Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
  • 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


Requesting different discretionary sanctions on 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria[edit]

Hello, the page 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria is under community sanctions of Limit of one revert per 24 hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. I would say that such sanctions are detrimental when editors are adding live updates to the article about the ongoing battles. The additions just overwhelm 1RR. For proof of that, Slatersteven discussed that We are not a live news feed on the talk page, to which EkoGraf replied that We have always, for the past seven years, provided live updates as you put it regarding the capture of territory or casualties sustained during an offensive or a battle in the Syrian war. We also did the same thing during the previous two Turkish offensives into Syria. So there is no reason not to do so now as well. I’m thinking we need a different sanction, maybe 3RR plus consensus required for restoration of disputed material. starship.paint (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C, ST47, and Reyne2: who commented in the above. starship.paint (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Not the red text again — my poor eyes! Anyway, under what DS did you envision the new sanction to be applied as, instead? It seems that the most suitable restriction would be under the current SCW General Sanction. I have no objection to removing 1RR and applying consensus required, instead. El_C 05:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the text colour change (déjà vu!) El_C 05:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this seems to fall under the Syrian Civil War since Turkey/SDF are participants... starship.paint (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Technically, I'm not sure how to even modify {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}}. I suppose it could substituted...(?) El_C 06:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
At any case, I would rather hold off until ST47, who applied the GS, weighs in. El_C 06:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Consensus required is fine, although I believe it's generally harder to police and allows more "gaming" than 1RR. However, this isn't like AE discretionary sanctions where an admin may place the sanction on a given article. The SCW/ISIL 1RR is automatic, just like the ARBPIA 1RR, consensus would be required in order to change it. And yes, we'd have to update the editnotice and talk notice templates to support this, as I don't believe it's been done before. ST47 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Much as I agree that "consensus is required" can be gamed by obstruction I feel it may be the only way to deal with the tendency for the page to have every announcement by the Turkish media immediately put in no matter how trivial or transitory.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And the latest series of "but we must update with the latest news, its all out of date" renders 1RR meaningless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, since there hasn't been any objection, and I do see Slatersteven's point, shall we say For articles related to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, where the standard 1RR restriction is overly detrimental due to live updates to a current event, an administrator may temporarily replace the 1RR restriction with the standard Consensus Required provision. The 1RR provision should be reinstated once the article is no longer receiving frequent updates. @El C:, @Slatersteven:, @Starship.paint:, sound reasonable to everyone? I shall see about updating a template. ST47 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. El_C 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No objection. starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I object. This is exactly the sort of article that needs 1RR under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL regime. The potential for conflict between editors is high, and live updates, produced amidst an information war between the relevant sides in the conflict, are likely to be unreliable. Wikipedia is not a news website. The priority should be on WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and these things are assisted by a slower editing pace, especially for such a controversial topic. Editors will still be able to update the article under the 1RR regime, provided they attain consensus for their edits. If none of the SCW&ISIL articles have required an exception to 1RR up until now, why should this article? RGloucester 21:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    @RGloucester:, it seems that the issue is that some editors are providing live updates using sources that other editors object to as non-neutral or unreliable. 1RR isn't slowing down the editors inserting that information, since each individual edit does use a different source to update a different fact. However, since this happens multiple times a day and to multiple different sections of the article, there isn't any practical way for editors to keep the POV/unreliable information out of the article, as they quickly exhaust their one revert per day. In a nutshell, with 1RR, the default state is inclusion of each new edit (either it is inserted and no one wants to use their 1 revert per day on it, or it is inserted, reverted, and reverted back), with Consensus Required, the default state of a controversial edit is no inclusion without consensus. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There are obvious solutions to that problem, available under WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Semi-protect the article, if the problem is a bunch of new accounts or IPs. If it's established editors, issue topic bans to those repeatedly inserting non-neutral or unreliable content. Don't loosen restrictions when there is a problem with NPOV/reliability, ENFORCE the existing sanctions! RGloucester 21:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@RGloucester: - you would topic ban editors for using Turkish sources in an article about Turkey? Just asking. starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I would oppose such an act, what really needs to be done is to enforce wp:notnews. One way is to just say one edit per user per day.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
ST47 said that editors are repeatedly inserting unreliable or non-neutral sources. If this is so, yes, they should be topic banned. If they are not doing this, their edits are no problem, and there is no reason for this discussion at all, and certainly no reason for lifting 1RR. It's up for the administrators enforcing sanctions to make a determination as to whether these edits are problematic or not, and if they are, stop them from being made. They can't just remain aloof and pretend to be neutral while articles are being filled with content not suitable for Wikipedia. RGloucester 09:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Easier said than done. This article is extremely difficult to follow. El_C 12:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Its why either "no edit without consensus" or "1 edit a day" may be the only way. Its hard to see what are reverts, what are new figures, and what are POV claims. The infobox being a case to pint, for a few days it has made (at least one) a claim that is now been contracted by the same side that made the claim. We really do need to enforce wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the removal of 1RR. The article is doing fine at the moment, and 1RR is one of the reasons for it. In fact even with 1RR there are a lot of reverts back and forth, I can't imagine how much reverting would take place without it. When it comes to updating casualties, admins have so far didn't warn or block anybody about it so I imagine, 1RR is applied only for content removals. It should definitely stay I believe. KasimMejia (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @KasimMejia: yet you went on to ping me earlier today because you ran out of reverts! El_C 18:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • That is true, yet I can list 10 instances where 1RR actually saved the page from going into an edit war. Many users tend to make undiscussed moves or reverts at this page and 1RR must've saved it from happening many times. KasimMejia (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. Thanks for clarifying. El_C 18:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal of 1RR. It's detrimental to editing and we can always reach for consensus regarding controversial additions. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods[edit]

Stuck: Plenty of discussion, now stalled and going stale. No agreement on what to do. Hand out a tban or siteban despite the clear consensus below that QG does good work and couldn't easily be replaced? Ignore it and hope the behaviour goes away, after all these years of it being repeated and not going away at all? Issue another warning, in the hope that the frowny face and waggy finger of administorial disapproval somehow works this time, after all these years of having no effect? Or something else? Time for a sysop to stand up and make the call.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Pod mod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
QuackGuru (talk · contribs)

WP:AN is pushing a backlog drive on AfC. Accordingly RoySmith took pod mod into mainspace [2] (so thanks for that). QuackGuru has now removed it [3] as "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR."

I was thus prompted to raise the following with them:

Pod mod
I'm concerned about your removal of this article [4].
Firstly, we have an AfD process. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It's fundamental here that we operate by consensus. We do not support single-handed deletion of articles like this.
Secondly, your reason for removing this article was "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR.)" [5] That's four separate claims as to why it should be removed. Yet these are unrelated claims, and you have shown no reason to support any of them. In particular, alleging a "hoax" article is a strong allegation against the editor who created that article and should not be made without some evidence to back it up. Importantly though, you then went on to add content from this article [6] to a new section Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. So which is it? If this is a "hoax", why are you propagating it further? If these sources failed verification in one article, why are they now acceptable in another?
I'm also less than happy about you using inlined ELs rather than correctly formatted citations and references. [7] Is there any particular reason for this?
Once again, your editing raises concerns. You are quick to add a warning banner about Discretionary Sanctions to this article, but you don't point out that you were the editor warned when such sanctions were applied Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned.
This blanking of an article was inappropriate and disruptive. It goes against our accepted practice re AfD, should such an article really be inappropriate. Your allegations against it are unsupported, and also targeted against a specific editor, Sydneystudent123456. Your re-use of some content from the article also rather defeats the claims you made against it originally. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru blanked that without reply (they habitually blank all items on their talk:, rather than archiving). They similarly blanked a second request to discuss this.

I don't see this as acceptable editing, especially not when it's WP:OWN over a whole topic space, one which QuackGuru has got into trouble over before. We work by consensus here (do we still?) Single-handed deletions are not how we do things! I don't myself know if pod mods are notable (to the level of a distinct article) and had already asked as much on the talk: page. (I'm in the UK, I don't vape, I'm unfamiliar with the subtle variants). It does appear now that pod mods are a topic of some debate and we have coverage of them under the broader e-cig articles and also at Juul, the major commercial brand. But this is primarily a behavioural problem – single editors don't get to blank articles, the reasons given are hand-waving at best, certainly not supported by any evidence or specific claim, and when challenged like this it's incumbent upon WP:BOLD editors to be ready to at least discuss it. I would have un-redirected the article and AfDed it myself, except for the second refusal to discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh. QuackGuru said failed verification, so I was expecting something really ridiculous like the sources didn't actually exist, but that's not the case. Haven't looked into it thoroughly yet but I'd say whatever QG saw that led him to just instantly blank the page is not obvious, at least to me. I think it's possible this is a reasonable action (the redirect only, not the subsequent interactions), but it really needs to be explained. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If it had been a "hoax article" then we have WP:CSD#G3 for that and at least an admin and a second pair of eyes would have seen it.
They still haven't communicated, but they have been busy editing and they've added a comment as an edit summary [8] about "Please don't restore content that failed verification or use poor source such as a blog. See" However that source wasn't being used in this article, so I fail to see the relevance of mentioning it. Nor is a misleading note in an edit summary an acceptable substitute for discussion via a talk: page.
I half expected QuackGuru to take their usual line that "all sources must meet WP:MEDRS". Except that here [9] at Construction of electronic cigarettes they're happy to reference The Verge [10] and here [11] at Juul they're adding links to the SF Chronicle [12]. Maybe they think that it's OK if these ELs are inlined, rather than presented as citations? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect. If anybody feels this article should not exist, please to take it to WP:AfD for a proper discussion. @QuackGuru: I explicitly draw your attention to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#QuackGuru Warned. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • And now of course, a personalised warning, and some WP:CANVASSing in another WP:FORUM, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pod_mod, but still no discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • QuackGuru is now proceeding [13] to strip sections out of the article, by their usual process of denigrating sources. This is inappropriate: they show no issue with those sources, the claim "commercial source" is not enough to start section blanking, they have shown no error in those sources, they have shown no error in the content and it is against WP:PRESERVE to act in this way to dismantle an article with no effort made to find other sources. We are still awaiting any response from them here at ANI. These edits are disruptive, and they are disruptive in the way for which an explicit DS has been in place on QuackGuru themself for some years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And now pejorative comments like this, "please stop restoring original research". But there was no such restoration. This is just throwing phrases into the edit log and hoping that some mud sticks. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I got a failed verification tag from QG for something that I thought to be uncontroversial. Not sure what is going on but it seems QG is holding this article to a higher standard than others. I added a section to the talk page to discuss and hopefully he responds. spryde | talk 18:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • QuackGuru seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with other editors. They will adopt some particular idea, then defend it to the death and happily edit-war to do so, but simply will not express to others what it is beforehand, thus avoiding a whole lot of argument. I cannot understand why this is, but it does make editing around them particularly difficult. They seem to go out of their way to post half-truths to talk: pages: something which can't be said to be definitively wrong afterwards, but is especially unclear and misleading at the time. So when complaining of a source, they refer to it by a URL that isn't even used in the article, rather than pointing to its use in that article. They complain "don't restore OR" when nothing has been either deleted or restored. They will insist that all sources meet MEDRS, even for simple matters of commercial business (but are happy to use non-MEDRS sources themselves). They remove content as "not relevant" even though it is highly relevant to the broader context of understanding the article, just because it doesn't contain a specific easily-matched word (I've written AI reasoners which suffered much the same problem). And throughout all of this, other editors are simply wrong: there is no room for debate or opinion, it's QuackGuru's version or nothing. That is not how we operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
So, sorry QuackGuru, but that is not an obvious verification failure and you have failed to state what particular arcana is offending you. This is a collaborative project involving other editors and if you are going to oppose other editors over minutiae such as that, it is incumbent upon you to at least explain the issue.
Similarly, "they do not prodcue smoke" when tagging "Pod mods are portable devices that people use to smoke" as OR. Well, sorry QuackGuru but this is smoke; smoke by its technical broad definition includes pretty much any particulate aerosol produced by heat and that includes pyrolysis rather than combustion, and e-cigarettes et al certainly perform pyrolysis. Also modern language has yet to catch up fully with its terminology and possibly "smoking" may not be the best verb to apply here, but in no way is this WP:OR. It is simply another pejorative use of terminology by you to tag it as such, as an inevitable waypoint towards its removal. This is sheer sophistry on your part, to a level where it's deliberate and it's disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley: technically the content did fail verification since AFAICT, no where does the source say "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes", it only suggested one possible shape (and possibly size). But I'm not sure that tagging it FV was the best way to handle it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not a problem of content, it's a problem of behaviour: that's why it's at ANI.
Far better editing by QuackGuru would be to list any problems on the article talk page, to make specific statements about what is wrong with them, then to put forward intended solutions: a change of wording, a need for a better source, even the need to remove a section. There might not even be much need for discussion: maybe some of these problems and remedies would become so self-evident that all would be in immediate agreement (there seems to be zero evidence of a POV disagreement). But they are doing none of that. Instead we see unexplained changes made directly to the article. We see threats [14] to delete the article again as "unsourced", when this is a clearly untrue and hyperbolic statement to make. QuackGuru's editing style makes collaboration impossible: in a context where reversions are restricted (and they've made that sanction threat clear enough, even though it's not even clear it applies) their technique is to "capture the high ground first". Anyone disagreeing with QuackGuru will be described as edit-warring and instantly reverted. The changes they're making are unexplained and unjustified (even if correct, or at least their underlying reason needing to be addressed) and they're making the change first, then being forced to provide some sort of justification afterwards. This makes it very difficult for another editor to provide a different remedy to the same (agreed) problem.
Consider the case of the physical resemblance to USB sticks: this is a most trivial issue. Yes, there may be some minor inaccuracy in there and it might need to be fixed by some very minor copyediting on non-contentious wording. But instead QuackGuru is attacking the sources, slapping on a "failed verification" tag, advocating deleting the entire article because "100% fails verification". An editor trying to fix the descriptive wording problem then has to fight uphill, justifying their changes in terms of dire actions like "removing an {{OR}} tag from an article subject to MEDRS", "Re-introducing content that failed verification", "Using sources that do not meet MEDRS". This is to skew the entire editing process unfairly in one editor's favour! They might as well start asking, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Quora?"
This is a behavioural problem (and they still refuse to engage here), it's disruptive, it's a severe form of WP:OWN and it needs to stop or be stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, except that you explicitly said
Quick example: Tagging the text, "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices." as "fails verification " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content." from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive".
You cannot have it both ways. You made a big deal over the fact that the content does not fail verification because the source explicitly mentions it resembles a USB flash drive. But you completely neglected to mention that in fact the source only says that. It does not support the claim "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes". Therefore as I said, the failed verification tag was technically correct, regardless whether or not it was the best way to handle it. (And I've already said it wasn't.)
I would note that the reason I realised this is because I nearly faulted QuackGuru on my talk page for them adding a failed verification tag when it wasn't justified since I WP:AGF that you were correct. Thankfully this didn't happen since I double checked myself before leaving my comment.
If you want us to focus on the problems with QuackGuru's editing you need to avoid making misleading claims. From my experience a good way to ensure any complaints you have at AN//I get ignored is by ensuring that we are pointlessly arguing over what the person complaining about said because they are careless or misleading in what they say. As I've said, it seems to me QuackGuru's editing does have problems, so I have no idea why you insist on bringing up stuff that detracts from that point.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This has never been about the accuracy of the article complaints here, so much as the appropriate remedies for how to fix them. The text in the article was over-specific for what the source literally stated. If an editor sees that as a problem, then there are quick, easy fixes to that such as either rewording to only match what can literally be supported (one observed device resembles such a device) or else (as appears likely to be the case) noting that resembling USB devices seems to be an ongoing theme across the market and finding additional broader sources to support that broader claim. But shouting "FAILS VERIFICATION!!" from the rooftops and demanding the article is deleted as a consequence is an over-reaction. A disruptive over-reaction. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's a straightforward example of disruptive tag-bombing: [15]
"...however the health risks are currently undetermined as they are new productions." {{CN}}
"...the health risks of these are also unknown and not well-studied." {{CN}}
Two tags of those added, where a high school philosophy freshman should be able to spot the fallacy.
If the text read, "the risks have been quantified", then that would be a WP:biomedical claim rightly needing WP:MEDRS. But it isn't, it's the opposite of that. It falls under WP:BLUESKY. They are new (this is unchallenged, and anyway met by RS elsewhere) and there are no known studies. If an especially pedantic editor wanted to qualify the wording of the statement (at the cost of losing clarity as an encyclopedia) then they could reword as "No studies are known at present (2019) to the authors of this WP article", which would be pointless yet justifiable. But to demand citations is ridiculous: "New things are unknown" is not merely uncited, it is unciteable, and that is a matter of classical logic, not medical quackery. To then take that as an excuse for deletion (read the edit summary added) is disruptive above all else. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Without wanting to express any strong views about Quack's overall editing, I request that, if any decisions need to be made, you all please kindly limit the number of RFCs involved. A couple of months ago, QuackGuru had ten (10!) separate RFCs about e-cigs underway at one time. As some of you know, I've followed the RFC advice pages for years and years, and I cannot recall a single instance in which another editor had even half that many content RFCs underway at one time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed that this is WP:OWN behauvior, and QuackGuru has staggering 2,449 edits in e-cigarette according to Xtools edit count. Not everything related to e-cigs should be vetted by one person. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My impression which seems to be supported by WP:AfD, WP:ATD-R and Wikipedia:Merging is that it's not always necessary to AfD something where merging or redirection while keeping the old article is the desired outcome even if these are possible outcomes of an AfD. If it's expected to be uncontentious, no discussion may be needed. It may also be acceptable to rely on other forms of discussion like RfCs. This is in part because merging or redirecting (while keeping the article) are explicitly not a form of deletion as no admin action is needed and the edit history is still there. These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. However it's recognised that many editors will not be aware of this, so care needs to be taken and sometimes AfD may be better. Note that this is explicitly not an endorsement of QuackGuru's actions. If you've found a hoax, it needs to be deleted so you should use some deletion process. It's harmful to simply redirect or merge a hoax as you're running the risk someone will revert to the hoax either intentionally or accidentally. But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact the info was merged anyway. QuackGuru's other actions here also seem concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
It's been pointed out to be my QuackGuru they didn't merge content so I've struck that portion of my comment above. Instead I will say "But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact that the info or very similar info already existed in another article they redirect to. It possible that some of the content in the original article failed verification and this needed to be dealt with, but it's clear that the article itself and the concept it dealt with was not a hoax. To reiterate what I said, if it was a hoax it needed to be deleted outright not simply redirected." Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. "
No, they can't be "reverted by anyone". It needs a particularly thick-skinned editor to disagree with QuackGuru. Their immediate reaction is to place a dire warning box on the editor's talk: page, threatening sanctions (despite the fact that ArbCom's ruling behind such sanctions was directed at QuackGuru). Then they fire up threads in the walled garden of the medical project, demanding the use of sources to MEDRS, just to say what year a commercial product was launched or whether it's the shape of a USB stick. And they will still not join the debate here at ANI, a thread specifically about their behaviour. This is QuackGuru going out of their way to place barriers in front of other editors, and that's usually an effective strategy to imposing their single viewpoint onto articles. This has nothing about article quality or verifiable standards, it's about refusing to cooperate. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
So, you're saying that "dire warning box" is too frightening? --Calton | Talk 08:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've always said that. It's completely unfit for purpose. It threatens other editors, it's unclear as to what it means, it's unclear as to how other editors ought to respond to it or should change their editing. It's used by a handful of established editors in order to intimidate others, and it's often highly effective against blameless new editors (read some of the Teahouse reactions to being hit with it).
Worst of all is its lack of clarity. It doesn't link to any good explanation of what "Discretionary Sanctions" are and what they mean for ongoing editing. The justification for them (i.e. the source ArbCom case) is hidden and mostly irrelevant to the current situation. These DS boxes are mostly used by two editors: one who favours a DS box linking to an ArbCom case that was rescinded or else (in this case) a case where the editor pasting the warning box was one of those being admonished by ArbCom.
So yes, this is just a scary stick to try and frighten other editors with. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, that has nothing to do with my point which is that there has never been any policy or guideline requiring that redirects and merges must go through AfD. Nor my point that redirects and merges are explicitly not a form of deletion and can technically be reverted by anyone (given the limits of page protection, edit filters, and editor blocks). Note I also said that QuackGuru's actions were wrong here but that doesn't change the general point I made which you challenged. QuackGuru should be called out for their problematic editing. What you've alleged of their behaviour may be a problem, but failing to use AfDs for merges or redirects it not itself a problem unless the conditions when they did so is a problem. Likewise, if QuackGuru prevents people reverting when they should and can that's a problem, but that doesn't change the way merges and redirects operate. That said, I'm not sure that QuackGuru is even putting barriers in place for reversion. Giving a discretionary sanctions notice to someone who had not been notified seems fair enough. I'd note an editor does not need to be "thick-skinned", they just need to properly understand the notice or the discretionary sanctions process in general to know that such notices are irrelevant to whether or not they can revert if justified and of course that QuackGuru's actions would also be covered under the discretionary sanctions regime if their actions are. Not to mention skin thickness does not matter if the editor has received a notice within the past year meaning they cannot receive another one. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've no objection to the use of either AfD or talk: page discussion, or anything similar, but there needs to be opportunity for discussion by some means, and QuackGuru is doing their best to avoid it at all. Their actions are instant, so that WP:FAIT applies, and they're hedging even the smallest issue around with the biggest obstacles of MEDRS etc that they can.
Juul is pretty obviously investing in high quality design to make an attractive product, more than a merely functional one. It does have resemblances to a USB stick, in both size and shaping. The amount of arguing against this and the sources involved, and the implication that the article needs to be deleted as a result, are out of all proportion to the underlying issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne, the discretionary sanctions notices are scary for most people – perhaps for almost everyone except the few editors who like to spam them around at every opportunity. We've tried to clarify the wording – I was involved in the effort to specify that this situation exists because of other editors, and doesn't say anything about your own contributions – but they are still perceived by the recipients as direct and immediate threats. I have been wondering whether it would make sense to ban their delivery by people who are in disputes. In the current free-for-all situation, an editor who is edit warring can drop that notice on your talk page. In that situation, it is no wonder that people think the underlying message is "Let me own this article, or I'll get you blocked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Have to disagree. For new editors, yes I agree they are often scary and confusing. For anyone familiar with the regime, they are generally not scary. For editors who aren't new but are also less familiar with the discretionary sanctions regime IMO it varies. I have said before that IMO it's best if an editor involved in a dispute with another editor, or who simply often disagrees with the other editor doesn't hand them out. Instead an uninvolved editor or even better someone friendly with the editor should hand them out. But I also feel that any ban on people who may hand them out would carry a reasonable risk of making the regime less effective. I myself have handed them out on a few occasions, mostly when I see someone at one of the ANs who is editing the area and where I feel there is a chance the regime may be useful. I admit this may not be ideal, but I generally avoid simultaneously criticising the editor a lot or getting involved in any dispute. Thinking more of something I said above, I wonder if it may be helpful to add something to the template emphasising they apply to all editors including the one handing out the notice if they are involved in the topic area. But this is perhaps getting too far off topic. I stand by my claim that you do not have to be a thick skinned editor to be largely unaffected by the possibility of notices. For example anyone familiar with the regime or anyone who has already received a notice and some other editors. This is particularly significant here since RoySmith and Andy Dingley themselves seem to be 2 of the major editors involved in the article and I do not believe either of them should be affected by receiving a discretionary sanctions notice. The creator User talk:Sydneystudent123456 doesn't seem to have received a notice either [16] Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
It's possible true that "anyone familiar with the regime" will be unaffected. However, that restriction basically excludes 99% of registered editors. In my experience, it's really hard for long-time editors like us to even imagine what our system looks like to people who aren't us. For example: Less than 10% of registered editors (all accounts, ever, specifically at this wiki) are autoconfirmed. The median number of undeleted edits for registered accounts is zero. Think about what that means for our assumptions about what "most" editors do or think or feel. We are not like most editors. I might receive these notices with the realization that another editor is trying to escalate a dispute. The median editor receives them with as little nonchalance as they would receive notice of a dispute from their nation's tax agency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Well I never disputed that discussion should be allowed. My point was and remains that we should not conflated merging and redirection with deletion, and also that other processes can be used instead of AfD for that discussion. I felt this was important since the initial comment seem to come close to suggesting the opposite. I don't really see a point to argue content issues like what Juul makes and USB sticks on this page and was never suggesting we do so. My point with that was that the content did fail verification. As I said, I don't think adding a failed verification tag was the right way to handle that but I stand by my view it's very confusing to imply the content did not fail verification when it did fail verification (even if some part of the content was verified by the source). Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • So, still no response from @QuackGuru: and the WP:OWN continues on the article(s). Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned, is it time to escalate to WP:AE? The edits themselves might be debatable as a content issue, but the refusal to discuss is disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    • My original post a couple of days ago got lost in an edit conflict. It may be time to escalate this to WP:AE if you think that helps resolve this issue.
    • After I read this comment I decided to make a quick post here.
    • I am discussing the issues on the talk page, but this is a new article and there are very few editors watching the article. The edits themselves can be considered a content issue. I made a bold edit to redirect it because the Construction of electronic cigarettes article discusses the different types of devices and there was a lot of misinformation about the pod mods in the new article. There is new content about pod mods in the Construction of electronic cigarettes that is 100% sourced. See Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. I wrote the content myself and I did not copy content from any other article. Having a splinter article seems more like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I've had similar problems with Quackguru, and I haven't managed to discuss most of them them productively: see this discussion, and much of my talk page. Aside from my own ignorance and mistakes (advice welcome), there are a few recurrent sources of conflict, which it would be good to have resolved.
On merging, redirection, and deletion, I'd like to raise what I see as obfuscation of article and talk histories (example, original article) and, more trivially, QG's own draft space (for instance, pages titled with totally unrelated word, or an IPA schwa character). QG's manual archiving of talk page discussions, which matches the clear-desk ethos of QG's talk page, can be inconvenient to part-time and intermittent editors.
Draft-replacing content is fast, but it feels a bit like driving a flail tank through a community vinyard to till it.
I really don't like it when QuackGuru privately writes a parallel article in the draftspace, then overwrites the multieditor article. It is especially frustrating when QG has, while writing the draft, been asking other editors to fix problems identified by QG in the article (or delete or redirect the article), without telling them of the any plan to replace their work with the draft. If editor efforts are in competition, anyone who spends less time editing than QG, or edits more slowly, is at a disadvantage.
QG sometimes uses language I find needlessly threatening (prod example). I have, in the past, overreacted to QG's warnings (though not that one). I've learned that the best response to threats of formal complaints is to urge QG to follow through with them. QG often repeatedly raises issues with my editing. When the issues are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or when I have acknowledged faults, apologized, and fixed, or when the forum is one I only come across by chance, this feels like mudslinging (example).
I strongly support inline tagging, but I often find QG's tags trivial (some phrasing and page number requests) or incomprehensible (many fv tags). Quackguru seems to mostly think that every sentence must have exactly one source at the end of it. It is also difficult to steer between Scylla and Charybdis with closeness to sources; QG opposes both excessively close paraphrases as copyvio and excessively loose ones as failed-verification. This leads to passages in the first style below:

