위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive1031

데이 수브라타

내가 초안을 작성하는 동안 실이 닫혔다.나는 WP에 동의하지 않는다.NOTVANDAL block은 내가 관찰한 초안을 작성하는 데 시간을 보냈기 때문에, 어쨌든 게시할 것이다.

• 디프 1 AKG는 기사에서 여러 차례 언급된 정치인의 사진을 삭제한 뒤 "토크에 대한 명확한 합의당"이라며 논의가 진행 중인 가운데 이를 삭제해야 한다는 명확한 합의는 없었다.AKG의 편집 요약은 "완벽"과는 거리가 멀었다.사진의 제거는 AKG의 "잘못된" 편집 요약본을 사용한 AKG는 존재하지 않는 합의로 인해 AKG의 제거가 정당화되었다고 추론했다.DS는 "미리딩 편집 요약 및 편집 전쟁"이라고 번복했다. AKG가 아직 편집 전쟁을 하지 않았기 때문에, 그것은 오해의 소지가 있지만 편집 전쟁은 아니었다.AKG의 편집 전쟁은 6분 후에 일어났다.
• Diff 2 DS는 "토론 내용을 읽어보십시오. 분명히, 이 폭력의 원인이 되는 인물의 그림은 기사에 매우 중요하다." 그 사람이 WP에서 실제로 논의되고 있다.RS는 폭력을 선동한 자로 보고 있다.그래서 DS는 새로운 것을 언급하지 않았다.아직 기분 나쁘진 않아.
• Diff 3은 AKG에게 표준 템플릿:uw-ewsoft를 제공하는 DS이다.이것은 커뮤니티에서 지원되는 표현이며, AKG가 두 번째로 사진을 삭제한 AKG의 명백한 편집 전쟁으로 인해 적절하게 주어졌다.여기 DS가 기분 나쁘게 할 것 없어.
• AKG의 2차 제거에는 "토크페이지의 명확한 합의에 반하여 먼저 합의를 이끌어내라"는 편집 요약이 있었다. 다시 말하지만, AKG는 사진을 삭제하기 위해 편집전을 벌이고 있어 오해의 소지가 있었다.DS는 "NPOV 위반, 오해의 소지가 있고 파괴적인 편집"이라고 언급했는데, 이는 AKG 제거로 정당화될 것으로 보이는 것이 사실 오해의 소지가 있고 파괴적인 것이었다.
• 디프프 4 DS는 AKG에 자신의 편집이 번복된 후에는 다시 번복하지 않고 토크 페이지 토론에 참여했어야 했다고 설명하고 있다.다시 제거하는 것은 편집 전쟁이다.DS는 그것을 공공 기물 파손이라고 부르지만, 그것은 공공 기물 파손이 아니라 파괴적인 편집이다.AKG는 잘못된 편집 요약을 사용했기 때문에 DS가 "여기서 스마트하게 장난치지 말라"고 그를 부른 것 같다.DS는 "만약 이런 편집행위가 계속된다면 (아름) 두려워서 다시 차단될 것이고, 이는 영구적일 것"이라고 덧붙였다.분명히 지속적인 편집 전쟁은 차단 가능한 위반이며, AKG의 편집 전쟁 블록 이력과 함께 다음 블록은 실제로 증분적이거나 영구적이 될 수 있다(인덱스).
• 데이는 이미 차단되었으니 데이가 그들의 발언 톤을 성찰하고 적대감을 덜 느끼게 하는 시간을 가졌으면 좋겠다.⋙–DBIGXrayᗙ 16:09, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:페퍼베스트

인터벤션 요청

비소싱 장르 및 제휴사 추가

리빙-인칭 기사

내 코멘트의 삭제와 관련됨

나는 이것에 대해 확신이 없다.

사용자:토임 및 Alt-right에게 음성 전달

토오밈 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

토크에서 토론하는 동안:인종과 지능, 위키피디아에는 "사기 이론가, 알트 라이터, 네오 나치스, 캐주얼한 인종주의자, 반 세미트 등"의 목소리가 사용자들과 함께 들리는 것은 중요하지 않다고 논평했다.Toomim은 즉시 [10]을 반대한다.후자가 토오밈에게 알트 우파가 '우파'나 '보수'와 같지 않다는 것을 전달하려 할 때 나이트헤런과의 약간의 오락가락이 이어졌다.NightHeron은 또한 "alt-right라는 용어는 우파의 가장자리 날개를 가리킨다"고 밝혔다. [11] & [12].이에 토오밈은 다음과 같은 글을 올렸다.

• 알트 우파는 수백만 명의 사람들을 묘사하는 정치적 성향이다. 만약 당신이 이 사람들이 위키피디아를 편집하는 것을 막으려 한다면, 당신은 위키피디아의 핵심 원칙인 NPOV를 심각하게 위반하고 있으며, 누군가가 당신의 계정을 행정부에 보고할 수도 있다. 조심해서 밟아라.[13].

참고로, 내가 답하고 있던 토오밈의 게시물은 다음과 같았다. [14].위키피디아의 알트 라이트 기사에 나오는 첫 문장이 다음과 같이 쓰여 있다는 점에서 알트 권리를 옹호하는 위의 진술은 나를 걱정하게 했다.

• 우파는 미국에 기반을 둔 극우, 백인 민족주의 운동이다.

