

US school buses have been hidden from search engines without discussion.Edit

Google's tardiness in picking up a page move did not, in fact, result in the end of civilisation as we know it, much to the relief of all concerned. Guy (help!) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know how to explain this or if it goes here. I am doing this fast because 500+ a day US viewers have lost access to an important page. I am notifying the editors involved but they haven't had time to reply yet.

At 04:20, 17 January 2020 "School bus" was deliberately US/Canada subject specific. It was about operating US./Canada school buses in the US/Canada. No other countries. It was getting 500+ views a day. There was a "worldwide view" flag that I should have removed. The problem is the name of the article, the article itself is excellent.

The article has been made effectively invisible. Without a move discussion it was moved so that anybody in the United States who searches for "School bus" gets nothing. The United States is the major user of "School buses" and we can't find them. Who would search for "School buses in North America"?

This controversial move should have had a Request for move and should be reverted until that happens. Thank you.

Edited in for clarity: Should this move have been made like this? If not can we go back to a stable version and then talk about it? Sammy D III (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If I type "school bus" in the search box, the second result I see is "School buses in North America" (the new name of the article about which you complain), so it's hardly invisible and nobody has lost access. "School bus by country" is in first place (and that shows clearly that it's really not a specific US thing). Also, looking at the page views, I don't see anything close to 500 views per day before the move (just an average of 3 per day over the past 90 days). Oh, and finally, this really doesn't look like an admin issue to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(It looks like the page views thing might just check by title and not the actual history of the article, so strike that part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC))
Thank you for your time. If I click on "School Busses in North America" I get "School bus by country" which has nothing on the US. Are you looking at the page views for "School bus" before the name change? I got over 500 on "Bus" and 50+ on "by country. I might be wrong, but I think you missed the name-change.
I don't know where to go. This move wouldn't fly on the talk page for years so somebody tried to slide it through the back door. Sammy D III (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Just type "School bus" in the search box and you'll see results pop up, then click the "School buses in North America" one (in second place for me). It does seem strange that School bus by country doesn't have a link to the US one - perhaps you could add such a link? Oh, and please assume good faith and don't go accusing people of nefarious actions like "tried to slide it through the back door". Anthony Appleyard is a very experienced editor and admin and is absolutely not the kind of person to perform bad faith actions as you seem to be accusing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If I click on "School Busses in North America" I get "School bus by country". Could that be the difference between the US and where you are? Do the search engines work differently?
A controversial move was made without any discussion. I have no idea who did what, I know that the move was made without discussion and it was in fact contested.
Sorry, I'm really not trying to argue, I am trying to get a discussion before a complicated move is (was) made. I think it should go back until discussed. Again, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to contest the page move, Wikipedia:Move review is always an option for you. I also linked the page to School bus by country#North America as the main article on the subject for that section. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Pinging Sammy D III because I forgot to do so in my reply. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, a more apt question to ask is have you discussed the page move issue with the editor that moved the article? That's as good of a place to start as any. OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I think I see part of what Sammy D III is concerned about. When I do a web search for "School Bus" (not through Wikipedia's search bar, but another search engine), the search results provide two links: one to School buses in North America and another to School bus by country. Clicking on "School buses in North America" leads to a redirect for "School bus," which for some reason has been pointed at "School bus by country."
So, "School bus" itself no longer exists and the URLs that used to lead to that article, the content of which is currently in "School buses in North America," now lead to "School bus by country."
I don't think my opinion here is particularly important, but I do agree the quick changes requested without discussion have led to an entirely confusing outcome. It looks like the person who made the requested change started a discussion on "School buses in North America" (formerly "School bus") about merging the two articles in question, and then quickly went on to make the request for the move when one editor objected to the merge. Not sure how "School bus" got redirected to "School bus by country" though, and I don't know Wikipedia's tools/procedures well enough to find that out.
So this is really more than simply about a page move, but involves an entirely confusing redirect, along with the smallest hint of Talk page discussion that seems to have been quickly left behind.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Disregard "quickly"; there were a few days between the last comment in the discussion and the move request.--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Re: "Not sure how "School bus" got redirected to "School bus by country" though". It looks like the original "School bus" article was moved to School buses in North America without leaving a redirect, then School bus was recreated as a redirect to School bus by country. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
In the United States every two-year-old points and says "Mama, school bus" as they watch them load. It is just so ingrained, part of the culture. Sammy D III (talk)`
What am I missing? This move is opposed and was made without consensus. Without much discussion at all. Aren't we supposed to talk about things before we make major changes that are opposed? Is it impossible to just go back and do it right? Sammy D III (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: My point was, the URLs for "School bus" - which up until yesterday-ish pointed to the same page of content that it has for years - now points to another page of content, and that change was made without discussion. It seems to me a more reasonable redirect procedure would be for the older URL to redirect to the newer URL (hence the term "redirect"). Or, at the very least, pointed to a far less-confusing disambiguation page as suggested by Boing! said Zebedee.--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: The move was a controversial move and should not have been requested by QuadColour at WP:RM/TR. Sammy D III (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard, and yet, it looks like another editor changed that "School bus" redirect from "School buses in North America" to "School bus by country." Which is one of the issues Sammy D III brought here to discuss: this decision was one of a few made without a discussion. For me, that the page was moved without discussion was concerning, but not especially so. But that the prior "School bus" URL no longer redirected to the same content but instead something else entirely is much more of an issue, because it really goes against what a URL redirect is for. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Pinchme123: Sorry, that was me. I boldly changed the redirect because I felt redirecting to the North America article presented a bit of a bias as it was, but I accidentally logged out when I did it. Given that my redirect was in question, I went ahead and reverted myself, until consensus can be properly determined. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@OhKayeSierra: I can see you changed the redirect at "School buses," but it was @Davey2010: who changed it for "School bus." [diff]
Is it inappropriate to boldly revert a redirect change and request discussion? I honestly don't know and don't want to piss a bunch of people off by doing it.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC) should have included the diff for the redirect change at "School bus."--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on this one way or the other, but I think that it might be better if this thread is moved to a talk page to determine the consensus and how best to move forward. Personally, I think that disambiguating "school bus" is going to be the quickest and simplest solution here. But, as it stands, trying to hash things out on AN/I is only going to create a muddle IMHO. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ANI? REALLY??? EEng 07:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    Well, Wikipedia encourages users to be bold, so I was. I hope me reverting the School bus redirect back to be pointed at "School buses in North America" doesn't anger anyone. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    Look, I know everyone thinks of their pet article as the most important in the universe, but it's hard to see a temporary obscuring of an article on school buses worth pushing the panic button over. EEng 07:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