Anon was born in the 19th century[1]. She was born in Nowheretown[2]. Her parents worked as cobblers[3]. Her mother was named named Anan[3]. Her father was named Anen[4]. Anon attended Nowheretown School[4]. She studied basketmaking in her first two years at Nowheretown School[4]. She also studied applied agrostology in her last year at Nowheretown School[5]. In 1882, the Nowheretown Post described her as a "elderly lady".[6] In 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology said that she was well-known to for her "application of agrostology to basketmaking"[7]. She died in 1882[8]. Her son gave the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum her collections[7]. Her collections included herbarium specimens and furniture[7].

Anon was born in Nowheretown[1] in the 1880s[1] to two cobblers[3] named Anan[3] and Anen[4]. At Nowheretown School, she studied first basketmaking[4], then applied agrostology[5]. In later life,[6] she became well-known for her application of agrostology to basketmaking[7][8]. When she died at an advanced age in 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology published an obituary praising her work. Her herbarium specimens and furniture were donated to the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum[7].
Example obviously made up, to avoid using a controversial topic. I'll also give a real style example; readers may also wish to see if they can spot the two paragraphs of QG's style in Nicotine marketing. A few examples of citation disagreements, all from one page:
QuackGuru has argued that that all sources must include wording matching the article title. This severely constrains editor judgment in determining the article scope and providing context (example). Likewise constraining is Quackguru's view that an image cannot be included in an article unless a source says that it illustrates the article topic (one "humorous" example).
Because we have a history of conflict, I probably don't see QG's best side; we all tend to give more consideration to those we respect, an exacerbating feedback. The next two paragraphs may therefore be unduly harsh.
I rarely get the sense that QG is intellectually engaged in a content discussion, and discussions with QG tend go nowhere via long strings of characters. I often find QG's posts unclear, and it takes several exchanges to extract a meaning I'd expect to get in two sentences. QG often does not answer direct questions, and reiterates the same points or ones I find logically unconnected, until I've wondered if my own posts are even being read. This communications burden often puts off other editors who would otherwise engage on topics of interest to QuackGuru (example). I think a majority of my talk page posts have been made in response to QG; I never came in contact with QG for the first decade or so of my editing.
Obviously I disagree with some of QuackGuru's interpretations of rules, and formal guidance on these issues might help reduce conflict. However, more generally, I feel that QuackGuru tends to focus overmuch on using rules to control article content, rather than on understanding and improving content. I'm therefore not sure that providing more rules would help much (especially since combativeness tends, even with the best will in the world, to be infectious). I'm not sure what would help, though QuackGuru has some views. HLHJ (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Edited in response to User talk:HLHJ#Allegations without supporting evidence. HLHJ (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
This very much matches my experience of dealing with QuackGuru. They seem to be more interested in content as a sequence of matching text strings and they have no interest in or understanding of any meaning behind that. They are also persistently either unwilling or incapable of communicating with other editors to any normal level: they see interaction as a series of barriers and obstacles, not as an opprtunity to share information. The "I would have commented to this ANI thread about me days ago, but there was an edit conflict" claim is simply not credible. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I do think that QuackGuru is interested in the meaning of content, as QG edits on specific topics of interest, with an identifiable point of view on those topics (which I do not consider unacceptable, or avoidable). I find I can often predict which statements QG will tag and remove, and if and how QG is likely to alter statements, but I find it harder to predict what objections QG will make to the statements. I haven't gotten the impression that QG is very interested in teaching me or learning from me, which I would be OK with if we were not in conflict. I'm not very good at social interactions myself, and I have sympathy with editors who want to minimize the social side of editing; there are unobjectionable ways of doing this. HLHJ (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I am out. I normally don't edit controversial things and I try to avoid WP:MEDRS sections of articles as I don't feel comfortable judging if sources are reliable enough. I still think this is a valid article separate from e-cigs as there are a few articles on Google Scholar from JAMA and NEJM which focus on Pod Mods in general.There are also a handful of articles in mainstream sources that also focus on the category rather than a specific brand. That makes it pass WP:GNG in my eyes but apparently not in others. spryde | talk 11:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've stayed away from this discussion for a few days since I felt I'd said enough and it was better to let others comment. Since it still doesn't seem to have achieved a clear resolution and there are suggestions for AE I'll just make a few final comments.

One, I think QuackGuru's refusal to engage in this ANI is concerning. While sometimes when it's without merit it's fair enough to just let others deal with an ANI on your behaviour, and it's easy to harm yourself with poorly considered posts at ANI; IMO there were enough serious concerns here to warrant at least some comment. It's clear QuackGuru was paying attention since they quickly approached editors who had commented when they had concerns (me and from the sounds of it HLJH).

Two, I'm also concerned there has been no real engagement with QuackGuru on Talk:Pod mods over article content issues. Whatever concerns there over QuackGuru's conduct, I do not believe they warrant ignoring their attempts at engagement, especially since one of the concerns was their refusal to discuss their concerns over article content. To be fair (paraphrasing here) 'should I delete half the article content as unsourced' is not something that's easy to engage with. But when QuackGuru raises specific concerns over specific text failing verification (or whatever), I think at least some action should be expected even if it's just a quick comment 'no you're wrong, the source says XYZ' or minor rewording to fix the problem or finding a new source or whatever.