관리자와 다른 사용자들은 어떻게 생각하는가?위키백과에서 알트 우파의 목소리를 제공하고 싶은가? --K.e.coffman (대화) 16:05, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI의 문제가 아니다.EENG 16:22, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• (갈등을 편집한다) 분명히 말하면, 토오밈도 자유주의적이라고 밝히고 있다.그것은 당신이 알트 우파가 누구를 포괄하는지에 대해 의견이 일치하지 않는 것일 수도 있다.어느 쪽이든 토오밈의 게시물은 특정 정치 집단에 '목소리를 내고 싶다'(알트 우파의 '대신 조언'은 고사하고)는 것으로 읽지는 않지만, 익명의 편집자는 여전히 주제 영역 내에서 편집하도록 허용해야 한다는 것이다.사실 토오밈의 글의 맥락을 읽으면 읽을수록 이 실에서 주장하는 전제가 모두 불결하다는 것을 알게 된다.당신의 불만을 액면 그대로 받아들이더라도 어떤 종류의 관리자 개입을 요구하고 있는지 잘 모르겠다. 199.66.69.88 (대화) 16:30, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
• K.e.coffman의 우려는 이 IP 편집자의 주장처럼 현실적이며, "불편한" 것이 아니다.나는 그것에 대해 무엇을 할 수 있는지/해야 하는지에 대해 입장을 취하고 있지 않다.그러나 토오밈의 레이스 및 정보 토크 페이지 참여는 문제가 되어 왔다.어느 순간 인종과 지성에 관한 다비드 피퍼의 글이 RS가 아닌 이유를 설명하기 위해 나는 Rational로부터 인용했다.위키:피퍼는 리차드 린이 설립한 인종차별주의 연구소인 얼스터 사회연구소의 연구원으로 인종차별주의적인 유사과학을 출판하고 있다.이에 대해 토오밈은 나를 '맥카시즘'이라고 비난하고 '마녀사냥'을 벌이며 "도덕적으로 비난받아 마땅하다"고 말했다.이 모든 것은 알트 라이트 소스의 사용을 반대하기 위한 것이다.NightHeron (대화) 17:40, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 괜찮아, 만약 이 사람의 행동에 다른 심각한 문제가 있다면, 기사를 영구적으로 반보호해야 하는지에 대한 의견의 불일치에서 이 컨텍스트 밖의 인용문 대신 OP에 제기해. 199.66.69.88 (대화) 18:30, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 네가 착각한 것 같아, 그 행동은 단지 한 번의 토론에서만이 아니라 모든 토크 페이지에서 일어났어.호스 아이 잭 (토크) 18:33, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 그럼 수술실에 있었어야지만약 이 사람이 지장을 초래하고 있다면 수술실에서 꺼냈어야 했다.나의 분석은 고립된 인용구와 그것에 대한 합리적인 해석에 근거한다.그러나 나는 반보호를 반대하는 것은 극단주의자들에게 비누상자를 주는 것을 지지한다는 것을 의미한다는 주장을 믿지 않는다.나는 그가 위키피디아를 통해 극단주의자들이 "목소리"를 갖게 하는 것을 지지한다고 말한 적이 없다는 것을 주목할 것이다.그렇긴 하지만, 나는 보수적인 관점이 NPOV를 위반하여 침묵되고 있다는 분명한 주장을 감안할 때 AP2 하에서 경고를 하는 것이 전적으로 적절하다고 생각한다.주제 금지가 적절한지 여부는 다른 문제이며 제공된 OP보다 더 많은 증거를 요구한다. 199.66.69.88 (대화) 18:41, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 나는 OP가 전체 Talk를 인용하는 것으로 해석한다.인종과 지능을 증거로 한 다음 가장 터무니없는 진술에 대한 구체적인 내용을 제시한다.물론 내가 그 해석에서 틀렸을지도 모른다.호스 아이 잭 (토크) 18:45, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
          • 특히 패턴을 확립하기 위해서는 부정행위의 확산이 필요하다.대화 페이지에 대한 막연한 물결은 전혀 도움이 되지 않고 불충분하다.제공된 모든 OP는 반보호에 대한 한 논쟁에서 몇 가지 차이점이 있는데, 내가 이미 말한 이유 때문에 그렇게 "괴롭지는 않은" 것처럼 보이지 않는다.우선, 모든 사람들의 반대 주장에도 불구하고, 그는 누군가에게 "목소리"를 주는 것에 대해 아무 말도 하지 않은 것 같다.그렇다, 그는 보수적인 목소리가 진보적인 목소리에 유리하게 침묵되고 있으며, 그것은 경고할 가치가 있다고 주장했다.그러나 나는 그의 논평이 극단주의자들의 관점이 동등한 우선권을 가져야 한다는 것을 의미하는 것으로 읽지는 않는다.이것은 기사에 내용이 아닌 토크페이지의 반보호에 관한 모든 논쟁을 거친 후였다. 199.66.69.88 (토크) 18:49, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
            • 이러한 주장에 대해 어떻게 생각하십니까?그들은 기사 내용에 대한 논쟁인 완전히 다른 섹션에 속해 있다는 점에 유의하십시오.호스 아이 잭 (토크) 19:12, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
              • 비파괴적이고 도움이 되지 않는다. 199.66.69.88 (대화) 19:37, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 노나지스(NONAZIS.비쇼넨은 18:03, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)을 이야기한다.[답답하다]