THIS IS SO OFF-TOPIC. My question was should this move have been made and if not can we go back to the last stable version and talk on it's talk page again?? This move has been opposed for years. I think most of this stuff should go on that talk page.

Wow!!! After all this time it looks good in a couple of hours. Who cares what my topic was, the end results work. Sorry if I was a pain. Thank you everybody. Sammy D III (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


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

For the most part, the worldwide issue in question has been brought up over for at least 12 years now and a general consensus has been reached into the article wording; it has also led to the creation of the School buses by country article (which has nearly doubled in size since its creation). While the move was made through proper channels (making a request)

I have never seen any recommendation to moving or renaming the article and the current move was done with nearly no discussion. While the move was made through a request (the proper channels), this was definitely a controversial move instead of an uncontroversial one. Over the past 12 years, the worldwide view issue has followed the article (not going to make a thread out of that); it has lead to the creation of School buses by country, split from the article. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • As someone who's currently locked heads with someone over the School bus redirect I have to say this move really should have been declined - Having School bus with North America content only isn't ideal but imho it would've been better to have had a discussion/rfc on it and its redirects, It would've avoided the redirect back and fourth reverting and it would've avoided this report, That being said Anthony does a lot of moves and exercises caution with them all so understandably (imho) mistakes will happen from time to time. –Davey2010Talk 11:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Does it work as it is now? Sammy D III (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 uncivil and rudeEdit

I would have been happy to let this go but the editor has tripled down on their rude and uneccessarily crude behavior.

School Bus has suddenly become a hot topic.

It started with diff:[[55]], which while not policy breaking was a tad rude.

I reverted back here diff: [56] , explaining why it should be temporarily pointed to the North American page and opened a talk page discussion diff: [57]

That earned me diff: [58], followed by diff: [59] on the talk page.

And for full disclosure my comment from the Technical thread diff:[60]

Long Time Active Editors do not get some special pass to be rude. Especially when the cleanup of the 3 involved pages will take some work. Slywriter (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Well at least this isn't another thread about school buses. Oh, wait... yes it is. No, it can't be. I must be dreaming. Impossible. EEng 01:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    A cyclical process of Hegelian proportions. Viz: THE WHEELS ON THE BUS GO ROUND AND ROUND... ——SN54129 01:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Serial Number 54129, hahaha. That made me laugh out loud. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 01:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. All I asked about was stopping one bogus move and the circus came to town. Very little of this is about just reverting the move and going to Talk. It seemed so simple... Sammy D III (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. Truly. Slywriter (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: Your behaviour here was well into uncivil territory - Please avoid being so bizzarely aggressive in future, even when interacting with users who disagree with you. Additionally; both you and Slywriter should both probably have a re-read of WP:BRD before diving back into this. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 01:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Will re-read though considering opening the discussion caused this, not really sure what issue you see on my part Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess creating nonsense reports passes the time whilst we all wait for the outcome at WP:RM#TR, I've become increasingly frustrated with the school bus redirect and the fact it was redirecting to an American-only article even tho the term is used worldwide, I stood by the edit summary and made no further reply to the other editor ... but ofcourse Sly had to jump in and essentially start unnecessary drama (although you could argue I started the drama by my choice of language). –Davey2010Talk 02:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I was here before WP:RM#TR. To try to stop a bogus move. If that move hadn't been made, if we were on the Talk page... Sammy D III (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Akshara ReddyEdit