Three, and bear in mind I have basically no experience with AE and I'm not an admin, I feel if an AE case is raised it would be best to concentrate on clear cut examples. For example whatever problems there may be with posting discretionary sanctions notices unless these are clearly inappropriate (user is already away, user never edited the area) I have doubts they'd get much heed. Likewise saying something did not fail verification because it mentions USB-likeness when it didn't mention the other stuff may not be a great example. Either say that even if it technically failed verification blindly tagging it along with a whole load of other content was not the best way to handle it. Or find refs which do support this content add them and if QuackGuru continues to complain because they don't like 2 sources then maybe you have an example. (I think the former already happened but it's still IMO an example of what happened early in this case that would best be avoided at AE.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No-one is disputing that it needs work – except perhaps QuackGuru, who thinks that such work is impossible and the whole lot needs to be deleted.
Are they notable? Well, my first comment on the talk: page was to ask just that. QuackGuru thinks they're distinct, and has created a CFORK on that basis. I'm still unconvinced (I am too busy to do any editing for the next few weeks), but if they are (and I think they are) it's because the Juul is not merely another e-cigarette. Whether there are any pod mods other than Juul is a separate question. But it seems (from what little I've had time to read) that the difference with them is nothing to do with replaceable coils and it's actually about the chemistry of the fluid used. Juul is using nicotine salts, which appear to have significantly different biological effects. If pod mods are really different from other e-cigs, it's this different chemistry which makes it. However QuackGuru has already stripped the redlinks and decided that it's "just not notable".
They are impossible to work with. They do not engage with others, they do not engage with serious efforts to try and answer specific issues, they just keep re-posting "Can I delete all this yet?". They don't need permission to do so in the first place: they need to justify it. But asking over and over again is a way to get this "permission" by attrition and omission. If they simply persist long enough, more and more editors will say "Well I am out." and when it goes quiet, they can delete the article "because no one complained beforehand". That is not acceptable editing: we have to collaborate here, and none of us get to simply ignore the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is a domain expert in certain topic areas who, like QuackGuru, has a massive edit count in those articles and been involved in numerous content disputes, I have also had WP:OWN thrown at me in content disputes by other involved editors. It is both really disingenuous and a very clear case of fundamental attribution error (i.e., a cognitive bias) to ascribe another editor's reversion of your edits and those of others who are a party in the dispute as WP:OWN without a clear statement of ownership. An editor is violating WP:OWN if the they make a statement of ownership and/or take action to prevent all others from modifying an article so as to effectively retain an exclusive right to edit an article, decide what content it shows, or otherwise dictate what an article states (that's also what ownership of literally anything entails). If you don't have clear evidence of an editor making such a statement or rolling back everyone's edits to an article, do not cite that policy. It is pointlessly inflammatory and I've personally found it annoying to be on the receiving end of that. Frankly, I don't know what experienced Wikipedian would actually believe that they have, or could possibly retain for any length of time, an exclusive right to anything on Wikipedia (the only exception would be the copyright to any CC-BY-SA-3.0-licensed article text that an editor contributes, as that is an exclusive right). Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Read the other page discussions. There's little edit-warring in mainspace, because they've already slapped warning dialogs around to threaten some unspecific editing restriction. But on the talk: discussions, we keep looping through the same sequence. "There is a minor wording issue over a very minor topic, where the source does not use those literal words" – 'OK, what change is needed? Just do it' – "This source FAILS VERIFICATION so I've removed it altogether." – 'Don't do that. It means the content doesn't match, not that the source is bad' – "I'm going to delete the whole article again" – 'Why are you ignoring the ANI thread?'.
This is OWN, even if not in mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have been thinking over my last post, and I have an example of QG responding to new editors. QG reverted the mostly-easily-salvagable edits, but spontaneously posted on the talk page with some explanation of why. This suggests to me that QG is willing to teach newcomers, but is not always using effective methods (in this case, the new editors did not engage). Sometimes QG has spent far longer getting me to fix problems than it would have taken for QG to fix them and post saying "You should have done this" (example); I think this is partly communications difficulties.
QuackGuru often adds very high densities of inline tags to content I've written, and insists that I fix the content. Some of the reasons behind the inline tags are trivial fixes, things you'd think would be easier to fix than to tag, but most of the problems QG points out are not obvious, and I find many debatable. Any fix I attempt is usually swiftly re-tagged, accompanied by talkpage posts that my changes have made the content even worse, and it would be best to delete the lot and start again. When I add templates criticizing content in articles in which QG takes an interest, QG has reverted the addition (invariably, as far as I can recall). QuackGuru occasionally reverts edits of mine that QG requested via inline tags (for instance, the addition of a large number of verifying quotes, accompanied by translations from the French and German, which took me some hours of editing time: 1, 2, 3).
I don't think this behaviour motivated by bad faith. QuackGuru believes that I lack the WP:CIR to edit, so I think the motive is to improve the content by protecting it from me, keeping me busy with makework until I move to another content area. This is logical and effective, in the short term. Taking the long-term consequences into account, though, it also turns editors wanting to work in this area into opponents instead of collaborators.
For me, this discussion is therefore not primarily about the podmod article (I've been uninvolved with it, apart from a point-of-information talkpage post in answer to a question), or any one article.
I'm a bit uncomfortable addressing all this in the third person. QuackGuru, I know you are reading, and I'm not intending to ignore you, slight you, or speak behind your back. I'd be happy to discuss the roots of our editing conflicts with you in another forum, including a more private one. HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Without recommending a remedy, I would like to say that QG has severe OWNership issues with regard to e-cigarettes. I mean, he truly believes he owns the subject and no one else should be allowed to edit there. I tried to get involved with the coverage about recent illnesses and deaths from vaping, but was totally stonewalled and eventually gave up. His style includes spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that he can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. His articles are so technical and detailed, and so focused on single individual studies (quite the opposite of how MEDRS is supposed to work), that there is literally no way for a reader to gain an overall understanding of the subject. I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck. I tried to get him to tone down his promotion of the theory that the recent illnesses and deaths are caused by Vitamin E acetate; no luck. The investigating agencies are saying over and over that they don’t know the cause and there are many different histories of what the affected people used in vaping, but he is convinced acetate is the issue and his articles convey that. I know he is a very prolific editor, but IMO what he produces is non-neutral and unreadable, and his attitude is the very opposite of the collaboration that Wikipedia is supposed to be about. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Please provide evidence of spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that I can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. The only recent spin off was "2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products". It is way too long to merge. There is a summary in the safety article. I also started "Vaping-associated pulmonary injury" after discussing it with WikiProject Medicine.
    • You stated "I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck." Can you provide diffs where you tried to make them more readable?
    • See "The CDC stated that the cases have not been linked to one product or substance, saying "Most patients have reported a history of using e-cigarette products containing THC. Many patients have reported using THC and nicotine. Some have reported the use of e-cigarette products containing only nicotine."[5] Many of the samples tested by the states or by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) as part of the 2019 investigation have been identified as vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, a psychoactive component of the cannabis plant).[8] Most of those samples with THC tested also contained significant amounts of Vitamin E acetate.[8]"
    • The CDC and the US FDA have both reported similar things. I included content from both of them. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I’m not inclined to spend much additional time over this, but if you insist: Here, on September 7, was where I updated the article and put the CDC warning into the lead. This was the “Safety of electronic cigarettes” article (before you spun off the separate article about recent illnesses), so a CDC warning about safety seemed like the single most important thing to have in the lead. But you immediately removed it,[17] falsely citing “failed verification” when in fact it was well cited. Correction: your reason for removing it from the "safety" article was that it was mentioned in two other articles. So that means it can't be in the "safety" article where it is clearly relevant? That's an example of how you use (and misuse) subarticles.
For some reason you strongly objected to putting any warning into the "safety article" lead, leaving the lead full of years-old studies indicating that vaping could be relatively harmless or even beneficial. As recently as September 11 the lead of the safety article still didn’t mention the outbreak of disease and death. In fact it said (based on a 2016 report) that the risk of serious adverse effects was low, while it rambled on about possible battery explosions. I remember arguing with you about the necessity of putting the warning in the lead of that and several related articles; that argument is here. Finally on September 11 I was able to get a sentence about the outbreak (without mentioning the CDC warning) in the Safety article lead.[18]
Now that I have researched this, at your request, I see that this issue wasn’t just with me and it wasn't just one article. Doc James inserted the CDC warning into the lead of the main Electronic cigarette article three times on September 7, and you removed it three times, [19] prompting him to issue a warning on your talk page.[20] In other words, you kept insisting the warning couldn’t be in the lead of any article, even though that was only your own opinion, vs. well supported arguments to include it from two other people. Like I said, you don’t believe in collaboration or consensus; you believe you OWN these articles. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You added on September 7, a CDC warning. This was added to the Safety of electronic cigarettes article before I created a spin-off. I removed it, along with rewriting other content, correctly citing "failed verification" for "WDHS2019". Both citations did not verify the same claim for "In 2019 hundreds of cases of severe lung disease were reported among users of e-cigarettes." The US-centric view for "recommending against the use of e-cigarettes because of their association with severe respiratory disease." was not a neutral summary for the lede. It was replaced with neutral content. See Safety of electronic cigarettes: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US has been linked to the use of vaping products.[23]" Also see Electronic cigarettes: In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[105] Adding a US-centric warning to the lede of "Safety of electronic cigarettes" or "Electronic cigarette" is not neutral. The outbreak is in the US only. More than one editor objected to including a US-centric warning. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 31#US-centric. Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. I did add the CDC warning to the Electronic cigarette.[21] It is still in the Electronic cigarette. See Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations. I did add it to the lede of the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. And that's what I did, here, although apparently even that wasn't worded to your satisfaction and you reworded it. I'm done here, but my comments stand: you insist that everything at these articles, great or small, has to be done your way. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You added "In September 2019 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak of severe lung disease in the US associated with the use of e-cigarette products.[16]" The CDC reported an outbreak in September 2019, but the outbreak started before September 2019. I fixed the inaccurate content. When did the outbreak start? "Cases involved in the outbreak of severe lung illness associated with vaping products were first identified in Illinois and Wisconsin in April 2019.[13]" I wrote accurate content without misleading or biased content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
See here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Propose ban[edit]

This proposal is unanimously opposed/not going anywhere after (hours short of) 7 days. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've largely stayed out of this, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that QuackGuru is a lost cause. We should just WP:CBAN him and stop this endless time sink.

I made an attempt to work with him. See the Talk:Pod mod#Failed verification content thread. He questioned whether Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced was verified by the cited reference. I decided to investigate.

My first task was to find a copy of the reference, and discovered that it existed on-line, so I updated the reference to include the URL, and some other minor reformatting while I was at it. This earned me a complaint 10 minutes later that, The citation was formatted but that does not solve the FV problem. I continued to read the cited source and concluded that QuackGuru was correct; it did indeed not verify the claim made in the article, which I stated on the talk page. Amazingly enough, his response to my agreeing with him was yet another salvo.

Somewhere in there, he dropped a Template:Ds/alert on my talk page. What purpose this served other than an attempt at intimidation, I can't imagine. I've got a pretty thick skin, but I imagine most new editors would be scared by this and disengage. Which I assume is exactly the intended result.

Irksome habits like continually blanking their talk page, while not forbidden, certainly does make it more difficult to interact with them.

Every interaction between him and other editors that I've observed over the past few days is aggressive and just attempts to bludgeon the enemy into submission rather than engage in a productive discussion with them. It is good that they insist on correctness and verification through reliable sources, but they take it to such an extreme that nobody can work with them. This makes them a net negative to the project.

I count 19 blocks, spanning 12 years, for QuackGuru already. It's hard to imagine that any additional attempts at behavior modification will be any more successful than the past ones. It's time to cut our losses. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been very productive in Wikiproject Medicine articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru has done good work over the years. I agree with a fair number of the concerns they raised at the pod mod article. Their redirect with the claim that it is a "hoax article" however is not accurate and I would advise them to be more careful with their words. Not sure I see the issue with this notice.[22] I had a personalized notice placed upon my talk page about the existence of DS with respect to gun related issues a few days ago.[23] I took it as a useful FYI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Doc James. Clearly some concerns raised here are valid, but just as clearly some are overstated. The volume and quality of QuackGuru's work is impressive. I agree they need to improve their collaboration. But a ban is over the top. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban QuackGuru operates in Wikipedia's most controversial medical spaces. I perceive QuackGuru to be an advocate for the consumer, medical journals, and WP:MEDRS standards. Most commonly QuackGuru is in conflict with editors who advocate for or sympathize with the position in alignment with corporate industries well known for aggressive propaganda in favor of harmful health practices. In this case we are talking about nicotine use where a billion-dollar industry is selling a drug with health effects and which is lobbying globally to control the conversation. Everyone who edits the Wikipedia nicotine articles will be read by a billion people including all journalists, lobbyists, doctors, policy makers, and the lawyers in the related lawsuits. The money tied up here is obscene considering that advocacy for science in this space has no budget, and in large part is defended by QuackGuru with support of others. When Wikipedia is the target of hundreds of paid lobbyists I expect missteps and misunderstandings from any volunteer editor. I do not perceive the problem here to be QuackGuru, but rather, the center of the problem is the topic itself and the infinite funding available to pay people to endlessly argue the minutiae of the topic to the limits of the Wikipedia process. Most people who edit here are not lobbyists but propaganda is in the heads of everyone who thinks about this topic and extreme caution is a useful norm for this space. QuackGuru knows the wiki bureaucracy and runs discussions and editing discussions by wiki process. I expect content in this space to move slowly and be more cautious than in other articles where a billion dollars and national economies are not the stakes of what Wikipedia publishes and which politicians read when they are making laws. If anyone enters such controversial topics then they should expect bureaucracy, be forgiving, move slowly, and feel free to call on mediation processes such as seeking comment from WikiProjects such as WP:MED or any lightweight process such as WP:3O. I understand why anyone would be frustrated in such unusual articles but this is how extreme controversy works on wiki. The environment is crazy and everyone who enters it will have to abandon some humanity and become a bit of a robot and bureaucrat. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban per Bluerasberry. It is regrettable that QG causes frustration but the topics are frustrating with conflicting interests colliding. I have not checked all relevant edits, but I have seen that QG is on the side of reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • And by implication, anyone who disagrees with him isn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • He is on the side of the reliable sources that support his position, but resorts to all sorts of tricks to ignore or downplay those that don't! Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban after reading the thread, the underlying issue is literally just a content dispute in a contentious topic area which has gotten out of hand. Content disputes in such subjects are not unexpected/infrequent and sometimes editors who are party to one − myself included − make errors in judgment. That is absolutely not a suitable justification for a site ban unless said error is particularly eggregious. Personally, I think everyone involved should just take a step back, take some time to cool off for a day or two, then come back to the table to discuss the issue and sort out the underlying problem. I don't think anyone who is a party to this dispute is currently acting in an appropriate manner for the purpose of dispute resolution; dispute resolution involves identifying underlying issues, correctly interpreting and applying relevant content policy, and trying to find common ground. In other words, take some time to cool off and make the effort to talk it out; do not neglect engaging in a discussion with all involved parties on a talk page or escalate further argument by making baseless inflammatory accusations pertaining to behavioral policies, applying unfaithful interpretations of content policy as justifications, or otherwise undermining the dispute resolution process. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The basis for this complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect in good faith, per both deletion and redirection policies. If such an act is contested, it can be reverted and discussed and proceed to dispute resolution, just like any other content dispute. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No good reason given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As other's have mentioned, the basis of the complaints were invalid, and the doubling down trying to get a site ban after the initial section didn't gain traction looks like battleground behavior that has no place in a DS topic. If RoySmith was actually a regular in the topic I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG in the form of either a topic ban or interaction ban for RoySmith to try to settle the topic down, so I'd at least suggest a decent sized WP:TROUT instead.
My understanding based on when I see QuackGuru's editing pop up here is that QuackGuru often acts through WP:STEWARDSHIP in e-cig topics, and those in content disputes with Quack are trying to portray that as WP:OWN here instead. If advocacy is still a problem in this subject that gets stewards acting terse while still engaging in discussion (which seems to be the case when you look at diffs or lack thereof vs. claims made at this ANI about Quack), the DS need to be enforced more stringently to the cut to the source of the disruption. I haven't seen anything presented here that indicates Quack is a true source of disruption in the topic (and I'd change my mind if I did), much less the entire project. This ANI reads as an attempt at a gotcha of a frustrated editor in order to win a content dispute though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I fail to see a legitimate policy-based reason for this suggested sanction. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Propose small measures applying to all parties[edit]

(originally part of ban discussion) QuackGuru is a bit of a Wikidragon, and does write large amounts of content. As BlueRaspberry points out, this is an area in which content is expected to move slowly, so QG's wish to make drastic changes causes more conflict. I do not see QuackGuru as always being on the side of the evidence: short example. However, I do not see this as sufficient reason to ban. I'd suggest the following remedies, all of which should apply to everyone in this topic area, not just QuackGuru:

  • the same standards should apply to one's own edits as one applies to the edits of others. Editors should avoid COI by not removing templates criticizing their own content, unless they have a good-faith belief that the problem has been fixed (not the belief that it never existed).
  • we should not template things that are easier to fix than to template.
  • fv tags may be hard to understand. Inline tags in this topic area should have a informative |reason= parameter, and may be deleted if none is supplied by an editor aware of the need.
  • all edits in this controversial area should initially be made incrementally. Only after incremental addition of content fails should an RfC be used to add the content. An RFC should not be started before the matter and the RfC question have been discussed on the talk page.
  • any non-minor edits suggested by declared COI editors should seek talk page consensus before inclusion in the article.
  • long reverts, especially reverts of several weeks of complex good-faith edits by multiple editors, should be clearly labeled as "reversion to version of [timestamp]". Discussion should not be avoided.
  • it is not OK to follow the letter of rules, but circumvent their spirit. Misuses of process, such as getting a consensus for deleting an article in order to replace it with a version one has already written, should not be undertaken.
  • in this controversial area, we should avoid doing things that curtail or hide talk discussions, such as needless discussion forking, manual archiving, and using WP:G7 to delete and immediately recreate pages.
  • DS notifications, formal or informal, should not be repeated more than once a year, or made in a way that implies personal criticism or threat. Generally, the matter should only be raised with the formal template.
  • per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, two or three citations may be used to support a single sentence. Per convention, different citations may be used to support different parts of the same sentence. Where it is simple, these citations should be separated so that it is obvious what section of the sentence they support (for instance, a citation at the end of each clause: Smith said X[1], and Jones said Y[2]). Where this would contort the sentence structure or otherwise impede readability, Template:Refn may be used to insert a note clarifying which fact comes from which source.
Is there anyone who feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following these guidelines? HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restrictions short of a ban[edit]

I don't think a ban as justified at the moment, but having read this thread its clear that QG's approach to editing in this is not without problems. Accordingly I think restrictions should of a topic ban should be tried first - I'm thinking perhaps in the eCigs topic area:

  1. 1 revert restriction.
  2. A revert of anything that is not self-evidently vandalism or a personal attack must be explained on the relevant talk page.
  3. Prohibition on converting an article to a redirect. They may propose merging and/or redirecting on the talk page, and they may nominate for deletion.
  4. Prohibition on moving any page to or from draftspace. They may propose doing so on the talk page.
  5. No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page.
  6. No placing tags (including failed verification and citation needed) on an article without first either (a) rewording the content to match the source, and/or (b) attempting to find (alternative) sources that do verify the content. In all cases the actions must come with explanation that allows other editors to understand both what the problem is and the reason for it - including use of the reason= parameter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • support Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose per reasons given in previous section by half a dozen editors, to restrict such a capable editor is not beneficial to anyone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Being "capable" is not enough - you need to be able to work with others in a collaborative environment. Without restrictions QG is not, presently, able to do that per all the evidence in this and previous discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ive worked w/ QG on Vaping-associated pulmonary injury which is all over the news, there have been some 17 deaths(and cases here in the U.S. and Canada) we both worked together to form/create the best article with the current information available on this condition... that is being capable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unable to support "No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page." Not clear what "significant" means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: instead of throwing out the whole thing over a minor detail, propose either a way to determine what "significant" means or propose an alternative. This isn't dissimilar to the attitude that's causing many of the problems in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Thryduulf I have received death threats via twitter and requests that my university fire me for my editing of e-cig content. To say it mildly this is a controversial topic area with editors with financial conflicts attempting to suppress concerns (to be clear I am not making this claim about anyone involved in this discussion currently). Well QuackGuru and I do not always agree we are generally able to find something we can both live with. Of your suggestions which I have numbered I would support the 6th (but I would support it for all involved). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
        • That is horrible. I'm sorry you are both dealing with death threats and intimidation. It says something that anyone edits in this area voluntarily.
Thryduulf, are you thinking of some limit on the proportion of the article, or number of facts, changed in a given period? I said "incremental" above, which is not much more concrete than "non-significant"; I meant changes submitted to the article as they are written, and not en-masse. Belatedly, I think there might a problem with WP:FIXED here. Reverting excessively large undiscussed edits is an option, but then the article still turns into a series of RfCs about warring versions, rather than a collaboration. I'd prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles; the discussion is apt to be more substantive, and the end article better. It might get us a bit farther from arguing over sourcing rules, and towards assessing balance of evidence. Maybe we could try presenting an argument for both sides in discussion, reciprocally? Sadly, I've found myself spending more time on the less content-concerned discussions, like this one, simply because they are more antagonistic and thus clamour for attention. HLHJ (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Why do you "prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles"? Is it because I proposed a draft and I gained consensus to replace the older versions with the expanded version? Read this comment: "there are so many problems with the main article that it is a bit shameful WP allows work like this to remain."[24] Editors were disappointed with the older version. User:Sunrise closed the RfC. See Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive_8#Older_versions_or_expanded_version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: I am not attempting to defend or downplay any of that behaviour from SPAs et al, it is indefensible, but none of that excuses the bad behaviour exhibited by QG. Proposal 6 (thanks for numbering them by the way, that is helpful) could indeed be applied to editors generally - and discretionary sanctions are authorised for the topic area. However I don't think that alone gets to the heart of the issues with QG's editing.
@HLHJ: I don't regard proportion of an article as a useful measure as it categorises rewriting two sentences of a one-paragraph stub is vastly more significant than rewriting two sentences of an article that is multiple pages long, yet the effect of the changes may be more significant on the latter (depending on the detail, obviously). Number of facts changed is a better measure, but again it depends on the detail - if you're updating figures to match the latest released version of statistics everyone agrees are relevant then that is really only one change despite many different facts being changed and in many circumstances wont be controversial. However changing just one fact by switching from one source to a different one could be very significant, especially if one or both are (allegedly) partisan. It really needs to be something like "does this materially change what is being said?" or "is the source used to verify what I'm adding/removing/changing controversial?" and if the answer is yes, then it's a significant change, and if the answer is no then it wont be in most circumstances.
@QuackGuru: RfCs only really work when the question being asked is focused and specific. This is almost always vastly easier to achieve when dealing with individual items of content than dealing with whole articles. The comment you quote is a good example of one that is unfocussed and woolly essentially to the point of being useless. Be specific - explain what the problem is, why its a problem, what would be better and why that would be better. Then do the same for the next problem. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The HNB article was like a stub by my standard. There was little content in the lede and the writing was incoherent. My proposal was to expand every section of the article. HLHJ was still complaining about the article after I expanded it. The solution was to start specific RfCs to resolve the remaining disputes. There was a previous RfC that was malformed. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_7#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. Those issues were unresolved. I eventually started RfCs to address the concerns. I left it up to the community to decide. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#IQOS_content and see other RfCs such as Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose Agree with Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James. I also agree that QG has problem behavior. But this is not the solution. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • So what is? Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I've added proposed editing restrictions for e-cigsCloudjpk (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I personally don't want to see QG banned, and I think this is a reasonable stopgap measure. — Ched (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doc James. I've had a fair bit of contact with QG. I won't deny QG can be a little stubborn and pedantic, but I've never had cause for a second to think he is biased. He genuinely has neutrality and the interests of the encyclopedia at heart and these proposed sanctions are an over-reaction. -- Begoon 10:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I too don't doubt QG's motives, but that doesn't mean his behaviour is not disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I think banning QG from ecigs would be a net positive for him and the project. Of all the editors with whom I agree (and I do agree with almost everything he writes), he is the closest I have come to asking for a siteban. Guy (help!) 11:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As I said above, the complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with this user performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect, per both deletion and redirection policies. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. It should be treated like any other content dispute, not dragged to AN/I. Looking at the above section, this was already pointed out, and the OP seems to be ignoring it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think I support this proposal but as I think the first person to point out redirection does not need an AFD and may not even need discussion (05:58, 27 September 2019), can't say I agree QuackGuru did nothing wrong. As me, DocJames and others have said, calling it a hoax was clearly wrong. Firstly while the article had problems, it was not a hoax. Regardless of the merits of the blank and redirect, you can't just go around using misleading summaries when doing so. It confuses the hell out of other editors and provides no understanding of why you did the blank and redirect. Frankly no edit summary would be better than the one they provided. QuackGuru was an experienced editor, so they should have recognised this was not a hoax and they should have not called it one. Second, if QuackGuru genuinely believed the article was a hoax, then simply blanking and deleting was not the solution. Perhaps blanking and deleting was okay as an interim measure, but they should have immediately moved to having the article deleted after that. We cannot allow hoax articles to hang around in main space lest people accidentally or intentionally revert to them, or copy their content. Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Please see my updated edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Your second edit summary was better but still somewhat unclear. The fact that a blog is used or some of the content failed verification is not itself a reason to blank and redirect. AFAIK at least some of the content did match the citation. You seem to have a decent level of English, so I have no idea why you couldn't have just left an edit summary like "Blanking as most of the content appears to fail verification" if that was your opinion. Frankly though, if you had just left the second edit summary the first time around I think me and at least some others wouldn't care so much. Again, as an experienced editor you should not need someone bugging you on your talk page to tell you how utterly confusing your first edit summary was. Further (other than the updated summary) AFAIK you never provided an comment on your use of such an utterly confusing edit summary or at least you hadn't on the original ANI discussion despite having multiple days to do last I checked. And as I said elsewhere it's not like you were super busy doing something else, you were able to directly respond to people who posted to the ANI when you had issues with what they said. A simple "sorry I was wrong to call it a hoax, don't know what I was thinking" or whatever would have at least provided some clue you recognised the problem. Ultimately though, whatever you did do afterwards, my main point stands which is I disagree that you did nothing wrong since you did initially use that edit summary and it took someone asking on your talk page for any clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DocJames. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Swarm, DocJames, and others. Discretionary sanctions are already in effect in the topic, and any restrictions through them should apply to all editors, not just one who actually seems to be following WP:FOC here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: But definitely would also strongly support a compromise in specifics with the issues presented by Doc James and those who feel similarly as I feel their concerns have merit. Waggie (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per the good Doc James. Significance differs from person to person, and there's really nothing wrong with what QuackGuru did, as Swarm rightly notes. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Thryduulf's proposal, largely with the same feeling as Guy. If "don't place tags without genuinely trying to WP:SOFIXIT first" is too complicated, then a full TBAN is an option. For context, I just had a long and frustrating chat at WT:MED (until I gave up, because life's too short to keep explaining simple facts to people who are very highly motivated to not listen). In this conversation, Quack was apparently able to look at images like this shield-shaped product and this long, skinny one and still desperately trying to convince everyone that "different sizes and shapes" was a hopelessly unverifiable claim that urgently needed to be removed from the article. I don't think that the inability to see what's plainly in front of your nose is either "nothing wrong" (to quote Javert2113's description) or what we need in an editor who gravitates to controversial subjects. I'm thinking about the intersection of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:THERAPY, and WP:BOGO: If you are unable or unwilling to admit that those products aren't all the same size and and shape, then I really don't think that the rest of the community should spend this many hours (for years and years and years – has anyone ever written a complete list of the many previous bans and restrictions?) to you overcome your limitations. I'm perfectly willing to take names for the list of volunteer mentors, though. If others really want to dedicate their wiki-lives to mediating these questions, then that's okay with me. "Y'all should just put up with his rigid thinking and obsessiveness and find ways to work around it. I'm gonna go do something easier and more fun" isn't what the project needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DocJames and BMK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Swarm. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No point. I assure you on the basis of extensive personal experience that you will never change QG's behaviour. No amount of handwringing or exhortation will have the slightest effect. Tbanning him will work; any other sanction is exactly the same as doing nothing. And Tban proposals relating to this editor never get any traction. QG does genuinely good work fending off advocates and SPAs. This makes him useful to MEDRS, and thus editors active in MEDRS appreciate him and show up to defend him against Tbans (although most of them will acknowledge that he does display some behavioural problems). I personally raised this with Arbcom in 2015 and they couldn't change him. Neither can AN/I. This is why we have QG --- one of Wikipedia's most often-sanctioned editors, and a person with massive control issues and extreme IDHT, running off the leash and hounding away editors who demonstrate considerably better judgement than he does. I still hope that maybe one day QG will do something so egregious that his MEDRS buddies can't save him, but it is not this day.—S Marshall T/C 02:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I use quality sources including MEDRS-compliant sources such as reviews.
    • You suggested others were IDHT about sources.[25] What about you? You repeatedly deleted a review and replaced it with popular press sources.[26][27] QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The fact that you're answering with whataboutery is telling. If you believe there's a problem with my edits, please do open an AN/I on me. I've always welcomed community scrutiny.

        Listen, QG: you do use good sources, almost always. Specifically, you go through the good sources, you find a statistic, you cite the statistic extremely thoroughly, you attribute it carefully, and you insert it into the article next to other statistics about the same topic. This produces something that looks superficially like a paragraph of text, but isn't. A QG "paragraph" is in fact a bullet-point list of statistics that's been disguised by removing the bullets. And the paragraphs you remove -- the paragraphs other editors want to insert and you edit-war to prevent -- are the paragraphs that move beyond the premises that you love so much and onto thesis and conclusion. When editors want to do this you behave as if they want to violate NPOV, when in fact all they're trying to do is make an article that fucking well goes somewhere. And the IDHT in this is because I've told you all this before, and you ignore whatever I say because it's me saying it.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

        • You have not provided a single diff. But I provided diffs.[28][29] You supported this. The proposal made no sense. The entire e-cigarette aerosol article was deleted and replaced with some content from other articles. I started a real RfC. All those edits were undone. See the expanded new article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
          • It's absolutely true. I've provided no diffs. I said that you're one of Wikipedia's most sanctioned editors. Nobody who's got any business closing AN/I discussions will have got all the way down to here without checking that point, so diffs are needless. I've described your behaviour accurately, and that's easily checkable from the diffs provided by others. And I've given a recommendation to the closer, which is that there's no point giving you sanctions that fall short of a topic ban. Arbcom weren't able to rein you in, discretionary sanctions weren't able to rein you in, and in fact your disciplinary log is clear evidence that nothing short of a topic ban will make the slightest difference to your behaviour. And you're responding with diffs from four years ago that Arbcom have already seen and dealt with by way of a resounding yawn.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Arbcom has not seen and dealt with you removing a 2014 review in May 2016. Why did you replace a review with popular press articles?[30][31] A review is a higher quality source than popular press articles.
            • See a random diff from 2017: "Some researchers and anti-tobacco advocates are concerned that irresponsible marketing could make e-cigarettes appeal to young people.[81][57]"[32] You claimed the sources verify "anti-tobacco advocates". Where does the sources verify "young people"? You think authors of e-cig research are "anti-tobacco advocates"? You don't like the word youth? Is it because marketing to youth has a negative connotation for the e-cig industry? Now there is an entire section on marketing to youth in a new article.
            • Citation 81 verifies "E-cigarette marketing may entice adults and children. Citation 52 verifies "E-cigarettes may appeal to youth because of their high-tech design, large assortment of flavors, and easy accessibility online."
            • You previously stated "QG does genuinely good work fending off advocates and SPAs." Do you acknowledge you added content that failed verification? QuackGuru (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
              • Lol, I acknowledge that I've often added content that fails your interpretation of verification. You think that anything that isn't directly taken from an academic source is inadmissible. Incidentally, the reason why WP:V explicitly tells you not to violate copyright is because nearly ten years ago, I personally put that in. Nowadays my original phrase has become a whole paragraph, because people citing sources too exactly has been a serious problem.

                As I said, if you think my edits are problematic then you're welcome to open an AN/I on me below: I'll happily respond to them there. But this thread is about your behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restrictions for e-cigs[edit]

A key part of the problem is unsourced and failed verification content. Accordingly I suggest these restrictions on policy violations:

  1. Prohibition on unsourced content. If there is no citation at the end of the claim it is considered unsourced content
  2. Prohibition on failed verification content. If the citation does not completely verify the claim it is considered failed verification content.

Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned. They would have to be warned about the first violation before they would be topic banned for the second violation.

  • Support. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Missing the whole point. No-one is trying to push unverifiable content here. Rather QuackGuru is using that as a dogwhistle complaint against our normal standards for what really constitutes "unreliable" or "failed" sourcing. To implement this would be to also give them a tban-on-request stick against other editors, contrary to all our normal TBAN process. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • For almost all content related to nicotine, it is against our normal standards to add or restore "unreliable" sources and "failed" content. See WP:MEDCITE. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andy Dingley. There is no need to define unsourced content and/or failed verification any differently to the way it's done everywhere else on the encyclopaedia. Indeed, doing so would likely do more harm than good. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • !00% of the content in Electronic cigarette is sourced and it is peppered with hundreds of MEDRS-compliant reviews. Following V policy is very simple, IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is already the case everywhere. WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. And it is a blockable offence to restore it without a valid source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • "Violating" WP:BURDEN is not generally considered a blockable offense, especially, and most relevantly, when we're talking about restoring blanked content that (a) doesn't actually need a source according to any editor except one who wants every single sentence followed by an inline citation to a plagiarized or near-plagiarized reliable source, or (b) the content is already cited elsewhere in the article. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing will both get you blocked, though. Have a look at Quack's very lengthy block log if you want proof of what we actually block editors for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support both 1 and 2. There are issues with unverifiable content being added and restored here. Recently sourced content has been replaced with failed verification.[33][34] There was a RfC about the safety content. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Safer_than_tobacco_claim. I started RfCs to deal with failed verification content. For example, see Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse. If anyone feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following verifiability policy then maybe they should not be editing this topic area. This will help with behavior modification and to cut our losses with repeat offenders. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It is not quite correct to say that this is already the case throughout Wikipedia. WP:V doesn't prohibit unsourced content, it can be added to articles, but is subject to removal at any time, and can't then be restored without a source. That's not the same thing as is being proposed here, which is that unsourced content is prohibited from being added in the first place. There are no sanctions specified (which is a problem with the proposal) but I would assume that any editor making multiple infractions of this would be subject to blocks. I do wonder, though, if it would not be better simply to place E-cigs under community general sanctions as a tidier solution. (See WP:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions for a list of currently active community-imposed general sanctions.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#Discretionary sanctions the previous Community-authorised sanctions for this topic area were withdrawn and replaced by arbcom discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah, thank you, I wasn't aware of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: maybe I've misunderstood what you're saying but this proposal explicitly says (and said [35]) "Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned" if they've been warned. Once an editor is topic banned, the norm is they will be subject to escalating blocks if they edit in violation of their topic ban. Technically this doesn't cover people who violate these restrictions once every week but such gaming of restrictions tends to be dealt with the same as violating them. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Clearly QuackGuru is a little too aggressive in this topic area, and hasn't backed down from that stance despite people raising concerns. Waggie (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
So you want to give them the power to TBAN opposing editors, just on their say-so? Did you intend your support comment to apply to the proposal it's tagged beneath? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
DS are already in effect in the topic, so "opposing" editors (or anyone) can be topic banned if their behavior is disruptive, contributing to a battleground mentality, or causing other editors to be terse. For instance, when an editor such as Andy Digley exhibits battleground behavior in their comments at this ANI towards QuackGuru, that can be a good indication to admins that they should be topic or interaction-banned in order to cut down disruption in the topic. I went looking at the talk pages to try to verify some of your claims about Quack, but I'm already seeing some hounding of Quack on the talk pages here and here where you're unable to WP:FOC at article talk pages and more interested in hounding QuackGuru who actually was engaging in content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy Dingley, not based on someone's say-so. Concern has been raised, and after reviewing the situation QuackGuru is, in my opinion, clearly overly aggressive in this topic area, based on own behavior. I also do believe that you are correct in that I posted my support in the incorrect proposal here. I have struck my support here. I support Thrydulff's proposal, as I believe that will yield sufficient results in this situation. Waggie (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the ideas in theory, but the discertionary sanctions should already be tamping down or removing editors that are causing problems in these two areas, so any admin can enforce this already. Given the battelground behavior I'm seeing at this ANI that appears to be mostly one-sided after not looking at an e-cig page for some years, it's clear the discretionary sanctions need to be enforced in general to cut that behavior out. I'm mostly seeing QuackGuru sticking to content while others are more focused on QuackGuru here, so fixing the latter battlegrounding should alleviate some of the terseness coming from QuackGuru (which isn't sanctionable in the first place). I'd sure stick to focusing on content and not responding to WP:BAITING comments like in this section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Battleground? I'd remind you that QuackGuru began this by falsely describing this as "Redirect non-notable hoax article.". It is not acceptable to attack multiple other editors like this and to accuse them of creating hoaxes. This isn't merely a difference of opinion, it's an accusation of fraudulent editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
What did the updated edit summary state? QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Funny looking sort of apology. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - using a sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut. Will cause more trouble, not less. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Near the start of this thread, WhatamIdoing stated, "It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source." I've seen QuackGuru do this various times, and his odd interpretation of verification has gotten him in plagiarism trouble before. As seen here, an editor brought plagiarism to his attention. Also, here in a different ANI thread, Doc James stated, "They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more." Needless to state, his faulty "failed verification" tags are a big issue. Somehow QuackGuru got it in his head that we can't summarize a source's words, like we are supposed to do if not quoting the source and if WP:LIMITED doesn't apply. If an editor uses their own words to summarize a source's text, you can expect QuackGuru to add a "failed verification" tag. This has got to stop. It is one of the more problematic aspects of his editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the requirement that every fact be followed by a citation. The table that User:HLHJ put above is, in my experience, a remarkably accurate illustration of what's Quack wants. We need well-writing articles that contain verifiable contents and present all perspectives in WP:DUE weight. The overall goal is almost unrelated to whether or not there's an inline citation after every piece of terminal punctuation. Nobody wants {{fv}} content. The problem here is what happens when one editor perseverates in declaring a fact to have failed verification after multiple other editors tell him that he's wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTPERFECT. These restrictions are too onerous. Buffs (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No need when arbcom DS are in effect anyway - this would just add more surface area to wikilawyer about. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