• Alt-right에게 발언권을 주는 것은 NPOV와 WP:V에 대한 WP의 정책을 위반하는 것이다.만약 이 도구들이 목소리를 원한다면, 그들은 페이스북이나 포찬, 또는 그들이 지금 집에 만든 어떤 쓰레기장으로 가야 한다.프락시디카에 (대화) 18:14, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 어느 쪽이든 의견이 없고 NPOV 부분은 이해하지만, 어떻게 V를 위반할 수 있을까?토오밈이 나치라는 것도 알아냈나?PackMecEng (대화) 18:16, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 같은 이유로 그들의 블로그에 게시된 몇몇 원들의 개인적인 연구를 사용하는 것은 WP:V를 위반하는 것인가?우리는 그러한 출처에 사실에 의존할 수 없다.알트 우파는 사실을 왜곡하는 데 달인이다.골드 레벨의 정신 체조선수들이라고 할 수 있다.프락시디카에 (대화) 18:18, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

      골드 레벨의 정신 체조 선수들, 내 생각에는 – 거기선 너와 동의할 수 없다.그들은 사실 꽤 서투르지만, 그들의 청중들의 비판적인 능력은 너무 둔해서 그들이 하는 말이 이치에 맞지 않는다는 것은 중요하지 않다.EENG 22:28, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

      진짜 사실.PackMecEng (대화) 22:29, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

      • 아무도 내가 볼 수 있는 개인적인 연구를 의도하지 않았다.내 질문의 두 번째 부분을 건너뛰었잖아.난 단지 네가 여기서 어떻게 오는지 이해하려고 노력하는 거야.PackMecEng (대화) 18:20, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 오, 내가 좀 더 분명히 해야 할 것 같은데.레이스와 인텔리전스를 동시에 편집하면서 자신의 사용자 페이지에 링크된 이미지(두 번째 사진 아래 참조)를 올리는 것이 적절하다고 생각하는 편집자의 의도가 의심스럽다.프락시디카에 (대화) 19:53, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
          • 잘됐네, 네가 다른 편집자를 나치라고 부르는 건 용납할 수 없을 것 같아서 걱정했네.PackMecEng (대화) 20:37, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
          • @Praxidicae:올려진 주먹 사진?지금도 공산주의자로 의심받고 있다!=푸도(대화) 09시 50분, 2020년 2월 22일(UTC)[응답하라]
            • @Pudeo:하하하...나는 사실 마리오에 가고 있었다.콧수염 봤어?--토임 (대화) 11:01, 2020년 2월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• 토오밈은 레이스와 인텔리전스에서의 논의에 문제가 있어 다른 사용자의 우려를 일축하면서도 자신의 우려를 최대한 진지하게 다뤄줄 것을 요구해 왔다.매카시즘 등의 다른 편집에 대해 평준화되고 있는 비난도 부적절하다.그들 자신이 프린지 그룹의 일원이든 아니든 간에 그들은 확실히 WP에 의해 일반적으로 허용되는 것보다 훨씬 더 많은 프린지/과학적 의견에 목소리를 내고 있다.프린지. 호스 아이 잭 (토크) 18:18, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
• 사실 이것은 꽤 쉽다.ARBAP2 주제 금지가 가장 적절해 보인다.나는 왜 그런지 매우 명백하다고 느낀다. 하지만 만약을 위해서: 우리는 어떤 그룹에도 "목소리"를 주지 않고, 우리는 믿을 만한 소식통을 반복한다.프린지 그룹에게 "목소리"를 주는 것은 위키피디아나 어떤 백과사전의 목적이 아니다; 만약 당신이 당신의 그룹이 "목소리"를 가지기를 원한다면, 블로그를 시작하라.한 집단이 선의로 양질의 원천에 널리 퍼지는 것에 대해 토론하는 것은 괜찮지만, 당신이 옳다고 주장하는 것과 동의하지 않는 모든 사람들을 비하하는 것은 우리가 재량적 제재를 가하는 것이다.이반벡터 (/)^Talk_Edits 18:35, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
• 다른 의견을 지지해서는 안 되는 것처럼, 극우 의견을 지지하는 위키피디아의 목소리에 그 어떤 것도 명시되어서는 안 된다는 데 동의한다.WP:NPOV는 우리가 중립적이라는 것을 의미하는데, 즉 우리가 의견을 표명하지 않는다는 것이지, 우리가 서로 다른 극단주의자들 사이에 어떤 종류의 균형을 만들어 낸다는 것은 아니다.이것은 우리가 그들의 의견이 옳다고 보이도록 사실을 무시하는 어떤 출처에도 기사 내용을 근거하지 않는다는 것을 의미한다.필 브리저 (대화) 18:55, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
• 위키피디아에는 시각적 선별이 없다.그러나, 극우 편집자들이 WP를 준수하지 못할 경우:NPOV와 WP:V는 공격적인 편집으로 누구처럼 차단할 수 있다.토오밈이 알타리 정의에 대해 꾸짖는 것이 이 실의 요점은 무엇인가?그 기사는 그 용어가 잘못 정의되어 있기 때문에 여기서 그 논의를 계속하는 것은 현명하지 못할 수도 있다고 말한다.토크:레이스나 인텔리전스는 아카이브 페이지가 100장이니, 이런 것을 토론하는 포럼으로 활용하는 것을 중단하는 것이 좋을 것 같다. --Pudeo (토크) 20:04, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
• 토오밈의 총편집 중 압도적으로 많은 부분이 2007년부터 계정을 가지고 있음에도 불구하고 경주 및 인텔리전스 토픽 영역과 지난 몇 달 동안만이라는 점에 유의할 것이다. XTools는 163개의 라이브 에디션을 보여주며, 이 토픽 영역은 138개 편집된다.그것은 WP로부터 나에게 우려되는 사항이다.SPA의 관점(WP:SPA는 그 자체만으로 걱정할 필요는 없다고 지적한다.나는 또한 "알트 라이트"라고 여겨지는 사람들에 의해 자주 사용되는 소싱에 대한 그들의 지지를 발견한다.Toomim은 WP가 되기 위한 선의의 편집자일 수도 있다.불필요한 위키리딩을 통한 포인티(POINTY)지만, PINTY가 되는 것은 편파적인 편집이며, 고민거리인 것이다.이와 같이, 그들의 전반적인 행동은 AGF를 좀 더 확장시키고 있다. IMHO. 몇몇 사람들은 이것이 올바른 장소가 아니라고 주장해 왔다. 나는 잘못된 것이라고 생각한다. - 토론 페이지는 내용 관련 이슈에 대한 것이 사실이지만, 여기서 토론하고 다양한 주제에 대해 토론하는 것이 적절한 행동 이슈에 대한 사례가 있다.k 페이지는 이미 논쟁이 되고 문제가 있는 토론들을 심각하게 손상시킬 것이다.Waggie (토크) 21:42, 2020년 2월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• SPA가 더 문제인데, 그런 편집자들은 일반적으로 의제를 가지고 있다.스팸일 수도 있고, 이해충돌일 수도 있고, 상관없어. --버논씨(토크) 02:20, 2020년 2월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