Deva Sangeeth (talk · contribs · count)

This article is not ready for mainspace (ie. Shouting, empty sections, ect...). I moved it to draftspace and the user moved it back. Not what or if anything can/will be done. The user account is over 4 years old with 128 edits, but the editing pattern is that of a newbie. Just want to bring this to some admin's attention. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also the editor is editwarring over infobox images with no proof of permissions. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Masquerading user pages as articles: continuedEdit

This is a continuation of this previous request.[61]

User is still creating accounts with userpages disguised as genuine articles. They attempted to insert a link for one of the previously created userpages into an article so as to mislead readers (as they had done previously).[62] Later did the same with an article draft regarding a fictitious event.[63]

I believe the three above accounts are created by the same person since all of them have edited this draft.[64][65][66]
Alivardi (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: You might want to file at WP:SPI. They are better suited for this sort of thing and have magic glasses.-- Deepfriedokra 12:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with it now. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Block of User:MikaelaArsenault on Terry JonesEdit

I have just blocked MikaelaArsenault (talk · contribs) from Terry Jones after they continually changed his date of death without any source or edit summary, despite being reverted by multiple editors. I did this because the article is being updated rapidly (as you might expect from a very famous person who has recently died) and their edits are trampling over others right now. As I have been editing the article to clean it up, I would consider myself WP:INVOLVED, and hence I am bringing the block here for review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Auntie has it now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51209197
It does piss me off when people race to be the first to add a death to Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: They're called WikiJackals. Narky Blert (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I dont see why "People rushing to update wikipedia" can be a problem, we actually want people to edit. If they are doing so without sources or edit warring then it is a separate problem and that problem should be addressed. DBigXray 14:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray, because we keep getting edit wars with unsubstantiated rumours that persist for half a day or a day and then finally the announcement comes from a reliable source. Guy (help!) 16:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the block is OK, but I would have preferred a direct warning before blocking. Letting the user self-correct their behavior by telling them they will be blocked is always preferable to just blocking them. They were clearly in violation of WP:EW, and it looks like they went over the 3RR limit, so technically the block is fine; I don't think we have any reason to unblock them yet. However, you SHOULD add the block template to their talk page so they know how to properly request an unblock. If I were the one doing this, I would have warned first, but I also don't think there's any reason to unblock them as yet. --Jayron32 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, this is a partial block from that article only. In other words, they can come to this thread and appeal, as well on their talk page. By "block template", if you mean Template:uw-block, that is not appropriate because they are not site blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
They have more than exceeded WP:3RR. While I have also, the BLP exception applies on my part. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that it is a partial block. Yes, then they can come and appeal. Have you yet notified them of this discussion, so they may do so? --Jayron32 14:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yup. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"Now, you listen here, Threesie! You're not the Messiah. You're a very naughty boy!" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Since it looks like we're still shaking out the partial block policy - it would be helpful to have a partial block warning template (per the Jayron32/Ritchie333 discussion above) to formally notify editors of the block. I can slap something together this evening if nobody wants to do it sooner. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
QEDK has put together Template:Uw-pblock. It's not quite ready for prime time yet; the page parameter doesn't seem to work - in this case I want to write "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours from Terry Jones". The reference to WP:GAB is misleading, as is the suggestion to appeal on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, wasn't aware of that - I'll have a look and see if I can help get it working as expected. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Just use the |area= parameter and put in all the kind of blocks imposed (so the template will read: blocked from <area paramter content here>). I never got around to updating the documentation (my bad), but the rest of template is wired to work on the functionality per {{Uw-block}}, hence also, the GAB links and the suggestion. --qedk (t c) 15:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a good example of sensible use of partial blocks.Deb (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not too keen to use partial blocks until Twinkle let's me, to be frank. That doesn't mean I won't, but the extra work... Doug Weller talk 15:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, May be you can make a request at WP:TWINKLE. This can be of good use and I am sure you are not the only admin not using it due to the extra work. DBigXray 15:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
A request to add functionality to Twinkle is here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
And User:Amorymeltzer has responded to a request at WP:TWINKLE. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Should be up in a day or two. ~ Amory (utc) 16:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"We must respect the historical sources" mantraEdit