WP:SPA and probable WP:COI editor on Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. The user is whitewashing the facility's human rights violations. Most of this user's edits are reverts and he has never discussed on the talk page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly slow-motion edit warring from Pilose399 and, unless there's some compelling answer he gives here, given the lack of effort to discuss I think an indefinite block is in order; indefinite in this case would mean until he agrees to discuss these edits on the talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
And he continues to revert. The sooner this guy's banned, the better. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Bump. User continues to revert. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I warned him with You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now warned him with You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


This user continues to make unsourced additions to personnel sections in Depeche Mode articles despite receiving a final warning for this at the beginning of October. I didn't bother adding another one today because in all their time here, they have yet to explain or communicate the reasons for (what I believe to be) their disruptive behavior. Examples of their unsourced changes can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here with edits specifically focused on adding vocal or instrumental details to these sections. As someone that owns all the band's albums, I have yet to see these details in the artwork and the editor refuses to cite. Please could an admin remind the editor of the importance of WP:V. Robvanvee 15:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

These don't much appear to be unsourced: [36]. Many of the sources add note who was singing/playing the various songs. I would concur it isn't WELL-sourced and could be better, but I'm not seeing the level of disruption you're alleging. WP:NOTPERFECT applies. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not alleging anything that isn't the case as far as I can see. They make repeated unsourced changes and additions despite being reverted with explanatory edit summaries, have received a final warning for it and have yet to communicate at all on their talk page or any talk page for that matter regarding these issues. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting anything happen to this user other than a gentle reminder from an admin so please point out at what point exactly I allege any specific "level of disruption" from this editor? Robvanvee 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
While you are at it, please show me where this editor has ever cited a source? I'll show you where they have added spans of unsourced info to articles. Robvanvee 18:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Tmayerferg101's edits are clearly unsourced, and to an extent, disruptive. The sleeve notes of Depeche Mode's albums do not list individual credits/instruments for each band member, and if many of the sources do list such credits, how come Tmayerferg101 never cited these sources? Ever since this user started editing last October, not once did they provide an edit summary or cite a single source. Even when the user is reverted and/or warned, they never make an effort to communicate with others – instead, they simply resume their unsourced additions. snapsnap (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
When you're adding them to an info box, it's usually assumed it's in the text somewhere and isn't required per WP:LEAD. Buffs (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point. Did you even bother to check out the diffs Robvanvee provided? Tmayerferg101 doesn't even make changes to the infobox, they're just persistently adding content to the personnel section that is not supported by the album's sleeve notes or any other sources in the article. WP:LEAD does not apply here at all. Like I said, the user never cites sources, never justifies their edits and hasn't once made an effort to communicate with other editors. There's a clear case of disruption on Tmayerferg101's end. snapsnap (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I was using that as an example; sorry if I wasn't clear. These additions can all be sourced relatively easily and I don't see it as disruption. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
That's beside the point and does not excuse Tmayerferg101's behavior. As it's been said a gazillion times, the user never cites sources or provides edit summaries – how is any of that constructive editing? WP:V states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", which is something Tmayerferg101 has clearly failed to do. snapsnap (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
"Can be easily sourced" you say. Are you suggesting we run around after them adding sources to their edits? Do you understand the policy of verifiability as SnaSnap and I have have already pointed out? I feel like we are attempting to explain this to Tmayerferg101 and to you at this point...over and over. Please take the time to read this. It's a big part of Wikipedia. Robvanvee 09:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm well aware of WP:V. However, one could make the argument that this is self-evident from the subject of the article. It's like demanding a third-party source for an article about a book that says a book was published by XYZ publishing or that the author was John Smitty or that it's 496 pages or any other material that is literally part of the subject. It's all right there in the cover/credits, just look. The material here seems to fulfill all criteria in WP:SELFPUB (a part of WP:V), don't you agree? Buffs (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────No I don't and I'm tired of going around in circles. I've added 5 more diffs in case you have not had a chance to view their page of contributions and to be honest I'd rather an admin view the diffs and decide. Robvanvee 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And you're still missing the point, Buffs. No, WP:SELFPUB does not apply here (neither do the other policies you mentioned). The liner notes of Depeche Mode albums do not assign specific credits for each band member, they merely list the members' names (see here, for example). Just because X is usually the band's bassist does not necessarily mean X played the bass on a given album. Tmayerferg101 is violating WP:V and WP:OR by inserting information that is not supported by the present source (in this case, the album's liner notes, as noted at the top of the personnel section) while failing to provide a source for their edits. Honestly, I'm done trying to get our point across, and I'd much rather hear from an actual admin. snapsnap (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Complete disregard for this discussion as Tmayerferg101 continues to add unsourced info here, here and here. Robvanvee 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive AfD behavior of User:Sk8erPrince at AfD Ryan O'Donohue article[edit]

Sk8erPrince was previously indefinitely blocked topic banned for 6 months for behavior at AfDs and then after the topic ban was lifted it was reinstated because Sk8erPrince the behavior. Next, Sk8erPrince was indefinitely blocked for creating a sock account to continue disruptive behavior at AfDs. It is unclear whether the topic ban for Sk8erPrince at AfD was ever lifted. Note: Both topic bans were lifted (the latest on Sept 1, 2019). however the tendentious editing and placing the repeated AfDs on the Ryan O'Donohue article is disruptive.

  1. Sk8erPrince nominated the article Ryan O'Donohue in July 2017 for the first time and then received a Indefinite 6 month topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia August 5, 2017 The ban lasted 6 months. Here is the discussion and topic ban at WP:ANI The editor had the topic ban lifted and The Topic ban was then reinstated at ANI 18 days later. The editor again appealed and was given one final chance September 1, 2019.
  2. While topic banned in (March 2018) Sk8erPrince started a sock account called MizukaS Specifically to nominate this article for AfD a second time. Sock Investigation confirmed at that time March 2018 User:Sk8erPrince was indeffed. Seems to have been unblocked September 2018?
  3. Next Sk8erPrince nominated this article for a third time and is now WP:TENDENTIOUS and disruptive on the AfD. It is unclear whether or not the Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia was ever lifted.

I propose Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia

Hello there. I'm not sure why you thought an ANI report is necessary when you have made no attempts to discuss any issues you have with me on my talkpage. I consider myself to be someone that can be reasoned with, and I am open to other perspectives. Quoting one of the points at the top of this page...
Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
*Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility
*Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page
*Or try dispute resolution
In any case, since you decided to file the report with no warning, allow me to defend myself.
First of all, I would like to clarify that my Tban *did* get lifted through an AN discussion, which you could view here. That should ease any doubts regarding my AFD permissions. At the moment, I have a total number of zero editing restritions. Personally, I feel like you should have checked whether or not my TBan was actually lifted - after all, participating in deletion processes and discussions with a TBan is a serious offense, and I would be immediately sanctioned. The fact that you did not lowers the merit and credibility of your report.
Speaking of credibility, "Sk8erPrince was previously indefinitely blocked for behavior at AfDs and then was later indefinitely blocked for creating a sock account to continue disruptive behavior at AfDs" is factually incorrect. I was only ever indeffed once on this account. The first time I was blocked, it was for a duration of 6 months, and it was for civility issues rather than AFD (though my TBan was restored following the end of that discussion). Anyway, check my block log if you would like to double check.
Secondly, while I did sock as MizukaS in the past to circumvent AFD restrictions, I had already served my time with an indef block that lasted for 6 months before I successfully got it appealed. I understood that socking is wrong and deceitful and that if I wanted to participate in any deletion processes, I would have to appeal my TBan; which I did.
The only intent I had for the third and final AFD nomination of the Ryan O'Donohue article is to have a thorough discussion regarding the subject's notability. The first nomination was speedy closed because I had a Tban at the time, and the second one was closed because I was socking. They were closed due to procedural reasons; hence, there was never a proper AFD discussion for the subject. As the nominator, I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable; however, I will accept the outcome gracefully and I shall not renominate the subject for a 4th AFD discussion.
It is also important to note that AFD1 was conducted in July 2017, AFD2 was conducted in Februrary 2018, and AFD3 was nommed in September 2019. Individually, the AFDs are about 1 year apart from each other. Given the span of 2 years, there was plenty of time for editors to search for reliable sources and further expand the article. If I had renommed the article for AFD every single month, then there is an actual issue. In any case, given the thorough discussion in AFD3, there is no point in objecting the outcome; hence, there will not be a 4th AFD.
Lastly, I would like to clarify that I did not insult any of the editors that participated in the 3rd AFD; I simply disagreed by linking policy. In AFDs, there are bound to be agreements and disagreements. I have no objection to backing off of this particular discussion and let it run its course, since I had said my piece there already; and to also avoid blugeoning. I trust the closing adminstrator's judgement and I will not object the outcome.
PS: I would like to do a quick analysis of the AFD - basically, I was debating whether or not WP:NACTOR alone is enough to keep an article; I have reasonable doubts regarding that, so I challenged the Keep camp by asking for significant coverage regarding the subject. The only sources I was able to find were trivial mentions, and in my opinion, that does not qualify for WP:SIGCOV. Nowhere did I belittle them; it was simply a disagreement. Since the AFD is nearing its end, the closing adminstrator could determine which side has more merit. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You are correct about the first 6 month topic ban. However I have corrected the record to show that the ban was reinstated so you were twice topic banned. Lightburst (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Sk8erPrince is not under any current editing restrictions and their behaviour right now doesn't justify imposing a new one. I suspect this is more about removing someone with different opinions from the AfD process, than about any sort of actual disruption. Reyk YO! 04:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Sk8erPrince has good point here that whatever else, your failure to talk to them over your concerns especially considering the age of most of what you highlighted makes opening an ANI discussing them questionable. Even more so since there seems to be no reason why you didn't talk to them, it's not like they banned you from their talk page or something. They had problems in the past but it's been a while now. If they're falling back into those problems and I'm not saying they are, then talk to them about it first. To illustrate the problem, you say "It is unclear whether or not the Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia was ever lifted." Then the very next sentence you say "I propose Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia". So basically your suggesting we hold a discussion over something which may be completely unnecessary. If Sk8erPrince is already topic banned, they can be reminded of their topic ban and unless they successfully appeal it, future violations can be enforced. As it turns out the topic ban was lifted, I'm sure you would know this if you asked Sk8erPrince about it. But you didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    BTW, the comment number 1 is always also very confusing given your later comment. If Sk8erPrince was topicbanned for 6 months in 2017, then this topic ban will be over unless it was extended in some way but you did not highlight any extension. So there would be not "it is unclear", since it's clear. But the topic ban you highlighted (more direct link [37]) was not a topic ban lasting 6 months. It was a topic ban with a minimum of 6 months required before an appeal. (A very common requirement.) This is an important distinction. Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 12:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    P.S. When I wrote the above, I wasn't aware the topic ban had only been lifted less then 2 months ago. This makes any return to past misbehaviour far more concerning. And looking at the AfD, the number of replies Sk8erPrince seems to have made does seem concerning. I still stick by my comment though, it's very difficult to assess an ANI when no attempt at communication has been made. In fact, in some ways, this further illustrates the problem. If you'd opened an ANI and told us 'they were topic banned, the topic ban being lifted on 1 September' this would be far more effective then 'they were topic banned, maybe they're still topic banned but let's hold a discussion over the exact same topic ban anyway'. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne, I understand that excessively responding to the opposing side of the debate constitutes as bludgeoning, which is why I clarified that I shall not comment on that AFD any further and let it run its course. In the future, I will make no attempt to refute *every single* Keep vote (or vice versa) in AFDs. I went overboard this time, and I admit that I could have done better. Ultimately, it is up to the closing admin to determine which side has the stronger arguments. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, but only on Ryan O'Donohue-related topics I see little to no evidence of abuse beyond topics related to R O'D pbp 04:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about now corrected opening: Corrected to: Sk8erPrince was twice topic banned and reinstated, also Sk8erPrince was once indeffed for socking[edit]

@Nil Einne: I did tell them in the AfD to stop the behavior. And then I found out this has been a pattern with the user and it has resulted in a six month ban with a final warning. Seems the editor is determined to delete this article - even going so far as to create a sock account for that purpose. The editor is WP:BLUDGEONING the debate at AfD and here. To clarify - the editor was indeed ideffed for socking. But was given six month suspension for the type of uncivil behavior at AfD. The past and present behavior is well outside the norms of acceptable WP behavior. The last WP:ANI result, the six month ban from AfDs, and the socking indef along with present behavior, show that the discipline did not have the desired effect. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lightburst: If you want to have a serious discussion with someone over their behaviour, you should do so on their talk page. AFD isn't the place to discuss someone's behaviour. It may not be unreasonable to leave a simple comment, 'I think you should cut it out' or similar, but clearly any proper discussion, which should be held before opening an ANI, cannot be held on an AFD. We have very good evidence for this since you told use 'I want to topic ban this person, but actually maybe they already have that exact same topic ban'. It's almost impossible to recover from that since it's very difficult to believe you've actually had a proper discussion with an editor over their behaviour when you didn't even know if they are already subject to the exact same topic ban you were proposing because you never asked if their topic ban had been lifted. Also we do not 'discipline' people on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: Good suggestions regarding communicating on talk page, however not required - "suggested". I did not consider this a dispute between me and the editor, so dispute resolution is not appropriate. This is an editor who repeated the same behavior that resulted in a ban for behavior in the WP community. We have established that the editor was topic banned for 6 months and given a final warning. It is clear that I do now know that the ban was lifted with a Final Warning, also clear that the discipline has not had the desired effect. You can decide not to call it discipline, but being banned from Wikipedia is discipline - and it is progressive and corrective - not putative and destructive. I am pointing out an editor who has engaged in a pattern of disruptive behavior. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Turns out the editor was AfD topic banned twice after having the 2017 topic ban lifted the editor repeated the behavior and was again topic banned for the same reasons. This is likely why the editor was issued a final warning.. I amended the statement. In addition the most recent topic ban was just lifted September 1, 2019. I made the corrections to the opening statement and provided links Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You made an erroneous report on me with no attempt at communication on my talkpage, as well as getting the timeline and several points wrong; on top of that, you did not even try to verify whether or not my TBan was lifted. Sure, you may not be *required* to talk over the issue with me on my talkpage first, but it is still highly recommended. Why else would that point be mentioned at the top of this page?

There are plenty of other things that are not required on Wikipedia, such as writing edit summaries. People still write them anyway because it is a customary practice on the project, and they are helpful to everyone involved. It is a good idea to engage in customary practices, even if you are not required to do so.

And while I admit that I was verbose in the 3rd O'Donohue AFD, accusing me of "attacking" other editors when I present counterarguments is ridiculous. [1]

In the past, I participated in AFDs uncalmly and *actually* belittled the opposing party, instead of quoting policies in my rebuttals. For the sake of comparison, here are some links to older AFDs, when my behavior was truly problematic: [2] [3]

For all intents and purposes, I'd say that I participated in the third O'Donohue AFD in a relatively calm manner. If presenting valid, policy-quoted counterarguments is considered to be "attacking", then I find your understanding of the AFD process as well as your understanding of its established norms to be questionable.

At what point have I "bludgeoned" here? So it's wrong to provide my own defense and point out factual errors in your highly misleading report? You only backpedaled when others pointed out the mistakes in your report; which greatly damages the credibility of your report. Also, to quote the Requesting Blocks section from the blocking policy page: Users requesting blocks should supply credible evidence of the circumstances warranting a block. In this case, it's a TBan that you are trying to impose on me, but the same logic applies. So far, your report has proven to be discredible on the grounds of uncertainty, lack of proper research on my history as well as presenting factually incorrect information, which makes me to believe that you did it with the intent to mislead.

Evidently, a lack of research has been conducted on how many times I've been indefinitely blocked, which you could easily verify by checking my block log. I was only indeffed once, yet you claimed that I was indeffed twice on this account. You also did not verify whether or not my deletion process restrictions were lifted before you filed the report. With such uncertainty and a lack of any attempt to talk over the issues first, I am sure you could see that the validity of your report is highly questionable.

Last but not least, your claim that that I made a sockpuppet to specifically to renominate the O'Donohue article for an AFD is also factually incorrect. Let me quote that part of your report real quick: While topic banned in (March 2018) Sk8erPrince started a sock account called MizukaS Specifically to nominate this article for AfD a second time. While not an excuse, the sockpuppet was made to circumvent my AFD restrictions; the edit count on the sock clearly shows that it was made with more than just renomming the O'Donohue article for AFD. Consequently, I paid the price for such an offense, and I had already served my time.