• Toomim은 위키피디아에 대한 발언권을 가질 자격이 있고, 그것은 비주류가 아니며, 그것이 정책이 아니기 때문에 NONAZIS를 무시해야 한다고 다소 직설적으로 주장하는 것처럼 보인다.이게 정말 '좋은 믿음' 에디터야? 빌어먹을 '인종과 지능'을 편집해야 하는 건가?~스왑~ 2020년 2월 24일 02:17 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 알트 우파는 다른 사람인 척 한 이력이 있다(지옥, 그들은 다른 사람인 척 한 나치로 출발했다).이것과 싸우기 전에 향미 에이드를 먹고 싶은 사람?이안.톰슨 (대화) 06:48, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

우리가 친나치적 관점을 차별하지 않도록 확실히 하고자 하는 인종과 지능에 관한 SPA가 (아마도 주체가 민간적이고 ANI 독감에 걸렸기 때문일까?) 행동을 일으키지 않았는지 확인하고 싶은 사람은 좀 놀랍다. --JBL (대화) 15:33, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

@Joel B. 루이스: 난 그들이 기사를 편집하지 않고 그저 말만 하기 때문일 거라고 생각해.어쨌든 K.e.coffman이 여기로 가져온 것이 옳다고 생각하고, 그들의 페이지(Toomim's, KEC's가 아니라)를 감시했다고 말할 것이다.비쇼넨 tålk 19:00, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[답답하다]

사용자:Kenji1987 WP:NOTHER HERE

겐지1987년 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

그들의 전체 기여 이력은 적은 양의 논점(예: 논점 논증)을 제외하고는 소수의 문제 있는 학술 출판사에 대한 기사를 삭제하려는 시도로 구성된다.토크 페이지 기고문은 끝없이 쌓여 있는 시민용 POV 푸싱으로 이루어져 있다.본질적으로 그들이 접촉한 모든 사람들은 결국 COI에 대해 질문하고 말았다./그들이 급여를 받든 아니든 간에, 그들은 학술지 분야의 다른 편집자들에게 무의미한 에너지 고갈이다.WP당 무기한 블록을 요청한다.NOTHERE. --JBL (대화) 17:52, 2020년 2월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

Kenzi1987의 동일한 패턴의 시민적 POV 푸싱도 내 토크 페이지, 즉 내가 분명히 응답을 포기했을 정도로, Kenzi1987이 계속 주장을 펼치려고 노력하도록 만들었다: 사용자 대화: 참조:데이비드 엡스타인#화이트워싱에 대한 나의 설명.—David Eppstein (대화) 18:08, 2020년 2월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

"WP:NOTHERE"가 적용되지만 WP에는 분명히 문제가 있다.IDHT 및 WP:의심스러운 출판사(대부분 프런티어 미디어와 민주당I)에 대한 일반적인 집착을 단서하라.학술 출판과 관련된 주제 금지가 정당화될 수 있다.헤드폭탄 {t · c · p · b} 18:15, 2020년 2월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 솔직히 오픈 액세스 출판과 관련된 페이지 개선에 기여하려고 노력하고 있다.가끔 무리할 수도 있지만, 나는 일반적인 아톰스피어가 상당히 독성이 있다는 것을 발견한다.민주당 토크 페이지를 보면 내가 페이지 구조조정에 대한 논의에 열려 있다는 것을 알 수 있지만, 그것은 무시되거나 내가 화이트워싱에 대한 비난을 받고 있다.JBL은 나에게 "가라"고 거듭 부탁했고, 나는 위키피디아에 가입한 지 1일째부터 화이트워싱의 악센트를 받지 않고는 토론에 참여할 기회가 없었다.이 제안된 금지의 결과가 무엇이든 간에, 그것은 모두 문서화되어 있고, 우리는 누군가의 진의를 결코 볼 수 없지만, 나는 위키피디아에 게재된 학술적인 정보에 대한 내 역할을 좀 덜 편향되게 하려고 노력하는 학자다.민주당의 페이지는 C 퀄리티로 등급이 매겨져 있는데, 거기에는 이유가 있다.우리가 이러한 상황을 끝내는 즉시, 완전한 금지라는 다른 사용자들의 변화를 저지하기 위해 노력하는 편집자 그룹이 있다.나는 오픈 액세스 출판사에 대한 페이지 개선에 대해 공개적인 토론을 할 용의가 있고, 그 동안 더 이상의 편집은 자제할 용의가 있지만, 그렇다면 나는 건설적인 논쟁이 필요하며, 나나 나의 관심사에 대한 토론이 아니다.반면에, 만약 내가 금지되어야 한다고 결정된다면, 여기서 배워야 할 교훈이 있다면, 독자는 그것이 어떤 교훈인지 결정할 수 있을 것이다.겐지1987 (토크) 23:29, 2020년 2월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