Use dispute resolution and accompanying requests to resolve your (various) dispute(s), please. El_C 21:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mikola22 for some reason is sure that he is allowed to edit warring if he endlessly repeats “We must respect historical sources” or something like that: [67] [68] [69] [70]. And he just repeats the same thing on the Talk Page: [71].--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you here to work in good faith then it would not be a mantra. On the talk page you came up with one word as a problem. If is information from the historian's book or scientific paper then we have to respect it. If you have any problem feel free to bring it out on talk page. I don't even know why you are editing this article because you did more edits for no purpose which could be interpreted as vandalism. Let's respect the sources and discuss each issue at talk page. Why you bother people with irrelevant things. Mikola22 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
On the talk page you came up with one word as a problem. - Anyone can check this statement (diff) and decide whether there is "good faith" in Mikola’s words.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears there are two issues here. The first is that neither editor is a native speaker of English, which makes it a bit difficult to understand each of the parties. (And I expect this makes it more difficult for each to understand the other.) Otherwise, I have no reason to doubt both are editing in good faith.
The second issue is that a primary source is cited here -- a census performed in 1712 -- which presents a challenge in interpretation. Normally there is little problem with citing a primary source: historians prefer them over secondary sources because one is reading an account that is more reliable & less filtered than what a secondary source provides, & often provides facts clearly to all readers. However, every primary source has portions that is problematic, & this appears to be the case with this 1712 census. I will not go into the details -- for one thing, I'm no expert in Balkan history beyond knowing that ethnic-based strife has existed there for centuries -- but instead of fighting over what the 1712 census means (& both have violated the WP:3RR rule), what needs to be done is to find a reliable secondary source that explicates this portion of the census. Or -- & this would be the simpler solution -- both should drop this dispute & find other articles to work on. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest! I want to clarify my position. The article already has a secondary source. It is in Croatian, but it is available online and I can check it. This source analyzes in detail the census of 1712/1714 and there is, among other things, information on Smiljan. In this paper of Croatian historian, part of the population of Smiljan is quite directly called the Serbian Orthodox minority. If it is necessary to conduct any talk of what is "actually" written in the primary source - I would send all this to a footnote. Obviously, this is out of WP:WEIGHT to the article on the village.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The book of Austrian historian is reliable secondary source and he mentions the Orthodox Vlachs or Schismatics Vlachs members of the Greek church. The Croatian source(paper) also mentions Vlachs ie Schismatische Wallachen but he calls this Schismatische Wallachen as Serbian Orthodox Vlachs. Since the book of the Austrian historian does not mentione Serbian Orthodox Vlachs we must also specify that original record mentione Schismatische Wallachen, both sources cite this. For another group of people Bunjevci is used term Catholic Vlachs and today they are Croats but this must be written in an article which talks about them. This is history, there is no extra reliable secondary source. It is a Vlach population which migrates to one part of Croatia. Sources call these people Vlachs Catholics and Schismatische Wallachen etc and they are called that in the book of Austrian historian. You can come to the talk page if you you want and we'll edit the article together. Mikola22 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was talking about - all this shit should be discussed in a footnote.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
You cannot put the history of some people and a village in footnote. This is some citation from Bunjevac article "In 1788 the first Austrian population census was conducted – it called Bunjevci Illyrians and their language the Illyrian language. It listed 17,043 Illyrians in Subotica. In 1850 the Austrian census listed them under Dalmatians and counted 13,894 Dalmatians in the city... Austro-Hungarian censuses from 1869 onward to 1910 numbered the Bunjevci distinctly. They were referred to as "bunyevácok" or "dalmátok" (in the 1890 census)." It is historical information that is significant, this information will probably not be put in footnote. These are facts from the history of some region and its population. Mikola22 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
You cannot put the history of some people and a village in footnote. -- What a beautiful Straw man.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nicoljaus Mikola22 Stop arguing here. ANI is not a place to discuss content. The bottom line here: you need to keep discussing the issue at the talkpage. If that fails, use Dispute resolution. Oh, and don't edit war, either of you, regardless of whether you think its justified. Making more than three reverts in 24 hours will get you blocked. And don't make personal attacks. If you can't keep civil about it, just don't edit the page, or ask for dispute resolution before it gets to that point. I will try to chime in at the talk page to see if that can't help smooth things along. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. We are waiting for you. Mikola22 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Tmayerferg101 Part IIEdit

RESOLVED
User blocked for a month, a return to the same behavior will lead to an indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This disruptive user was brought to ANI previously by myself but sadly due to inactivity, the report was archived. Now 3 months later this person continues with their unsourced additions to Depeche Mode articles despite a multitude of final warnings on their talk page, personal pleas by other editors such as SnapSnap to refrain and to date shows zero indication that they ever intend to communicate. Please could an admin look into this. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one month, pending a response to any concerns on their talk page. Any admin can unblock once the user acknowledges the problems. Notably, the user has zero edits outside of the article space, and has never communicated with anyone ever. If they fix that, anyone can unblock early. If after the block expires, they return to the same issues, drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll reinstate the block. --Jayron32 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated Jayron32, Robvanvee 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Pederasty trolling - possible LTA?Edit