With that, I have said my piece. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who initially closed the first topic ban discussion for Sk8erPrince and registered it at Editing Restrictions. In a review of the case I see nothing wrong here, Sk8erPrince has correctly nominated an article for deletion citing a justifiable reason for his case for which others have agreed (in point I fact I am of the mind that the article should be deleted, I see no major credits to justify having it here). That being said, I do see that Sk8erPrince has replied to each of the Keep !voters to the effect of attempting to explain why exactly their keep votes on NACTOR grounds are incorrect. Accordingly, I would remind Sk8erPrince that such activity - while technically allowed - can be construed as disruptive editing, and accordingly would recommend that the editor refrain from commenting or replying to the other side, we are all of us going to have different opinions and that should be OK. Remember, its about consensus, not about !voting, and accordingly administrators will take the stronger arguments in the debates. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to close[edit]

Given the recent closure of the O'Donohue AFD, can we please close up this report? As per what I've said above, I will leave the article alone and I will not renominate it for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring using multiple personae[edit]


Please, block the range. IP socking and edit warring by WhiteStarG7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), alongside another their IP sock (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, for 2 weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a note… WhiteStarG7 and IP socks were never blocked here before, hence there was no block evasion. It’s a disgrace for the site that reports like WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017 #IP socking in edit wars are ignored, but it is a fact. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I blocked for disruptive editing, after checking that most of the edits for the last two weeks were not productive, including blatant vandalism--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Recently discovered that WhiteStarG7 has been socking as Special:Contribs/2a02:587:ac7d:4200:f8bf:94d7:65b7:7f6d within the same /32. Unfortunately that bad edit evaded my eyes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There was just one edit in this range, in August. I would not block at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I am not paranoid to request blocking for a two-months-old IP having one bad edit. I merely build case against the master which is evident on account of [38]. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency (2017–present)[edit]

Also note that the sockmaster conducts a vicious edit war in Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with many personae available (2A02:587:2961:6600:: is currently knocked down thanks to Ymblanter). Generally, all the user’s contributions consist of edit warring (in various articles) and planting fakes, which coincide in this instance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Now, I started with 48h, let us see what they do next.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for block review[edit]

I have blocked User:OAbot for adding links to references that appear to violate copyright (to CiteSeerX, a web site that scrapes copies of pdfs from other web sites and makes the scraped copies available itself). CiteSeerX does provide provenance of the copies that it links, which in most cases go to web sites of the papers' authors or publishers, but in many cases do not. In the case that triggered the block, CiteSeerX linked to a copy of a paper that had been made available online by two researchers, neither of whom was the author. It may well be the case that those researchers' use of the paper is fair use, but it doesn't make it fair use for us. If these links were outside of the references section, they would certainly violate WP:ELNEVER, and when OAbot went through the bot approval process, this issue was discussed and the addition of CiteSeerX links was taken off of the list of approved bot tasks. Nevertheless, User:Nemo bis (whom I will notify of this thread, and who is one of the bot operators) has added this feature and has been adding these links at a high rate with no evidence of human supervision.

Because I was part of the original discussion of CiteSeerX links on OAbot, Nemo bis has suggested that I should be considered WP:INVOLVED. Therefore, I am asking for review by other administrators of this block. Specifically, of the following three questions:

  1. Should it be considered a blockable offense to add full-text non-author and non-publisher links to otherwise-paywalled references, after a warning not to do so?
  2. Have Nemo bis and OAbot violated their bot approval?
  3. Am I involved, and if so should I lift my block and allow a different admin to take over here, or does a consensus on the earlier two questions make that moot?

Meanwhile, I will have no objection if any admin unilaterally takes action to modify or remove my block. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I went ahead and notified Pintoch as well, since they're one of the other bot operators involved in OABot as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I did already leave a notification on the bot talk page, also. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I saw that it's running on the Toolforge. Dumb question, but when you blocked, did you disable autoblock? There'd be a lot of potential for collateral damage otherwise. I'm editing from my phone, and I'm having a hard time seeing the block log myself. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I reblocked with autoblock disabled just in case. Not an endorsement of the original block. ST47 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize this was an issue. Will take note for future reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────── For what it's worth, I'm not an admin, but I fully concur with Headbomb's assessment of the issue at User talk:OAbot. OABot 3 was about flagging existing identifiers as free, and adding free dois and hdls and the like. CiteSeerX has been deemed too contentious to add automatically in the past and OABot 3 does not overturn that consensus. I also see your actions as acting purely in an administrative capacity to block a bot that's operating out of the scope of its task per WP:BOTBLOCK, so I don't see WP:INVOLVED applying in this instance. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a good block per WP:BOTPOL. Looking at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3 a number of editors, including a BAG member, were against the addition of new CiteSeerX links, and it seems there was no consensus for the task to include that functionality. The trial approval was explicit in that it only allowed the conversion of existing URLs to IDs, and the task function which was approved explicitly said "maintenance" of CiteSeerX IDs. There's no indication that the approval covered addition of new CiteSeerX links or IDs, and there is indication that such an interpretation was opposed. This edit clearly adds a new CiteSeerX link. Copyright issues aside, the bot seems to be operating outside the scope of its approval and should be modified or the additional task approved before unblocking. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bot operator here. It's fine to have strong personal preferences on citations: for instance, I strongly dislike links to Academia.Edu (which is not good practice) and if someone added them to a citation added by my I may replace those links, but I wouldn't go around saying that the user has infringed copyright or violated policy, because that's normally not the case per WP:COPYLINKS. Of course CiteSeerX is in a much stronger legal position than such commercial websites, personal websites etc.

    I have offered to develop a blacklist feature allowing users to prevent the addition of certain links, also to avoid the repetition of mistaken links if any. Some users have endorsed the suggestion but so far nobody has expressed an interest in using it. As soon as someone will ask me to be able to use a blacklist, I will implement it; until then, the usual per-page blacklists are possible with {{nobots}} and friends.

    Sorry if I'm less responsive than usual, I'm currently busy at a workshop with WU copyright experts in Warsaw. Nemo 07:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood something but AFAICT this isn't to do with personal preferences. The consensus thus far is that CiteSeerX too easily allows potential copyvios so any CiteSeerX link needs to be checked to ensure it's not likely a copyvio per WP:COPYLINKS etc. Given this, the bot was approved with the condition it does not automatically add CiteSeerX links, it can only maintain existing links. If you feel Academia.Edu is the same, you're welcome to propose the same for Academia.Edu although I think, not being an expert on bot policy, as a bot operator you're also welcome to just disable automatic adding of Academia.Edu. While you're welcome to your personal feelings about CiteSeerX, until you've convinced the community otherwise the bot needs to obey approval conditions. If you can't convince the community about your opinion of CiteSeerX, you're welcome to propose a whitelist where editors can choose to add CiteSeerX using the bot. These editors will need to understand their responsibility to check the links for copyright compliance. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi all, thanks for the notification. I am not involved in this run. I would agree with the assessment that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3 made it reasonably clear that CiteSeerX ids should not be added (although it could perhaps have been stated in a clearer way). It looks like Nemo_bis has just misunderstood the scope of the approval. It would be worth listing the parameters that can be touched by the bot in this run (|citeseerx= not being one of them). Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it's too strong to say that citeseerx cannot be touched. I would not object to converting urls that point to citeseerx into citeseerx parameters, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah ok, as you can see I am following this from afar… I am sure you all will be able to define properly what works or not. − Pintoch (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Saqiwa and original research on Fijian chieftain lineages[edit]

Saqiwa is an editor that flew under the radar for a few years, all of his contributions are about the geneology of Fijian chieftains, but it's only recently that someone started to notice that these edits consisted of unsourced original research, original research sourced to drawings of geneology trees (which fail verification), and "sourced" edits that fail verification.

Reliable sourcing has been explained to him several times, here by Marchjuly, here at the Teahouse, and here by me.

Verifying his contributions is very time consuming as the information is disjointed and because he does cite some sources, it just fails verification.

Some examples:

  • [39][40] DrKay reverting his addition to Nakorotubu District as it all failed verification.
  • The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarchy of Fiji was "Keep, but delete everything Saqiwa has added".
  • [41] Failed verification
  • [42] Failed verification
  • [43] Use of an unreliable thesis, explained multiple times, reinserted multiple times. The same thesis failed verification for the statement it was used for in this next edit:
  • [44] Adding large disjointed sections about geneology and intermarriage to the article Roko Malani, but it does not actually start with the article's subject Roko Malani (1754–1833) but instead a namesake who was alive in 1879. Among sources are scanned geneology trees that don't even mention the subjects.
Source check for the above
  • Source does not mention any of the claims it's attached to in "The two brother's great grandfather, Ratu Meli Salabogi (1) declared Nakorotubu as an independent state in 1860 to protest of Ratu Seru Cakobau declaring himself as a self-styled Tui Viti during the Deed of Cession negotiation with Great Britain"
  • The 1959 installation of Ratu Sir George Cakobau by Ratu Meli Salabogi (3)'s son Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (2) proceeded without any problems or disputes is sourced to an an image of some people sitting in a circle
  • Page 243 does not verify any of "The care and benefits from the coconut plantation of the Lau Provincial Council and the Vuanirewa clan in Lakeba resulted in the diplomatic shift of Fiji's traditional and political order, as Nakorotubu ensured a smooth and favorable leadership seat for Niumataiwalu's lineage in Bau and Lau post-World War 2 and post-1970 independence during Ratu Sir George Cakobau and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara leadership time."
  • Multiple family relations "sourced" to this document, but it does not seem to actually verify the statements it's attached to.
  • Unsourced BLP statements about the police & military intervening with someone in 2018. Note, this is in an article about someone who died in 1833.
  • [45]. Not in the cited source, the other source is from 1862 and is therefore unlikely to include comments on the marriage of someone born in 1879.
  • 10 October 2019, giving two sources, one of which doesn't mention the subject and another that a) mentions a namesake in passing but not the subject and b) is an unreliable opinion piece.
  • 13 October 2019, part failed verification, part improper use of primary sources whose existence can't be verified
Source check for the above

1. Roko Malani (2) - (1820-1890)[citation needed] of Lau.[1][primary source; can't verify the existence of this document] Younger brother of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (1), the Tui Nayau and grand nephew of Roko Malani (1). He named a newly birthed Ra chief as Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (1879-1933) during his stop over visit to puakaloa vasu maternal relatives at Nabukadra village in 1879 before attending a Methodist church conference in Vuda.[citation needed]

2. Roko Malani (1879-1933)[citation needed] of Ra.[2][primary source; can't verify the existence of this document] Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani, former Sergeant of the Fiji Armed Constabulary Force in Levuka and late Buli Kavula, son of Ratu Amenatave Dewalarua and Seleima Veinoyaki and grandson of Ra chief, Ratu Meli Salabogi mentioned in the W.J. Smythe Cession Preliminary Report of 1862. Married Adi Asinate Senirewa from the Vuanirewa clan, the daughter of Roko Vilisoni Tuiketei (younger brother of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (1) and Roko Malani (2) who named Roko Malani from Ra during birth in 1879). They had two issues, Ratu Meli Salabogi MBE, JP (1911-1989) and Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani OBE, JP, OSTJ (1920-2005).[citation needed]

3. Roko Malani (1937-2013)[citation needed] of Ra. Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (2), the elder brother of Adi Laufitu Malani and son of Ratu Meli Salabogi MBE, JP (1911-1989). He traditionally endorsed and spent a night at Vatanitawake in Bau during the Vunivalu of Bau installation in 1959.[3][Can not verify existence of this source][4][Primary source, can't verify its existence; how can a source from 1918 be used for someone born in 1937?][5][not in citation given]


  1. ^ Native Lands Commission (NLC) Tukutuku ni Yavusa ko Lakeba, Ratu Jekesoni Yavala-Tubou Lakeba, Lau, 1930
  2. ^ Native Lands Commission (NLC), Jone Vatuwaliwali, Nagigi, Cakaudrove, 1923.
  3. ^ Fijilive website report on Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani heritage endorsement as a descendant of the 1st Vunivalu- Nailatikau (1) & Grandson of Vueti the 1st Roko Tui Bau and Tui Viti when Ratu Sir George Cakobau was installed as the Vunivalu of Kubuna. 50 years on, Bau awaits installation of Vunivalu of Bau, Fijilive, September 18, 2009
  4. ^ Native Lands Commission (NLC), 'Tukutuku ni Yavusa Kubuna', Ratu Isoa Natuituba, 1918
  5. ^ Genealogy on the Origin of the 1st Vunivalu from Nakorotubu, Ra presented on page 31 by the late Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, Roko Tui Bau & 2006-2009 Vice President of Fiji in 'The Life and Times of Cakobau: The Bauan State to 1855'- A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Otago, New Zealand By Hurray P. Heasley, B.A. (Hons.), Otago. August, 2010. [1]

Saqiwa's comments:

  • [46] "What I am concerned about is how other wikipedia editors are selective and inconsistent in applying the wikipedia rules to my articles. For the last 4 years, all my articles were not considered important, however recently there seems to have been a sudden increase to the scrutiny of my contributions, specifically when certain information/documents that were considered confidential and question certain status quo have been shared. I have now reached a stage of keeping a personal copy of my contributions in order to compare that with the reasons that a editor will use to delete or amend my articles to prove that there are ulterior motives of amending my articles through the wikipedia rules. Before, wikipedia editors would be very friendly and encouraging by guiding and amending my articles whereas, now, the only thing that I am receiving are threats of being blocked from wikipedia, which makes my conspiracy thoery more relevant."
  • [47] "can this be part of an organised watch group to suppress Fijian historical facts? [...] There is definitely something more than this, perhaps the sensitivity of the Fijian historical facts exposed?"
  • [48] "This sudden increase in scrutiny [of my edits] happened lately in the last few months when confidential information about Fiji's history were shared"
  • [49] "the recent micromanaging and scrutiny to my contributions seems to have started from the recent exposure of suppressed Fiji's history that are well documented but suppressed for reasons well known."

Thjarkur (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thjarkur This is really an abuse of power in editing privilege. There is really evidence of selective editing in keeping similar sourced materials in Roko Malani compared to my articles including the Roko Malani article 1879-1933. Wikipedia should be aware that this is happening and the reputation of wikipedia is at stake.Saqiwa (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block or topic ban. The diffs and quotes provided above by Þjarkur clearly show that Saqiwa is determined to keep adding fringe original research to wikipedia. He has just once again misrepresented a source in this edit. The source he provided did not support the material he added, and he removed the material that opposed his view and that was reliably sourced. There have been numerous warnings and explanations at User talk:Saqiwa and they've just not worked. A block is now the only way to prevent further disruption. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether WP:INDEF would be warranted at this time, but Saqiwa's tendency to perceive those who disagree with their edits are part of some WP:CONSPIRACY (both on Wikipedia and out in the real world) designed to prevent the "truth" about Fiji from being added to Wikipedia is becoming a bit of a time drain. I do think Saqiwa is sincere and means well, but at the same time all editors are expected to work within the constraints of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and try our best to ensure that articles are kept in accordance with these policies and guidelines as much as possible. There may indeed be problems with how the subjects Saqiwa is interested in are being covered in reliable sources, but I've tried to explain to them that it's not Wikipedia role to set the record straight and fix things.
    Assuming from the beginning that other editors just have to be WP:NOTHERE because they are challenging edits and by making comments to that extent at places like the Teahouse (e.g. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015#Follow-up to Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted.) and in edit summaries (e.g. this and this), immediately starts to move things into WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:USTHEM territory which only makes discussing them that much harder. Then, there's also a tendency to not follow WP:BRD when edits are challenged (e.g. here) which is quickly leading to WP:EW and WP:3RR problems. I've tried to encourage Saqiwa to follow WP:DR and resolve these content disputes through article talk page discussion and thought I was having some success; however, they seem to reverting back to a more brute force approach to try and force their edits through once again. I've got no idea why articles Saqiwa has been editing for some time are suddenly attracting attention (I only saw the Teahouse question and then tried to figure out what was going on), but questionable content is not just simply kept because it's been there for awhile; if someone comes along and challenges it, even after years of going unnoticed, then the best way forward is generally to try to sort things out is through article talk page discussion. I think Saqiwa needs to realize this because continuing on as before is not going to be to anyone's benefit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • He continues to point to unreliable opinion pieces that don't verify any of his claims. All of this has been pointed out to him here, but he refuses to listen. He has again rewritten and added sources to this draft, but the sources don't verify his claims (he points to a source from 1918 for someone born in 1937). I have actually not found a single statement in his contributions that has turned out to be mentioned in the sources he cites. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - I think that there's a real risk with editors who do stuff like this. While it is easy for anti vandalism patrollers and other editors to catch when completely unsourced and false information is added to an article, it is much harder to catch when faked sources are used, especially if the information presented is not outlandish to the naked eye. A patroller would have to step through each source and carefully read it, which could allow a user like this to slip in inaccurate/false information and have it go unchallenged for a long time. (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Quad11, Jack Peterson, COI, and fraudulent sources[edit]

Jack Peterson (not his real name) is a guy from Chicago who was associated with the incel movement. He has since distanced himself from that movement. A biography was written about him in 2018 by hijacking a redirect to an unrelated person. Since then, the article has been edited by not only Peterson himself (as Jackdiamond2080) and many Chicago IPs. A couple of days ago Quad11 expended the article and renamed it to "Jack Peterson (filmmaker)". I started a discussion on the COI discussion board, but Quad11 removed the new material, moved the article to "Jack Peterson (spokesperson)" and deleted my report from the noticeboard.