헤드밤, 주제 금지도 괜찮을 것 같다; 켄지1987은 주제 영역 밖에서 기사나 기사 토크를 0개 정도만 편집해왔기 때문에, 나는 어떤 차이점도 볼 수 없다. --JBL (토크) 00:35, 2020년 2월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

Joel_B._Lewis 그것은 단순히 사실이 아니다.나는 대학, 내가 좋아하는 도시, 그리고 다른 이상한 페이지들에 대한 페이지를 편집했다.학문적 출판물만큼(아마도 내 편집물의 95%는?)은 아니지만, 올바른 판단을 하기 위해서는 사실이 아닌 것을 간단히 진술할 수 없다.겐지1987 (토크) 02:35, 2020년 2월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

비록 이것이 WP는 아니지만:코인, 내 즉각적인 인상은 사용자 페이지의 주장에도 불구하고, 그리고 질문했을 때 그렇지 않다는 것을 반복했음에도 불구하고 이해충돌에 대한 것이다.그 이유는 바로 그 증거인데, 그 역사는 개방적인 접근과 특히 민주당에 관련된 많은 편집을 보여주었고, 비판을 최소화하려는 경향이었다.내가 틀렸다는 것은 불가능하지 않지만, 이것들은 대개 강한 지표들이다. 다른 여러 편집자들 역시 의심하는 것과 같은 이유...누군가가 관여하지 않고 특정 주제에 그렇게 많은 노력을 쏟는 것은 드문 일이다(그것을 통해 출판하는 것만큼 온화해질 수도 있다).다른 이들은 WP:AGF는 그렇지 않다고 생각하지만, 그들을 설득하기 위해서는, 그것을 시행하기 위한 최종적인 주제 금지나 심지어 전면적인 사이트 금지 조치가 일어나기 전에, 논쟁거리가 될 때, 혹은 다른 주제들로 넘어가는 것이 좋을 것이다.—PaleoNeonate – 03:00, 2020년 2월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

팔로네이트, 이것은 겐지1987년에 반복적으로 제안되었다; 위에서 보는 투덜거림("나야! 내가 부정성을 없애고 싶다고 해서 내가 백일해로 고소당해야 할 얼마나 잔인한가! 아아!")은 그들이 전에 했던 반응과 완전히 일치한다. --JBL (토크) 03:20, 2020년 2월 19 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 어떤 이유로든 페이지를 "수정"하는 것이 너무 급해서 도움말 템플리트를 사용해야 할 것 같다.더구나 민주당 기사 자체는 이전에도 COI 편집 문제가 많았다.만약 정말로 기사를 GA의 지위에 올리는 것이 목표였다면, 논란이 덜한 페이지를 사용해보는 것은 어떨까?정말 COI가 아니라면, 여전히 편집에 지장을 초래하는 지경에 있다.—PaleoNeonate – 03:37, 2020년 2월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

예를 들어, Scientific Reports나 Plos One을 보았다.겐지1987 (토크) 03:43, 2020년 2월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