6 month IP block placed by El_C for one of the few viewpoints that is completely non-compatible with Wikimedia. Specific note that any future instances are to be handled by sitewide blocks. Good riddance. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do these edits look familiar to anyone? I don't follow the pro-kiddie porn trolls much. Guy (help!) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you only enacted a partial block from a specific set of articles; I would have simply blocked them from all editing; pedophile advocates are not compatible with collaborative editing at Wikipedia writ large. Wikipedia:Child protection recommends such users are permanently blocked from the project. --Jayron32 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jayron32, fair Guy (help!) 19:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Leucosticte, maybe? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I went with a 3-month sitewide block, which as lenient as I could stomach (lenient in terms of mitigating other individuals who may end up using the IP, that is). Simply put, these users are not welcome on the project and the risk of missing an article in a partial block is too great to wager on. The reputation of the project is at stake when it comes to how (unequivocally) we deal with these sort of users. El_C 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Leucosticte. El_C, it is a static IP and the editor has been on it since at least August 8. No one else is using that IP and no named accounts were on it. You could double that block time based on his persistence there and I would support it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Understood and   Done. El_C 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Adenekanfauziyah reported by Ar2332Edit

  Moved from WP:AIV: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Adenekanfauziyah (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) I became aware of this editor today when they "fixed" a [citation needed] with a source that looked superficially reasonably, but in reality had nothing to do with the topic at hand, in a way that only an expert familiar with the material would be aware. I looked at this editor's history, and a high fraction of their edits seem to have been reverted, and of those that remain, some of the ones on non-Nigerian topics seem to be questionable in the same way as the one that I had to revert. It is not quite clear to me if this editor is making their problematic edits in good faith, or else is a particularly subtle troll. Either way, I think their edits need to be checked en masse by someone familiar with the topics at hand, and the misleading ones removed. Ar2332 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Pauley PerretteEdit

More eyes are needed at this talk page for an actress who tweeted what I see as an ambiguous comment about asexuality. The most lengthy and contentious section by far is "Coming out on Twitter" but the controversy is discussed in other sections as well. I am being accused by Neutralhomer of an overly strict interpretation of BLP policy and would appreciate feedback here and input on that talk page. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't say overly strict, but more wearing blinders. But more eyes are needed....lots more! - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:49 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • As expected, Cullen is correct at Talk:Pauley Perrette. Apparently the article subject tweeted "Aces, it is actually me" and the tweet was used to reference "Perrette came out as asexual on Twitter on January 20, 2020" (diff). If a secondary source comments on the significance of the tweet, information on that might be added. Sorry to those who believe aces is unambiguous but Wikipedia needs a reference that does not need interpretation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq, So we can't use sources that say 'ace'? They have to say 'asexual'? Adam9007 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Now, maybe I will get an answer to this this time: Ms. Perrette followed 11 asexual accounts on Twitter extremely recently. She has "Ace" in her bio. "Ace", not "Aces" is a common slang term for "Asexual". With that, and using WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V, is that enough? - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
Not to be overly bureaucratic, but shouldn't this go to WP:BLPN first, this does not appear to be a chronic and intractable problem. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
shouldn't this go to WP:BLPN first it has been. Adam9007 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Adam9007: So naturally in addition to being the wrong forum, the discussion is now being forked between at least three different locations, seems like a good idea. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
An admin action on a fully protected article was taken (to remove a category). That is why this discussion was started. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
meh, disputes over admin actions needn't automatically come here, often concerns can be resolved on a user-talk page. Admins do of course sometimes post to have their own actions reviewed by others for propriety when contentious, but usually that is done at WP:AN, I know, I know, bureaucracy. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So, copy the thread over to AN (or BLPN) if you want, IP editor. I am asking for feedback and I think my request is legitimate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen (twice in one night, I'm as shocked as you are), can we just stick to one forum and go with it please? - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, more moving would just make this worse at this point, it was more a general observation for future reference. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the editing through full-protection in the BLP context to restore a pre WP:EW version, no opinion on the merits of the content dispute itself. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It is at a pre-edit version now. Just so everyone knows, the page is available to be edited. It is not page protected. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:57 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm done for the night, if anyone has questions or concerns for me, I will be back up after 12 Noon EST (I work tomorrow, 1/23). I will check this page and respond to what I can before I leave. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:05 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behaviour at 2020 Irish general electionEdit

This case pertains to users Bastun and Wikimucker.