I am bringing this here because the sources used by Quad11 were fraudulent. The reviews of Peterson's movie were contracted and paid for. Reel Romp will publish a review for about $25. Film Courage will publish a Q&A interview for $300. There are about 50 links to It is probably worth looking at the articles involved for evidence of COI and notability concerns. Meanwhile, someone might want to look more closely at Jack Peterson (spokesperson) and associated editors. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works, I removed the fraudulent (?) sources so the problem should be resolved. It was my understanding that, once a subject reaches notability, new references are less strict when it comes to notability guidelines. However, I reversed the recent edits as suggested because I'm not entirely sure of Wikipedia's rules on that. Regardless, the potentially paid references (and related material in the article) are now removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad11 (talkcontribs) 18:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User keeps adding a short sentence about a streaming service[edit]

Sajal27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I tried to talk to this user, about a streaming service that you can view on youtube. But when I tried to find out any news about it to be used as refs. The name; Muse Asia comes up short, without any mentions about it. Or a type of press release too. My first thought, was anything to youtube fell under the rule/ guideline WP:ELP, if should the youtube channel has a check to its name. But it doesn't. Then the user ignored to talk further about this and re-added it. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of their edits were undone. If they ignore the warnings and add it back. Then did you try Aiv? (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Those edits were undid because of WP:PROMOTION. Until I knew about that on this page. But in the past few days, err a week since this edit. Sajal27 has been adding Muse Asia. Then after I gave the notice, Sajal27 re-added the same sentence. And I'm not sure if this is a start of a slow pattern. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious changes to demographics numbers in Religion in X articles[edit]

Over the past few days, I've noticed IP editors (likely the same one given the similarity of the addresses and the edits) making changes to the demographics sections of Religion in Fiji [50] and Religion in Suriname [51]. In both cases, demographic numbers were tweaked without any change in the provided sources. Now, for what it's worth, the demographic information at both of these articles is quite outdated and needs to be updated, so there is a chance that these are good faith edits. Nevertheless, without proper sourcing the edits are detrimental to the project. I think it's likely that other Religion in X articles have been affected as well, but the two IPs involved in the above diffs have not made edits anywhere else. I would appreciate having more eyes on this, and if the editor(s) making these changes don't respond, I think a range-block may be in order. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note similar edits by CJH927. The ips seem to have started after the named user stopped. User left something of an apology/explanation on their talk page, and haven't responded since. Hydromania (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the edit to religion in Jordan is a misreading of the already existing source, not necessarily a deliberately misleading or unsourced contribution. Hydromania (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pattern of low-key, slow-moving disruption[edit]

Kashmiri Munda (talk · contribs) is providing useful additions to nobility articles, but seems to have a knack for unnecessary capitalization (in particular "Life Peerage" and "Hereditary Peerage"), despite being informed about WP:Capitalization. There is no response. This behaviour reminds me of blocked user A H Butt (talk · contribs) using the exact same tactics. Maybe they are operating multiple accounts.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri Munda is now violating WP:BRD by reverting back. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I see exactly one attempt, a few minutes before you posted here, to explain the situation to him, then an immediate vand4im warning and a report here. Slow down a bit. Give him a some time to respond. --Jayron32 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @HandsomeFella: I agree with you about the socking. It would be best to take the user to SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A H Butt.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just some background information about the names. "Butt" is a common Kashmiri surname (sometimes rendered as Bhat). "Munda" means boy in Punjabi and there are a significant number of Punjabis in Pakistan administered Kashmir and to a certain extent in Indian administered Kashmir as well. Most likely these 2 accounts belong to the same user.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil and disruptive behaviour by IP at Talk:Singapore[edit]

A while ago, I did a few edits on Singapore, Talk:Singapore where I encountered this IP. They behave in a really hostile manner towards me. Here are some examples:

  • 1,2,3 - A persistent accusing tone and refusal to AGF
  • 1,2 - Accuses me of malicious content edits, even on a GA review page. Another editor also tried to persuade the IP to change their tone (link).
  • I had closed a section where the discussion was not productive. 4 days later they reverted me, claiming Hardly a wall of text - no need to close section; I had never mentioned anything about wall of text. When I reverted them and asked not to refactor my comments, but to post in a new section, they edit warred to remove it again claiming Nonsense, not refactoring. I am opposing your section close. And this editor is attempting to legitimise himself without actually engaging on the talk page about his vague misleading edits..
  • 1 - Attempting to bait/provoke a response. For the record, I avoided responding since I wanted other editors to respond as well, who perhaps might have been able to convince the IP.

This behaviour is really disruptive and not helpful for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. It takes away time from actually improving the articles, to formatting and preparing this report. I am not sure if this is enough to warrant a block. In that case perhaps an admin can convince the IP to read up some of the guidelines, particularly those about civility? Or if editors could monitor the discussion, that would be helpful as well.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

For a starter, I blocked the third IP for two weeks, which matches the duration of the second IP block--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, thank you for helping me out. I guess for now this is good enough. If the IP reappears and continues the disruptive behaviour, I will let you know again.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Accusing a BLP reporter at a national newspaper of lying and using Wikipedians[edit]

Regardless of, and without prejudice to who said what about whom, this isn't going to go anywhere, it's a drain on ANI resources and users' patience , and does not need any admin intervention. So before people start queueing up to purchase popcorn: closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we please have a friendly warning to My very best wishes to avoid accusing BLP reporters at national newspapers of lying[52] and using[53] Wikipedians for their own purposes, and to avoid comparing notable and highly critical RS[54] to "Russian state-controlled media"?[55] François Robere (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Let us keep this shit in one place please.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, Which place should said excrement be kept in, perchance? I see there was discussion on Jimbos talk but it seems to have been archived, unless I'm missing it. But it looks like this thread might be here to stay, in which case someone giving a neutral sparknotes version of the situation would be helpful. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I only commented about the source. However, I do hope that no one from WP will give any interviews to this newspaper and to this journalist in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Can't agree on that. His WP-related articles are often very interesting, and he has a generally good understanding of WP-processess/whatevers, especially compared to many other journalists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a spin-off of the WP:AN discussion in which the referenced statement was made. The discussion has been ongoing for several days.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Jimbo Wales, Talk:Warsaw concentration camp, Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia, WP:AN and finally :pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Ogólne, with some WP:CANVASSING going on between them. Note I didn't start any of these. François Robere (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not in the business of protecting outlets from critique. I don't think MVBW did anything actionable here, though I think, on the balance, they're probably wrong about whether the source should be considered unreliable. And I'd suggest you all might want to take a break from Poland stuff. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Critique is fine, but accusing a reporter of lying and abusing sources is beyond just "critique"... François Robere (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Nah, it's really not and I'd suggest you should probably take a breather for a bit and stop trying to get people you don't like in trouble on the drama boards. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
So if I said you - Simon - are lying and manipulating other editors, it'll be perfectly fine? Not WP:PA or something like that? François Robere (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPA does not apply to non-wikipedians; I have seen zillions of insults (expressed as opinion) pass on talk pages related to BLP (take a look at any Trump-related page) that we don't really bat an eye at. There is BLPTALK concerns in this area to be certain, but in context of this specific situation, where we have an RS reporting on things that happened in Wikipedia that we have insight to, and judging how much of that article to use here, its understandable that there are things calling out the article having "lies" and other manipulations by those actually involved. It would be far different if we were talking an RS wholly unrelated to Wikipedia and started throwing out "the reporter is clearly lying!". It is a unique situation specifically on this Haaretz piece that I think we need to understand those that have claimed their words were manipulated to be able to vent that facet as to be able to judge what's appropriate for inclusion. --Masem (t) 15:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Benjakob is a Wikipedian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
My concern was only about this specific publication. I had no idea this author has other publications, such as ones linked on his page. After looking at them, I think the author is generally a good journalist and well familiar with WP business. But this his article is different. Perhaps he was misled by Icewhiz and decided to "make an example" of contributors he perceived as "enemies". My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the discussions, I can't tell if this was a known fact for those involved. That user is certainly not participating in these discussions so it wouldn't be obvious this way. I know some have said they emailed the writer but I'd assume those were based on Haaretz capacity, not through wikipedia, but it is not clear. But that said, we're also talking about what this person did outside Wikipedia rather than their WP contributions. This does change the situation, but it all depends on how well known this was, something I can't read from current discussions. --Masem (t) 16:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It was not known to me. El_C 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I make a point of not looking into the real-world identities of wikipedians. As such, I had no knowledge that the author of this article was a wikipedian. If they are, then WP:NPA might apply; but if they were found to be dishonest, it might constitute off-wiki harassment, so I'm uncertain this is an avenue we want to pursue much farther. That said, I have been called much worse things than a liar by other editors before without them getting much more than a templated warning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Why should we give editors privileges we don't even give RS?[56] François Robere (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
We are permitted to use this sort of judgment to decide whether to use a source (ie. whether it's reliable) - "this source seems sketchy for [reasons]" can include leaps of logic that wouldn't be sufficient to put something into an article (partially because such discussions can help direct us in terms of what sources to look for.) In particular, it can also help establish which claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL, ie. "this claim contradicts obvious evidence, so we need better sourcing for it" is an argument you can make on source up to a point. There are significant limits to that sort of logic, of course; it becomes increasingly untenable the higher-quality the source is or when there are multiple sources saying the same thing... but "hold on, there's reasons to think this is wrong, so let's slow down and wait for another source" is an argument that people are at least permitted to make, on talk. No one is suggesting we leap straight to saying "but they're wrong, according to Wikipedia Editor X" in the article space and cite it to a Wikipedia talk page, which is what that link is closer to requesting. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
At a glance, those seem, to me, to be within the realm of legitimate questioning. WP:BLPTALK specifically says it's about Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, ie. it's permissible to raise objections to the author of a source, even ones that other people might disagree with or feel are unfair, provided it's within the context of discussing whether and how to use that source and the objections are not so plainly ridiculous as to be unrelated to content choices. "You can't imply that the author of this piece might have a bias that would lead them to distort the truth" would have a chilling effect on discussing sources (especially since in this case they're citing another source saying that, by my reading?) If it were completely groundless speculation, maybe you'd have a point with your objection, but the first link directly lays out their reasoning in a way that seems hard to dismiss as utterly frivolous. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@François Robere:This long, rambling complaint letter in the New Yorker seems so vastly divorced from your ongoing complaints with MVBW that I'm uncertain what you're getting at. But again, I'd suggest that all this thread is doing is wasting people's time. I shan't be participating further. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
That was a question to Masem, who was opining that we should give editors certain review rights that, in practice, we withhold from RS. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I've no problem with stating a source "may be biased", I've a problem with stating without proof that a source is "lying". There's a big difference between the two, and in Wiki-world the latter would usually count as WP:ASPERSIONS or WP:PA, though still not enforced. How poor is Wikipedia's culture of discourse if "you're a liar and you exploit others" could be considered an acceptable turn of phrase!
(Interestingly, "you're a racist" is still beyond the pale.) François Robere (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Uncivil user[edit]

Resolved.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amaury has been making uncivil attacks remarks at editors (mainly inexperienced users) on various articles. He’s called editors "idiots", "dumb", and he also called me a immature child. He’s also accused me of WP:STALKING (actually WP:HOUNDING), despite me watching his contributions only to make sure he doesn’t make violate WP:CIVILITY. I do admit, I have made some mistakes as well, I personally attacked him]] at the The Casagrandes talk page (At first thinking it was criticism, I then realized it was in fact a personal attack and that it’s not allowed to say these things on WP and I removed it) and I may or may not have violated WP:HOUNDING. I was patient with this user at first, but due to still being somewhat of a inexperienced editor, may have accidentally crossed the line, and for that I apologize and will just not deal with these kind of things next time. I had good intentions, trying to make sure Wikipedia was friendly, but I more or less contributed to the thing I was trying to stop in the first place. So basically I’m also more or less reporting myself, because I’m not somebody who directs all the blame to others. I plan to take a WikiBreak after all of this for a while. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Diffs: 1. Me asking why he reverted edits on [[Kim Possible (2019 film), I was too aggressive with the word "now", user called me a little kid 2. Instance of him calling well intentioned editors "dumb" 3. Both of us being hypocritical on personal attacks 4. My own violation of CIVILITY

HurricaneGeek2002, Not often that folks report themselves at ANI, but glad you have the maturity to understand you may have been in the wrong. That's a lot better than most editors. If you feel taking a Wikibreak is best for you, that's fair. To be honest, your actions were really not bad at all. People have been way, wayyyy more uncivil on Wikipedia. Just take this as a lesson to learn from, and remember to stay cool, even when others aren't. Regarding Amaury, while they should also remember to focus on content not the contributor, there is nothing actionable here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Obvious WP:COI account[edit]

I'm pretty certain this user is Jasper Rine. The account exists almost exclusively to edit negative information out of the Jasper Rine article (and negative information out of other articles that pertain to Rine), and the few other edits are articles that appear to be related to his field of study. There is an obvious conflict of interest here. DarkKnight2149 05:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That article has serious problems; negative claims about living people need to be sourced to reliable secondary sources, not YouTube videos. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It was restored only due to the conflict of interest. If you take responsibility for the edit, feel free to remove it. Nonetheless, a quick look through the edit history shows that this account almost exclusively exists to promote Rine. DarkKnight2149 05:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not it was a conflict of interest, the material should not have been restored - WP:BLP is controlling here, and your restoration of unsourced and poorly-sourced negative claims about Rine is out of order. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. It was removed purely on WP:COI grounds, so if you take responsibility for the removal, go ahead. No one's stopping you or objecting. DarkKnight2149 05:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Your restoration of the material was absolutely inappropriate, and the kind of thing that's likely to get you blocked if you repeat it. WilyD 09:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm hardly missing the point, you should see my reply below. If you insist on carrying this on, I suggest you continue it down there. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I've read below, and it indicates pretty strongly that you're completely missing the point. Your reversion was wholly inappropriate, and you've been unwilling to admit that you screwed up. If you're unwilling to own that you made a totally inappropriate edit, and plan to continue committing violations of the policy on writing about living people in the future, I'd be happy to block your account until you've familiarised yourself with the policy. Indeed, a critical bit is that you're allowed to edit articles about yourself to remove clear errors and potentially libellous information Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself WilyD 11:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)4
WilyD I think that the original editor does not fully understand the BLP policy. If you review the edits in question, one was a totally non-notable incident (an argument in a classroom over a stolen laptop) that is sourced to a YouTube video. The other does appear to have to have some notability (involving tenure for another professor) but the linked source did not fully support the statements being made. It may be that this second issue does belong in the Rine article, but it would need to be better written and thoroughly sourced to conform with the expectations for BLP. It was wrong of Darkknight2149 to restore the content without carefully reviewing the source, even if it turns out that the person who removed it had a COI. COI does not trump BLP, and we do not include unsourced material in a BLP solely because someone with a COI wants to remove it. (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This is more or less correct. The second paragraph that was restored was totally unsuitable. The first one, I could believe some modified version of it (but not the one that existed) might be restorable. But yes, not only does COI not trump BLP, BLP trumps COI like a bulldozer running over an orchid. WilyD 13:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Darkknight2149 I think the message to take away from this is that BLP policy trumps the COI behavioural guidelines. If you suspect that an account has a COI, by all means raise the concerns at COIN, but before restoring negative content to a BLP, you need to look at it carefully - is the sourcing reliable, and does it properly support the content? If not, it's a BLP violation, and it should not be restored, no matter who removed it or why they did it. If you choose to restore it, you take responsibility for the content and its sourcing. Hope that makes sense - NorthBySouthBaranof has removed it again now, so I don't think any further action is required here, but just something to bear in mind for the future perhaps. GirthSummit (blether) 09:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Given how sporadically Jforsayeth has edited in the past (sometimes going years at a time between edits), I see no reason to assume they won't edit again.. Except on the off-chance that they create a sock puppet because of this report.
As for BLP, I didn't look too deep into the sources, but I do know that it was backed by citations and external links (which were restored along with the content). I saw cited content removed for purely personal reasons and I acted accordingly. If NorthBySouthBaranof looked deeper into the sources and found them to be unsatisfactory, the onus would be on him to remove them. Jforsayeth also could have started a discussion elsewhere about the content, but instead chose to violate our policies for his own interests. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I'm curious, did you look into the external links when you did your source check? Considering that you didn't remove the external links along with the body content and you claim that there's no secondary sources, I don't think you did. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Darkknight2149, with respect, I think you ought to take this a bit more seriously. We mustn't restore negative material to a BLP without checking the sources carefully - both their reliability, and whether they actually support the assertions. It's not enough to see that there are some citations there - we have to check before restoring, otherwise we risk violating policy, which is a Bad Thing. That's my advice anyway - do with it what you will... GirthSummit (blether) 11:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit - To me, it's likely that Darkknight2149 did not review the sources before restoring the content. I did, and I noticed that the source related to the Laptop incident was actually just a YouTube video with no indicia of notability or reliability. The source related to the Chapela incident was better, but it did not fully validate the claims made in the article. (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The last edit was years ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Is that really an appropriate defense when the account has edited sporadically over the years? At one point, there was a five-year gap between edits. It's clear that it operates when it has a reason to operate or when the user spots information pertaining to Rine it doesn't like. DarkKnight2149 05:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What is clear is that the Jforsayeth account made its first edit to the Vine article on the 22nd of January 2010, and its last edit to that article 6 days later. Nothing else is 'clear' other than the fact that you chose to violate WP:BLP policy, after taking it upon yourself to act as judge and jury on an account which has only ever made 17 edits, none of which seem in any way to have been to the detriment of Wikipedia. (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What isn't clear is whether or not you have decided to come here in good faith, or if I should open an WP:SPI. Your IP address has never made an edit to Wikipedia before now, you are strangely emotionally invested in this, and you suspiciously chose to scew the facts. That "first edit" you are referring to is the first edit to the account, period. The account has edited almost exclusively in Jasper Rine's favour, also changing cited content at other articles to paint him in a more positive light (case of point). The username also checks out with Jasper's real name and occupation. The clear bias and purpose of the account is as blatant as can be. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's very likely they're Jasper Rine or someone closely connect to them. If they're having to pull BLP violations from Wikipedia, then we're the ones who are fucking up, not them. WilyD 13:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I have 'scewed' no facts. And what exactly wrong with being biased against Wikipedia being used as a platform for BLP policy violations? If the account was Jasper Rine, he was fully entitled to remove the material, according to policy at the time. He'd be fully entitled to remove it now. WP:BLP is policy: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Removed by anyone, including the subject of an article. WP:BLP is not open to negotiation. WP:COI is a guideline. A guideline that has significantly changed since the edits in question. And even under current guidelines, the correct response to edits from a new account with a suspected COI is to inform the contributor of the existence of the WP:COI guideline, and only after they have been informed of the guideline, seek assistance here if they won't comply. As for 'emotional investment', I'd have thought that calling for entirely pointless SPIs was a prime example. Or do you really think that it would be possible to link edits made 9 years ago (presumably from the US, if your suspicions are correct) with a UK-based dynamic IP that changes maybe once a month? (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I just have to say.... wow. No, one does not have to be a sock puppet of the accused account to find problems with what you're saying. In claiming "The account has edited almost exclusively in Jasper Rine's favour, also changing cited content at other articles to paint him in a more positive light" - that additional example that you put forth is also from the first week of that account being in action. In the other four articles that account has edited in the almost 10 years since then, "Rine" was not even mentioned (assuming that you exclude things like "urine" and "endocrine".) Trying to paint this as some account that's constantly circling, looking squelch Rine-related material is in strong conflict with the actual record. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Darkknight2149: Can you please point us to where you have both explicitly acknowledged your error in restoring BLP violations and undertaken to be more careful in the future? Without such assurances, I imagine the community might have to consider a topic-ban from BLPs in order to ensure no further breaches of one of our most important policies. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I'm really troubled by the BLP violation inadvertently restored by Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs) on the page Jasper Rine. If you look at this this diff, you can see that he added material that was sourced to a YouTube video. I'm concerned that in his zeal to stop a user with a potential conflict of interest, he had trampled over the BLP policy without realizing it. It's crucial that material like this not be added (or re-added) to articles, and while it's important to combat conflicts of interest, it is wholly inappropriate to do so by restoring policy-violating content to the article. (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I to believe that this entire rigmarole is happening because of two edits that took place ten years ago?? Good grief. (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Darkknight2149 isn't going to go on a spree of BLP disruption. However, it couldn't hurt if he entrolled in the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy to get a stronger background in policy and patrolling disruption. Sometimes patrolling can be tricky. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC):*
Darkknight2149, if you'd like to take up NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion above, I am a CVUA trainer and have a slot open - I'd be happy to take you through the course. If you're interested, let me know and I'll set up your training page
Bother - sign, and re-ping Darkknight2149. GirthSummit (blether) 16:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I do not believe that Darkknight2149 is a bad faith or disruptive editor, and I don't think that this behavior is a chronic problem or anything that warrants some kind of sanction. I am just saying that it is important for him to really try to understand the BLP issue here since his above comments make it seem (perhaps wrongly) as if he is not fully cognizant of it. He seemed to believe that you can write anything you want in a BLP as long as there is a citation, and that it is required to restore even problematic or dubiously sourced content if it is removed by someone with a COI. I just want to be sure that he understands that this approach is incorrect and that when reverting stuff like this he should read the sources themselves to ensure that they are WP:RS (which a youtube video usually isn't) and that the source actually says what is there. The fact that the person who removed the content -- 9 years ago -- had a COI doesn't matter for negate the policy requirement for reliable sources and verifiable content. That's all. (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You're probably right, but I'd want to see them at least acknowledge they're wrong here stop trying to escalate things before I'd be confident the situation is resolved in the short term. WilyD 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Darkknight2149[edit]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