오른쪽: 적은 양의 WP:내가 말한 포인트 주장. --JBL (대화) 16:59, 2020년 2월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 항상 한 가지 특정 주제를 편집하면 이해충돌의 느낌을 유발할 수 있다는 것을 이해한다.요점은, 첫날부터, 나는 그것에 대해 고발당했다는 것이다.지금, MDPI wiki는 COI를 가지고 있는 사용자들에게 특히 민감하게 반응하고 있으며, 나는 (예를 들어, 당신 자신의 연구를 하는 것이 위키피디아의 일부가 될 수 있다고 가정함으로써) 초보적인 실수를 저질렀지만, 매번 토론을 시작하려고 노력하고 있다(토크 페이지 참조, 나는 입력, 제안, 그리고 심지어 도움을 거듭 요청하고 있다) 나는 이에 맞서야 한다.결국 나는 지금 완전한 금지가 정당한지 아닌지에 대해 토론하고 있다고 결론짓게 된다.지금은 (오늘까지) 시민적 POV 푸싱이 무엇인지 몰랐고, 특히 사용자들이 더 이상 그런 것을 원하지 않는다고 말한다면 끝없는 토론은 하지 않도록 노력하겠지만(나는 이것에 대한 경고를 받은 적이 없다) 동시에 신문 스타일의 기사가 무엇이 구성되고 백과사전이 무엇이냐 하는 것에 정직하게 관심을 갖고 있다.오피딕(opedic), 일반적으로 리드(lead)에 들어가는 것과 그렇지 않은 것, 언제 출처가 구식이고 언제 그렇지 않은지 등등.나는 예를 들어 과학 보고서 (내가 덧붙인 섹션)와 민주당에 대한 비판이 어떻게 보도되는지를 이중 잣대로 본다.전자에게는 짧고, 요점만 말해도 인용문이 사용되지 않으며, 후자에게는 편집자들이 무엇을 느끼고, 누가 수사학적으로 무엇을 묻고, 어떤 잡지가 일부 기사를 "미친" 혹은 "은둔한" 혹은 그렇지 않은 것으로 칭하는지에 대한 전체 에세이다.이제, 나는 여기서 이 토론을 시작하고 싶지 않다. (그리고 나는 이곳이 이런 종류의 논의를 위한 장소가 아니라는 것을 이해한다. 그것은 나에게 총체적, 주제적, 금지된 것이 정당한지 아닌지를 논의하고 있다.) 그리고 결과가 어떻든 간에, 나는 이것에 대해 거의 영향을 미치지 않는다.) 그러나 이것들은 내가 제기하려고 하는 몇 가지 문제들이다.만약 이것이 WP 정책에 반하는 것이라면, 나는 그것을 그만하고, 편집에서 허용되는 것과 그렇지 않은 것을 조금 더 관찰할 것이다. 그러나 만약 이것이 타당하다면, 나는 어떻게 책임 있는 위키 편집자가 될 것인가에 대해 공개적인 토론을 할 용의가 있다.나는 솔직히 사람들이 내 전체 회답을 단순히 "whing"으로 줄이거나 "go go away"와 같은 말을 통해 토론이 중단될 때 자극을 받는다.Ps. 나는 우려를 표명했다. 나는 지금 여기에 두고 있다. 나는 나중에 결과가 어떤지 들을 것이다.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDPI 겐지1987 (대화) 03:43, 2020년 2월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 아무런 조치 없이 보관되었지만, 나는 시기상조라고 생각한다. 몇몇 편집자들이 편집의 문제점을 확인하기 위해 위에 무게를 실었다.나는 특별히 나의 원래 제안에 얽매이지 않으며, 다른 행정가들이 한번 보고 변명의 여지가 있거나, 주제 금지나, 최소한 문제의 행동에 대한 명확한 경고를 할 수 있다면 감사할 것이다.(이전의 피드백에 대한 겐지1987년의 반응을 볼 때, 마지막 행정관이 프로블을 예방하는 데 성공할지 의심스럽다.ems.) --JBL (대화) 16:12, 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 나의 "운명"에 대해 듣기를 고대한다. - 나는 내 주장을 펼쳐왔고, 더 이상 덧붙일 것이 없지만, 동시에 2019년 9월부터 JBL이 나에게 접근하는 방식에 대해 관리자들에게 코멘트를 부탁하고 싶다.위에 링크를 추가했다(페이지에서 "돌아가기"만 검색).겐지1987 (토크) 02:51, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• 주제 승인 금지 또는 WP:NOTHERE 블록.나는 내 감시자에 관한 기사 편집에 근거하여 같은 결론을 내렸다.가이 (도움말!) 00:16, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]
• 겐지는 다른 편집자들의 말을 듣기를 다소 꺼려했던 것 같다.나는 그가 그만두라고 했을 때 이것은 주제에서 벗어난 것이라고 대답했다는 것을 알아차렸다.나는 많은 POV 푸싱과 인종과 지능의 주제 영역과 관련된 편집을 알아챘다.나는 주제 금지와 부분 차단을 지지할 것이다. 겐지 편집장과 함께 겐지 편집장도 다른 편집자들의 말을 듣지 않는다.겐지로부터 다른 편집자의 말을 듣지 않는 경향으로 부분적인 블록이 필요하다고 생각한다.대부분의 중재적 제재에서 "광범위하게 해석"이 사용되었기 때문에 이 섹션이 인종과 지능과 관련이 있다는 통고를 추가하는 것을 고려하고 싶지만, ANI 논의의 주제에서 편집하는 것으로 정말 충분한지 확실하지 않다.유효하지^OS 않은 (대화) 15:33, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 논란이 되고 있는 민주당 내 인종과 정보에 관한 기사에 한 단락을 추가했는데, 출판사가 허용한 것은 끔찍한 일이다.상대가 환영해야 할 일인데 왜 이런 얘기가 나오는지 모르겠다.나는 이것을 바로잡는 것이 좋았다.논쟁은 우리가 이런 종류의 정보를 추가하는 부분이지만, 지금은 금지를 정당화하는 데 사용되고 있다.겐지1987 (토크) 15:41, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