To put things within context: this initially started out as a content dispute on 14 January when, right after the date for the 2020 Irish general election was confirmed, Iveagh Gardens and Number 57 boldly attempted to split the opinion polling section into a separate article, as is standard for election articles throughout Wikipedia (diff1 diff2). This was twice reverted by Bastun (diff3 diff4), under the only grounds that these had to remain in the main article "until the election is over" but without providing any sensible reason why. The issue rose up again on 20 January when a third uninvolved user, Aréat, attempted to remove the information from the main article to avoid repetition (diff5). Wikimucker then reverted them on the grounds that not all polls were in the sub article (diff6). Aréat then promptly went to update the sub article to fix the issue (diff7 diff8) but they got reverted again by Wikimucker, this time under a different reason, calling to "Seek consensus before removing this". Both parties attempted to engage a discussion on the issue at the talk page (diff10 diff11). So far, seven people have intervened in the discussion(s) (counting both #Opinion Polls. Main Article or not. and #Polls table: the aforementioned five users, as well as Bondegezou and myself. A clear consensus has emerged in favour of the split (which received unanimous support from all involved users), the main point of friction being the "when": Bastun and Wikimucker pleaded for the split to wait until the election was held, whereas all others saw no reason for this to be delayed (this is, a 5:2 consensus).

However, and despite there now being a clear consensus, both Bastun and Wikimucker have seemingly taken a scorched earth-policy where they would simply team up to keep reverting any attempt to implement such consensus (diff12 diff13) while threatening anyone who opposes them (diff14 diff15). Bastun in particular has adopted an aggressive ownership behaviour in the article, which is revealed by claims such as "It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks", "this reader, and plenty of others would would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days", and threatening with edit warring should anyone try to implement the reached consensus, in what seems to constitute an overall WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Worth noting, in particular, is the 3RR warning issued by Bastun to Aréat (diff19), allegedly on the basis that "we're supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR"; this comes in clear contrast to Bastun's own approach towards Wikimucker, who did actually breach 3RR (revert1 revert2 revert3 revert4) yet received not a single warning from them; probably because they were just enforcing Bastun's version of the article. Further, they have both persistently accused others of WP:TE without any evidence, just because of disagreeing with them (diff21 diff22).

Bastun has also been trying to bog down the process by resorting to wikilawyering and unnecessary bureaucratization, arguing that the split was done "out of process" in the first place because of not abiding to WP:PROSPLIT (diff23 diff24). This is not true: PROSPLIT allows for any split to be done boldly if criteria for splitting are met (in this case, opinion polls account for 2/3 of the article so it seems reasonable) and no discussion is required (considering that this is customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia and even in previous Irish election articles, I understand that Iveagh Gardens acted with the sincere conviction that no discussion was required when they created the sub article). Bastun has also repeteadly called for deleting the sub article only to have it re-created within 17 days (diff25 diff26), in what seems an unnecessary waste of everyone's time and effort responding only to their personal wishes. Ironically though, they are seeking such a deletion out of process themselves, as they were asked to open an AfD if they seriously thought the article should be deleted, to no avail.

Finally, both Bastun and Wikimucker have adopted a somewhat mocking and personal behaviour on me almost right from the beginning of my intervention in the discussion, just because of me asking for respect to consensus and to the other involved users: firstly, with unfair accusations of text-walling (in a clear case of WP:COTD), then with some random and entirely unnecessary mocking (diff29 diff30 diff31), and now the revelation that they may be acting like this because of some personal grudge on me from some discussion that took place three years ago (diff32). This despite repeated pleas and warnings from myself for this personal behaviour to stop (diff33 diff34 diff35 diff36).

I'm inclined to step down from the discussion because the content case has been made and because they are getting it so personal as to make it uncomfortable, but this does not preclude the fact that the 2020 Irish general election article has been hijacked by two people who are preventing any third party from making any significative or substantial modification that does not go their way. I am basically asking for input on what to do here and how to unlock this behavioural-based stalemate. Impru20talk 12:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my opinion; what should have been a simple and short discussion about whether the opinion poll table should be moved to a separate article (as is done for virtually all elections) has turned rather nasty, largely due to the unreasonable attitude of the two editors Impru20 highlights. At the point the discussion reached a reasonably clear consensus (5 in favour, 2 against), Bastun made the claim that proceeding with the change would be WP:TE. I'm not sure if any action is required beyond a reminder about conduct, but it would certainly help to have some more eyes on the article to prevent further reverts. Number 57 12:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Bastun has reverted it again and is suggesting the content to be split into a page under a different title than the one already existing (something which could be accomplished through a mere move; they are obviously not moving it because they don't care about the title, all they want is to delay the enforcement of consensus until their preferred date). We can officially add WP:POINT and WP:GAME to the list of ongoing policy breaches. Impru20talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, Impru20 thinks I am to be available 24/7 to read and parse huge walls of text and to compy with their wishes about how I follow processes (or not), while they simultaneously admonish me for issuing a 3RR warning to someone who had reverted three times (and made no other contributions to the page).
This is possibly related to Impru's last time spent on the page, some 3 years ago, where they had to be warned to stay off Wikimucker's talk page (and refused to do so) and I was subject to battleground behaviour and walls of text, akin to what is happening now (where they have added some 19k to the talk page in less than 24 hours, but no substantive content in approximately 3 years). The bottom line is the page was split, without preserving or noting the page history, just over 2 weeks out from the election to which the polls refer. The current placement interferes not at all with the page - the section is at the bottom of the article so if someone doesn't want to see the poll information, they can just stop reading. I asked that if the page was going to be split that a proper discussion take place and process be followed. Apparently less than 24 hours discussion and only 7 people participating, with no notice on any related articles or projects, is enough to satisfy Impru's railroading. Frankly, I'm at work, and don't have time to respond to the above wall, so this will have to do. FWIW, I've added the appropriate split template to the article now and will notify involved users and appropriate pages/projects in a few hours. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear; all of your behaviour during the last days is based on a personal grudge you have on me! I intervened in the discussion in good faith. I obviously do not have to ask you for any permission to do so, nor does the fact that I haven't become involved in the article within the last three years give you any leverage or superior right over my own opinions. It was you who kept ignoring my arguments, keeping attacking me and mocking me to the point of stress just because you couldn't get consensus your way. You have even accused others of WP:TE just because of their arguing in favour of the enforcement of consensus, and you do not have the "three years ago" excuse there.
Nonetheless, I remind you of WP:UNCIVIL: to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Even if we were to take your version of facts of three years ago as true (it isn't, but I sincerely don't have the time to re-live what you and Wikimucker did to me nor is it in any way related to this), you have no right to keep repeteadly bringing it up in an entirely unrelated discussion years later just because you can't bother to read others' comments and reply with constructive arguments.
P.S. Just because of being a prolific editor in an article does not make you exempt of 3RR. You chose to warn only the user who disagreed with you, and not the other (and more obvious) violation. Ask yourself why. Impru20talk 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:DBigXrayEdit