I just got out of bed, and as soon as I checked my Wikipedia account, I nearly had a stroke. This is a chaotic mess. While I am willing to listen to other users, I am not scrolling up and down a cluttered thread trying to play "whack-a-mole" against every comment that pops up as 378 people swarm me and trip over each other to make the same accusations. I'm not about to let my blood pressure go up over a good faith reversion of obvious WP:COI editing. If you expect me to read, consider, or reply to anything here, I would suggest:

  • You completely reorganise this thread in a structured manner, and everyone explains their concerns to me in a calm and ordered fashion. Not sure how anyone expects me to keep track of everything and properly defend myself in this jumbled thread.
  • If you are an IP address who didn't start editing until 1-2 days ago, I suggest you make a strong case for why you are not a sock puppet / meat puppet and how you found this thread, because I'm about to open an WP:SPI.
  • This is the first time I have ever been accused of WP:BLP, so any sanctions placed on me are going straight to the supreme court. I know that at least 12/17 of Jforsayeths edits are made for the reasons of painting themselves in a positive light, and the other few are just stray edits at other articles. If Jasper had a concern about WP:BLP, he could have easily brought it to the attention of other editors. Maybe I didn't look as deep into the sources as I should have, but I do know that they were indeed there and The Inquirer (which I'm not familiar with) cites ABC News and the laptop incident was backed by a video. The Ignacio Chapela scandal section also appeared to be backed by the university website. And it was clear to me that the edits were removed by the subject of the article purely to improve his image. Also here, he ended up slightly rewording a sentence to paint himself in a more positive light. So yes, this is a strong case of WP:COI.

Until these concerns are met, you can contact me on my talk page like Girth Summit has done, as long as 500 of you do not swarm me and I can reasonably respond to it without breaking into hives. Girth, I will be replying to you soon. DarkKnight2149 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, your understanding of BLP is wrong, and that's what most of us are taking away from this thread. Instead of digging in please try to understand what other experienced editors have told you above. Here's a key line for you to digest from the policy page - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Mr Ernie (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Response from[edit]

There is no conflict of interest in removing violations of WP:BLP policy. If you really need to go to Arbcom to have that explained to you, feel free. (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow, Jasper. Thank you for proving that an WP:SPI is 100% neccessary: [57], [58], [59]. It's fascinating to me that IP addresses that didn't start editing before 1 or 2 days ago keep showing up here as well. In fact, all of your edits are from this dispute. DarkKnight2149 22:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
No, all of my edits are not from this dispute. I have been editing Wikipedia longer than your account has been registered. I am however editing with a dynamic IP, which changes relatively frequently, as an when my ISP chooses to do so. I could of course register an account (I have held one in the past, but no longer have access to it since I don't have the password) but nothing in any Wikipedia policy or guideline obliges me to. I suggest you confine future replies to the actual issue under discussion here, rather than throwing out wild accusations. (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Further to this, I think that DarkNight might do well to familiarise himself with what WP:COI actually says about handling suspected COI editing:
If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline. If for some reason that is not advisable, or if it fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). COIN is also the place to discuss disclosed COI that is causing a problem: for example, an acknowledged BLP subject who is editing their own BLP. Similarly, if you're editing with a disclosed COI, you can ask for advice at COIN.
During the COIN discussion, avoid making disparaging remarks about the user in question, their motives or the subject of the article(s). Post whatever public evidence you have to support that there is a COI, or that it is causing a problem, in the form of edits by that user or information the user has posted about themselves...
Even if Jforsayeth had been violating WP:COI guidelines (which is debatable, to say the least, given what the guidelines said at the time of the edits in question, and given what WP:BLP has always said about removing unsourced or poorly sourced content), this in no shape or form justifies in any way the behaviour of DarkNight, who seems to have decided that a nine-year-old 'guideline violation' justifies turning a stub article on an academic into an exercise in poorly-sourced negativity. Evidently DarkNight expects individuals who have made a couple of dozen edits to Wikipedia to be more familiar with WP:COI guidelines than DarkNight appears to be. (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I certainly expect you to stop WP:BLUDGEONING and attempting to WP:SANCTIONGAME the discussion, especially when there's an WP:SPI being filed on you as we speak. You've said your piece, now the best thing you can for yourself is to let the chips fall. Your behaviour is beginning to mirror that of Twitbookspacetube, another user and a banned troll known to do this at ANI discussions. DarkKnight2149 22:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that Darkknight2149 has now chosen to escalate matters by attempting to hide legitimate discussion, and by making further unfounded personal attacks (i.e. accusations of being a banned user and a 'troll' based on no evidence whatsoever - after previously accusing me of being 'Jasper'. Is DN actually suggesting that Jasper Vine is Twitbookspacetube?) [60], I would have to suggest that sanctions are necessary. I would suggest a week-long block to give DN time to read what WP:COI and WP:BLP actually say, and a topic ban from all content relating to living persons until such time as DN can satisfy the blocking admin that they understand said policies. (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Darkknight2149, I suggest you leave the hatting to the admins. IP, I suggest you just stop talking for a moment. I really want all of y'all to stop talking at least until some poor admin feels like this warrants attention. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I would prefer that DN not make this thread even harder to follow by moving posts around arbitrarily. [61] When I post a response to something, I do so in the entirely reasonable expectation that people subsequently reading it can see what it is I am responding to without having to backtrack to page history. (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
N.B. The 'Retaliation from' subheader above is further evidence of bad faith from DN. And rather ridiculous, given the lack of any explanation as to what the heck DN thinks I'm 'retaliating' for. (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Read: "Stop calling me out!" If an administrator wants to change it to Response from, be my guest. Your intentions are as plain as daylight, and especially after your "defense" at your SPI (which erased any doubt that you are in fact Jforsayeth), everyone can see it. Do yourself a favor and drop the stick... or don't, and continue looking more and more suspicious. DarkKnight2149 06:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Paranoia isn't evidence. (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations[edit]

@Jforsayeth: You are suspected of using IP addresses to hide your identity and you are now under investigation.

@ You are suspected of either being a sock puppet / meat puppet of Jforsayeth, or a sock puppet of Twitbookspacetube. You are now under investigation. I never thought you were Twitbookspacetube at first, I merely stated that your behaviour was beginning to mimic the disruption of Twitbookspacetube. It wasn't until I saw your violent reaction to this that I began to suspect otherwise.

@2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C: You are suspected of being a sock puppet / meat puppet of Jforsayeth, and are now under investigation.

If anyone wishes to speak to me about WP:BLP concerns and you expect me to actually see it, please contact me on my talk page. This page is a mess and I'm not juggling through it. @Girth Summit: I saw you left a message, and I will be reading and replying to you pretty soon. DarkKnight2149 03:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Jforsayeth SPI makes interesting reading. Interesting, that is, if you want to see what a scattergun 'investigation' based on nothing but insinuation, entirely lacking in evidence looks like. As I have already stated above (some may not have seen it, given DN's entirely inappropriate hatting of part of this discussion) I have been editing Wikipedia longer than the DarkNight account has been registered. I am however editing with a dynamic IP, which changes relatively frequently, as an when my ISP chooses to do so. I could of course register an account (I have held one in the past, but no longer have access to it since I don't have the password) but nothing in any Wikipedia policy or guideline obliges me to. And as long as no such policy exists, I reserve the right to comment here. As an IP. Far too many registered Wikipedia contributors treat anyone not a member of their 'club' as inferior beings. Which is bad enough for unregistered contributors of this supposed 'encyclopaedia that anyone can edit', but worse still for those unfortunate enough to be the subject of trashy 'biographies' used as dumping-grounds tor negativity and trivia. I have no idea if Jforsayeth is Jasper Rine, but given the crap posted in that article (and subsequently reposted by DN) I would entirely support them removing it under any circumstances, regardless of what en.WP thinks is policy. The Wikimedia foundation has made it clear that they consider "human dignity" and "Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect" to be core values for the entire project, and for biographical material in particular, and I would hope that anyone with the true interests of the project at heart would do the same. [62] (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
These accusations need to stop. What you are doing is casting aspersions and refusing to understand what people are telling you. Please leave out the sock accusations or you could receive a sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Ebizur blocked f9r 24h by Bbb23. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • Removal of sourced content by User:Ebizur from the article Haplogroup O-M175. See here. The source clearly mentions "India (Tripura)", but the user is hellbent on removing it, despite the fact that other regions have both the country name and the state/region name mentioned. As an example from the article, I've re-interted "India" in the list text, O-F14422* India (Tripura (Riang)),[1] Myanmar (Yangon). since mentioning "Tripura" alone with a country Myanmar would not be in same footing.
  • Secondly, the user is Harassing me and his showing typical WP:OWN characteristics. Despite I opened up a discussion in the article talk - used the phrase "absolute moron, like yourself" - called "a troll, or you are an Indian nationalist and ethnic chauvinist" - used the terms "ugly troll" and "idiot" - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You have filed a similar report at WP:ANEW, even though both of you have been edit-warring. You have also failed to notify Ebizur of the ANI report (you did for the EW report). Notwithstanding, the personal attacks and snark coming from the other user is well past uncivil; I have therefore blocked Ebizur for 24h.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Sir, I reported at WP:ANEW after Ebizur reverted my edit for the 4th time. That's why similar reports. As for the notification, I thought typing "[[User:Ebizur]]" mentioned above would do it. My apologies for not explicitly notifying them in their talkpage. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Bad faith edits by user despite warnings[edit]

عمرو_بن_كلثوم is consistently editing on Wikipedia with bad faith despite push back from other editors like here. Edits like these[63][64][65][66][67][68] are problematic, persistent and keep getting reverted for a reason. Moreover, comments like these make his intentions on Wikipedia clear [69]. --Semsurî (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. How is adding an official, sourced map of Kurdistan as suggested by the Treaty of Sevres problematic or bad faith? You can depict anything that goes against your VERY biased POV as bad faith. For some reason, many of the articles dealing with Kurdish issues in Syria simply have serious neutrality issues, and some users who try to keep the status quo are preventing any attempt at adding neutral sources. They insist on using maps and information from suspicious sources, with credibility issues. I have started a discussion on the RSN about theses. Also see the talk pages for Rojava and Rojava conflict articles for more information about the neutrality discussions there. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
When editors for years tell you to end this type of editing, it's time to stop.[70]. And removing whole pages to combat what you call Kurdish propaganda is not the way forward. --Semsurî (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Dublin genre warrior, multiple IPs[edit]

Somebody from Dublin is involved in long-term genre warring at music articles. The usual focus is on pop rock acts such as Imagine Dragons, Coldplay, Train, etc. Typical behavior is to use an IP for a day and then move on to another IP. Below, I have appended a list of involved IPs. A few of these have been blocked, for instance Is there any kind of rangeblock that will stop most of the IPs without too much collateral damage? Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on my very basic knowledge of IPs and some googling, it appears the range would cover all but the oldest one. I'm not sure how much collateral a /32 range has. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
A lad insane, uh, a /32 is exactly one IP :). WHOIS says that the .249 and .253 addresses are on separate subnets (.249 is a /22, .253 is a /23) and the ISP's overall block is I can't look too deeply right now, but I'd recommend checking the whole /21 in case there's more of these out there. If it's just .249 and .253, I'd recommend blocking and to avoid collateral damage. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and the March entry ( is in Russia (all of the others are Ireland), so either unrelated, proxy/VPN, or someone's travelling. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I guess that demonstrates the "basic knowledge" aspect. :) -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Creffett that a /24 is the widest you should consider, though blocking a couple of those /24's may be OK. Look over the edits of Special:Contributions/ and you will see mostly the work of this one vandal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Move without reason[edit]

Could you look at these articles' history - Nirbheek and Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek, and look at my talk page too. There is no such name, Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek. I have given valid reference and the article was on DYK. I check the user talk page and it seems to "problematic" and i don't like to engage in edit war. Therefore, i request admin to talk action. Please direct Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek to Nirbheek and "inform" user (Degen Earthfast) too. Thanks. --AntanO 17:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the copy & paste move at Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek - meaning the only version of the article is at Nirbheek. @Degen Earthfast: if you want to move the page please use WP:RM and if you continue to move-war you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 17:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh and @AntanO: you should discuss matters with an editor before coming to ANI and you HAVE to notify them. GiantSnowman 17:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since the move was reverted, a proper move request is now due. Alternating to a cut and paste move via redirecting was inappropriate. But user should have been informed that this report has been filed, which was not done. El_C 17:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, noted. --AntanO 18:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
You, E1_C, do not get to decide what is or is not appropriate just because you disagree with something.Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, as the uninvolved admin examining this report, I get to evaluate it and issue corrective action, if needed. El_C 18:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Grandpallama (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The move was in accordance with WP precedence even if you do not agree with it, are either of you, Antano and Giant Snowman, claiming ownership of said article? There is no ownership of articles in WP, they can be moved without your knowledge or opinion. See Wikipedia is not a Democracy Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not really what Giant Snowman and El_C are saying. They're saying that (a) your cut and paste move violated policy, and (b) when someone disagrees with a move, you need to have a discussion before moving it again. That's not an example of them trying to own anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Degen Earthfast: - please listen to me, El_C and Floquenbeam and plese stop making wild accusations. GiantSnowman 18:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Was your move in line with WP:COMMONNAME? That's precedence, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Manufactured objects are generally known by their brand Name followed by their product, in case of weapons for example see Colt Python, Heckler & Koch G3, ad nauseam. Try looking up Python. Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The content dispute, itself, does not belong on this report — it needs to take place on the article talk page. El_C 19:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a Naming dispute in which [User:AntanO|Antan]]O has apparently staked ownership AND again Wikipedia is not a Democracy and Wikipedia:Be bold. Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Instead of bludgeoning us with links to these policy pages, think WP:ONUS is the pertinent link you should review. El_C 19:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I made my point. Antano has apparently claimed this article and objects to any editing done to it, to include moving it.Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This level of WP:IDHT gets frustrating after a while. As does repeated passive-aggressive whining about imaginary "ownership" issues. The page will stay at it's current name until there is a consensus to move it. This consensus should be gained thru WP:RM. Everything else is sound and fury, signifying nothing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
There obviously is "ownership" issues" so there is no " passive-aggressive whining" thanks for not being an impartial administrator and not helping.Degen Earthfast (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not see ownership issues. I see a bold move by Degen Earthfast, a revert by Antano, and...the next step in the WP:BRD process would be discussion, but I do not see where Degen Earthfast has started any discussion about the move at Talk:Nirbheek. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Syed Muhammad Taha Zaidi[edit]

Syed Muhammad Taha Zaidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Removal of sourced content on Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr despite warnings. [71] five times.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This looks to be vanilla edit warring and not something that really needs ANI attention. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


Continued addition of unsourced BLP despite multiple warnings, starting last year. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Note All user edits are to that page only, possible COI/Paid issues also. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Birbal Kumawat[edit]

There was recently a report about this editor which was closed since they hadn't edited in a couple months. However, they seem to be back, still trying to push their idiosyncratic views about English grammar (despite having a very poor command themselves) – some diffs: [72] (as an IP), [73], [74], [75], [76]. It might be time to take further action here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to include a link to the original thread for convenience. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Some of this person's edits are incompetent bordering on disruptive. The latest edits, however, are starting to look like trolling. I suspect this editor is probably going to end up indefinitely blocked if this keeps up. The older edits could at least be construed as good-faith attempts to improve content, but it's hard to say that about blanking sprees and legal threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Long term link spamming to promote non notable musician's theory[edit]

  • (talk · contribs) has for more than two years added links to Ian Ring's website to multiple articles. Looks a lot like a WP:COI. I've reverted a handful and warned the responsible IP, but would appreciate more eyes on the edit history and am requesting reversions. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:6C57:2675:7756:B1CF (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have requested that the site be added to the blacklist, see here. Blackmane (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)