@Kenji1987: 내가 MDPI의 인종과 지성에 관한 논쟁적 기사에 한 단락을 추가했다고 말하는 것은 출판사가 허용한 끔찍한 일이다. 상대가 환영해야 할 일...관점을 강조하기 위해 이런 짓을 한 것 같군나는 금지를 정당화하기 위해 인종과 정보 편집을 사용한 것이 아니라, 단지 여기서 그 주제 영역의 극단적인 논쟁 때문에 그것을 지적한 것이다.하지만 지금, 당신은 당신의 목표가 POV-pushing이라는 증거를 제공했다.그리고 그 POV 푸싱은 금지를 정당화하기 위해 사용되었던 것이다.유효하지^OS 않은 (대화) 15:00, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 당신이 왜 이 편집을 언급했는지에 대해 관련이 있다고 보지 않았고, 나는 여전히 그것을 보지 못했기 때문에 그것을 금지에 대한 또 다른 정당성으로 해석했다.왜 그런 얘기를 하셨죠?단지 그 주제가 논란이 된다고 해서?내가 무슨 관점을 밀고 있는 거지?추가 편집: 나는 MDPI와 프런티어 위키 페이지를 화이트 워싱한 혐의로 고발되었다. 만약 그렇다면 논란이 되는 정보를 추가하는 것은 말이 되지 않을 것이다.하지만 나는 네가 왜 나의 편집을 언급했는지 정말 흥미로워.겐지1987 (토크) 17:13, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 켄지1987은 위키피디아로부터 휴식을 취하고 있다고 선언했다.이렇게 해서 자신의 행동이 문제라는 데 무게를 둔 이들의 만장일치 공감대를 바탕으로 행동을 막지 않기를 바란다.JBL (토크) 13:03, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아에서 잠시 쉬고 있다.나는 학문적 출판페이지에서 (내 표현의 자유를 이용하는) 아톰스피어가 상당히 독성이 강하다는 것을 알게 되었고, 몇몇 편집자들은 금지를 요구해 왔다.이는 금지 조치의 결과와 상관없이 반대 의견을 가진 편집자들에게는 좋은 소식이 될 수 있지만, 새로운 편집자들이 그들 자신을 확립할 수 없다는 사실이 슬프다.새로운 편집자로서, 내 견해에 열렬히 반대하는 사람들 외에는 아무도 나를 정말로 알지 못한다. 그래서 나는 사람들이 나를 여기서 지지해주기를 기대하지 않는다(나는 랜디키티를 믿는다) 그리고 내가 없는 한 나는 그들에게 공공 기물 파손으로부터 일부 페이지를 보호하도록 맡긴다.그러나 위의 예시로는 나에게 불리하게 사용된 것(또는 그렇지 않은 것)이 있다.내가 덧붙인 민주당에 대한 인종 정보 논쟁에 대해 왜 언급됐는지 아직도 답을 기다리고 있다(그러나 처음에 여기서 언급하지 않았다)는 것은 내가 출판사 한두 곳을 백지화하는 데 관심이 없다는 것을 보여준다.JBL이 놓아주지 않는다는 사실은 나 역시 여기서 무엇이 허용되는지, 무엇이 허용되지 않는지 알고 싶어 하는 것이기 때문에 나는 괜찮지만, 그것은 또한 MDPI나 Frontiers가 완전히 쓰레기라고 생각하지 않는 새로운 편집자들과 함께 일해야 하는 분위기를 보여준다.내가 하는 모든 편집이 관찰된다.물론 초보적인 실수를 좀 했지만, 이 일이 내 시간의 너무 많은 시간과 감정적인 정신 상태를 소모하고 있기 때문에 나는 작은 휴식을 취해야 한다는 생각이 든다.겐지1987 (토크) 14:30, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것을 어제 일찍 닫았고 내 토크 페이지에 JBL의 요청으로 다시 열었다.어제 또 몇 군데 문을 잘못 닫았으니 사과할게.나는 여기에 관여하지 않고 의견이 없다는 것을 분명히 할 테니, 그냥 예의를 차리는 거야.Amaury • 15:34, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 친애하는 JBL에게, 나는 이 특정한 실이 해결될 때까지 계속 이 실에 대응하고 있다. 새로운 편집자로서, 나는 다른 사람들에게 나를 변호해 달라고 요청할 수 있는 사회적 자본이 없다. 그리고 당신이 그것을 알기 전에 당신은 인종 정보 광신자들과 같은 그룹에 속해 있다. 그리고 그렇다, 나는 다른 편집자의 질문에 대한 답변을 기다리고 있다.나는 내 사용자 페이지에 명시된 다른 페이지, 즉 일시적으로 반년 정도 편집하지 않을 것이다.JBL은 아마우리의 토크 페이지에 다음과 같은 인용구를 남겼다는 것을 덧붙이고 싶다. "특히 겐지가 말하는 것은 무엇이든 그들이 (내 코멘트에 응답했기 때문에) 물러간다는 생각을 포함한 회의적인 시각으로 보아야 한다."나는 개인적으로 이 특별한 진술에 불쾌감을 느끼고 있으며 나는 이것이 위키백과의 규칙에 위배된다고 믿는다.다른 편집자들이 서로 반대하도록 설정하는 것은 (적어도 JBL이 그렇게 보지 않을 수도 있다), 다시 한 번 내가 분위기가 독성이 있다고 말하는 이유, 그리고 내가 편집을 중단한 이유.이 토론을 마무리한 편집자 덕분에, 그러나 나는 이 토론을 계속 열어두자고 말하고, 나는 관리자들이 나의 행동뿐만 아니라 JBL에 대해서도 언급하기를 좋아한다.한편, 나는 JBL에게 여기 없는 한 나에 대한 이야기를 자제해 달라고 부탁하고 싶다.그것은 친절한 부탁이다.JBL이 다른 편집자들에게 나를 어떻게 인식해야 하는지 알려주는 추가 편집은 여기서 볼 수 있다: "@Scitechwiki:여기서 겐지1987의 모든 편집은 그의 다른 편집에 비추어 보아야 한다(특히 Talk:MDPI 및 대화:심리학의 프런티어.--JBL (토크) 21:48, 2019년 12월 30일 (UTC)."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PLOS_One#Request_to_mention_Beall_in_the_lead)이것은 전혀 이유 없는 일이었고, 결국 나와 다른 편집자는 우리 둘 다 만족하는 의견의 일치를 보았다.겐지1987 (토크) 15:59, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

Gamesmasterg9의 반복적인 중단 편집 후 보호 요청

1. 사용자:Gamesmasterg9는 스웨덴 인권의사 기사의 이 수정판을 반복적으로 완전히 되돌렸고, 여러 가지 사실 오류와 개별 의사(생존자)에 대한 거짓/실증 진술이 포함된 이전 버전으로 그것을 대체했다.한편, 실제 내용이 허위 주장을 뒷받침하지 않는 출처를 가리킨다.[16]

2. 부정행위 편집의 이것과 이와 유사한 문제는 기사의 Talk 페이지 Talk에 설명되어 있다.스웨덴어_닥터_for_Human_Rights#Exquired_edits. 이 불만 사항의 평가의 일환으로 관리자(administrator)가 읽기를 제안한다.