{|

|  |width="225px" style="vertical-align:middle;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;"|Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.


Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

|}. --Jayron32 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The requirements for the ongoing section of WP:ITN is "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information". Removal is done with a nomination at WP:ITN/C to build consensus that the article either meets or fails to meet the criteria. I read the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article, determined that at the time it no longer met the criteria and started a good faith nomination for its removal. User:DBigXray made several updates to the target article [72] [73] [74] [75] -- this is wonderful. User DBigXray then posted their updated content in the nom at ITN/C and used that as evidence that "you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove". Being called a liar, especially when using fraudulent evidence meets the criteria of a personal attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here asking for bans or sanctions or anything of the sort, just for someone who is uninvolved to point out to User DBigXray that such conduct is inappropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

^^^Yet another reason, if we needed it, to just blank the main page. ——SN54129 14:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129:You are so right. WTH, @DBigXray:, you didn't call someone a liar, did you? You are far too experienced to do such a thing. Very disappointed and saddened.-- Deepfriedokra 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray called BS on LaserLegs' claims, which he backed up with evidentiary diffs. Grandpallama (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ahem, as an ITN regular can I please ask that this not turn into a "bash the Main Page" thread. Also is it just me or does the first diff point to a 2006 version of Jennifer Hudson? Plus I don't see any attempt to discuss this with DBigXray before coming here.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray supported his concern with a series of diffs (declaring them "fraudulent" puts you in the same category of DBigXray, so consider the irony). A personal attack usually involves unsubstantiated claims. I'm unpersuaded by the evidence here, and actually a little more concerned with the behavior of the OP at the conversation in question. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And a link to the "calling a liar" edit would also be helpful.-- Deepfriedokra 14:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x3 To be precise, DBigXray didn't call someone a liar. DBigXray said, "you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove". This is not like saying someone is a liar or that someone is lying. There is no evidence that DBigXray attributed the verb "lie" to LaserLegs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The "evidence" DBigXray used to support their claims was added to the target article after I nominated it for removal from ITN. That's the whole point here. The link in which I was called a liar is here [76] --LaserLegs (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
"you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove" is quite clearly attributing the use of a lie to me, thus calling me a liar. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think you should probably let the matter drop. As noted above, you are at least as guilty of every accusation you have leveled against DBigXray, for example where they used the word lies, you used a similar term "fraudulent". Instead of running to ANI to gain some sort of "first move advantage" in what is ultimately an inconsequential and petty dispute, you should probably have just walked away and left the matter alone. Coming here first has only brought your own behavior in the matter under scrutiny as well, and I can't say it makes you look particularly good either. DbigXray should have probably not used the word "lies" that one time. Other than noting that, there's absolutely nothing useful to do here. Recommend we close this thread, WP:TROUT both of you, and get on with our day. --Jayron32 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: Dif, please.-- Deepfriedokra 14:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The word "liar" appears nowhere in that diff. Moreover, DBigXray was responding to your current claims that nothing had happened since 1/17, which were, indeed, BS. You can't simply ignore changes to the article that occurred between now and the time you nominated it. This is getting close to a boomerang situation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actullay, the word is ";lies" in the dif. @DBigXray: C'mon, man.-- Deepfriedokra 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Which...eh. If you provide diffs to support that someone is being less than honest, it might not be great to label them as "lies," but it's different than slinging allegations of dishonesty without providing evidence that someone appears to be deliberately presenting an inaccurate portrayal of events to support their own position. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The criteria is continuously updated with new, pertinent information, not continuously edited. It's a real struggle explaining the difference. Pasting a mountain of diffs which contain ref fixes and content tweaks is not the same as new information. I actually read the article and evaluated the updates as visible to our readers, and found it lacking. It's ok for me to be wrong there. It's not ok to ignore the distinction between updates and edits and call me a liar. No boomerang at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Per Jayron-- Trout bouth and close' OP merely wanted admonishment for DBigXray. That is given. Nothing more to do.-- Deepfriedokra 14:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, TBH. I'm not here to re-hash the removal discussion, or explain how ITN works. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

There once was a laser with the audacity
to accuse the x-ray machine of mendacity
called mendacious in turn
it too felt the burn
both trouted for alleging a lack of veracity

--2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07 and Gurbaksh ChahalEdit

The Gurbaksh Chahal article has been the subject of long-term efforts by various meatpuppets to shape the article with a POV favorable to the subject. There have been 5 prior ANI threads related to this disruption, with this one being the most recent. PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs) is the latest meatpuppet to have a go at the article. So far, their efforts at BLPN have been unsuccessful, but they are a threat to our neutrality and should thus be neutralized. At both BLPN and Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal, they have made false accusations of trolling and vandalism against the editors who have fought hard to keep this page from becoming a PR puff-piece [77], [78], [79], [80]. This is the same kind of rhetoric employed by prior meatpuppets on that page, so it would seem that there is a connection between PunjabCinema07 and prior troublemakers (on this page, hit Ctrl + F and type 'vandalism'). Moreover, PC07 has admonished me that I should always assume good faith, which is quite rich in light of their history of making wild accusations. This individual is both NOTHERE and deeply incompetent. Please deal with them appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My suggestions have been in good faith and I have made no changes to Gurbaksh Chahal. I have alerted the BLP Noticeboard of your behavior and the other two editors Chisme (talk · contribs) and Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) that continuously vandalize this page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to how much it was just vandalized today. It's clear you have personal bias to this page and have some ulterior agenda for it be written in a negative and libelous manner turning this into a WP:Attack_pages. I have reviewed the history and whenever any other editor such as Joydeep ghosh has tried to help write this article to WP:neutral point of view, was attacked with the page locked and further being vandalized. I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I rest my case. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
After the sheer amount of vandalism made today on Gurbaksh Chahal. I rest my case. It's abundantly clear you are working in conjunction with Winged Blades of Godric and urge you to disclose if you are getting paid to vandalize this page. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The account is near-confirmedly an UPE account, whose sole editorial activity has been limited to Draft:Rubina Bajwa, rumored to be in a relation with G. Chahal. Somebody block this account, please. WBGconverse 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Unsupported allegations of paid editing, vandalism and meatpuppetry, combined with general tendentiousness = WP:NOTHERE. Or almost. Be mindful, I beg you. ——SN54129 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@PunjabCinema07: This is a content dispute, and you have already reported at WP:BLPN. calling edits with which you disagree vandalism is not something you should be doing.-- Deepfriedokra 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, this is a clear UPE account with the task of main-spacing Rubina Bajwa. Three separate NPP reviewers (me, GSS and Satdeep, who accepted it once on wrong premises) had draftified it, asking for an AFC acceptance but he has reverted all of us. Note this comment by a fourth editor; further, the Joydeep ghosh, PC07 refers to in the BLPN has been since blocked for spamming. WBGconverse 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: You are not helping yourself.-- Deepfriedokra
@Deepfriedokra: - What on Earth did I do? I did not entertain him any; there's a reason as to why the page is ECP protected. WBGconverse 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@PunjabCinema07: These are long term, established, trusted editors, who have shown they are here for Wikipedia. You might want to reconsider your words.-- Deepfriedokra 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry if I offended here. But, I request you to take a look at the vandalism that is taking place on Gurbaksh Chahal today and try to stop it from further damage. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talkcontribs) 15:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note I returned this to Draft:Rubina Bajwa and move protected. It should be reviewed via WP:AfC.-- Deepfriedokra 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a content dispute. Please discuss competing versions on talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. If unable to attain consensus, please seek WP:dispute resolution. For violations of WP:BLP, please discuss at WP:BLPN. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    The content dispute can be discussed elsewhere, but PC07 is a NOTHERE editor and ANI is the appropriate place for discussing behavioral issues. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @PunjabCinema07: I have received your email and am not inclined to intervene in this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ad Orientem, this seem to be some kind of mass-canvassing-attempt given the comments by DBigXray, Anachronist and 331dot over this thread. Given he was already warned by Anachronist to not admin-shop (hours back), can you kindly check whether the email sent to you post-dates the warning? WBGconverse 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)