3. "위키피디아: 반달리즘에 대한 관리자 개입"에 이어, 나는 이미 사용자 게임마스터g9에 경고를 통보했다.그러나 기사 편집의 이력을 조사한 결과, 게임마스터그9이 '스웨덴 인권의사들'을 향해 교란행위를 하는 것은 고립된 교란적 편집이 아닌 행위에 해당한다는 것이 명백하게 드러난다.위키피디아가 2017년 글 삭제에 대한 게임마스터g9의 지지 제안에 대해 내린 판결과 함께 시작된 행위.

4. Gamesmasterg9가 행한 반전은 구체적인 편집의 대상으로 삼지 않고, 대신 사용자는 Talk 페이지에 설명된 단 하나의 변경에 대한 설명에 귀를 기울이지 않고 기사를 완전히 되돌리고 있다는 점에 유의하고자 한다.

5. 게임마스터g9는 회전에 대한 완전한 설명으로 "WP:COI"라고 썼다.나는 게임즈마스터g9에 사용자의 COI 게시판 보고를 환영한다고 메세지를 보냈다.Gamesmasterg9가 하지 않은 것.그것은 나의 사실에 근거한 편집이 아니기 때문에, 그러나 Gamesmasterg9의 행동은 이 기사의 편집 히스토리를 따라다니며 조사를 요구할 수도 있다.

3. 위키피디아가 '파괴적 편집'을 '편집 패턴...User Gamesmasterg9가 지난 주에 두 번 발생한 장애의 이력과 지난 주에 발생한 장애에 근거하여, 나는 수정본의 보호를 요청하고 가능하다면, 백과사전을 건설하거나 기사를 개선하려는 방향으로 진척되는 것을 방해하고 있다.관리자의 독립 검토

안부전합니다, 토버스터 (대화) 15:38, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

파손된 것은 아무것도 없다.당신의 대규모 재작성이 번복되어 답답할 수 있으며, 게임마스터g9은 그 번복 후에 후속 논의를 해야 한다."반달리즘"을 좋아하지 않는 편집본을 호출하는 것은 위키피디아에서 편집을 시작하는 좋은 시작은 아니다.그러나 당신의 편집은 특별히 백과사전적인 것도 아니고, 특별히 중립적인 것도 아닌 것 같다.사실, 그들은 의심스러운 COI처럼 보인다.일단 BRD에 따라, 그들이 경쟁당했기 때문에, 나는 그들을 되돌렸다구.그랜드팔라마 (대화)20:30, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

할머니께:

당신이 내가 "싫어하는 "반달리즘" 편집이라고 하면, 당신은 아무런 증거도 없이, 그리고 내가 편집한 것에 대한 사실에 근거한 이유를 제시했음에도 불구하고, 당신은 내가 위키백과의 새로운 편집자로서 나의 작품에 대한 나쁜 믿음을 비난한다.천만에요.그럼에도 불구하고, 당신은 나에게 상호추정의 권리를 준다면, 단지 "당신은 편집이 마음에 들지 않았다"는 이유만으로 내 모든 일의 합계를 되돌렸을 것이다.그러나 나는 기꺼이 상호주의자가 되는 것을 기권한다. 왜냐하면 나의 질문은 대신에 이 기사가 위키백과 규칙에 따라 가져야 할 내용의 중립성과 검증가능성에 관한 것이기 때문이다.아마도, 당신은 "필요 편집"을 읽은 후에 입장을 바꿀지도 모른다.[17]

내 불평은 "미필수 편집"에 관한 것이 아니다, 그랜드팔라마.그 대신, 그것은 위키백과 정책에 따라 기사를 수정하기 위해 내가 추가한 모든 편집사항(해당 토크 페이지에 설명되어 있는 각 편집사항의 근거)과 검증 가능한 출처에 대한 50개의 새로운 언급에 관한 것이다.그것은 그 기사의 거의 전면을 일괄 삭제하는 것에 관한 것이다.그리고 Gamesmasterg9에 의해 블록으로 지워진 다른 새로운 편집의 내용에 대해 아무런 언급도 하지 않고.위키피디아에서 반달리즘이 언급하는 것에 대한 내 해석이 틀릴 수도 있고, 그 경우에 나는 오직 WP에만 만족한다.당신이 언급하지 않은 DE.당신은 편집 경험이 있고, 나는 당신이 "반달리즘"을 사용하는 것이 옳다고 믿는다.그럼에도 불구하고 나는 뜬금없이 '반달리즘'이라는 개념을 유추하지 않았다."위키피디아:반달리즘(Bandalism)"은 다음과 같이 말한다."중립적인 관점, 검증가능성 및 독창적인 연구가 없는 핵심 콘텐츠 정책과 무관하게 백과사전 콘텐츠의 악의적인 제거…" [18].

내 주장은 (그리고 당신이나 당신처럼 "필요한 편집"[19]을 읽는 데 시간이 걸릴 다른 숙련된 관리자라면 동의할 것이라고 믿는다) 이전 버전의 SEDHR에 대한 몇 가지 핵심 진술이 중립적인 관점의 핵심 정책을 위반한다는 것이다.마찬가지로 대부분의 참고문헌(구본이 포함하고 있는 22개 중)은 본 문서에 제시된 각 진술에 대응하여 검증가능성의 시험을 통과하지 못한다.즉, 중립적 관점과 검증가능성을 근본적으로 부정하는 것이 특징인 편향된 글이다.

당신은 어제 기사의 편집 내역에 다음과 같은 글을 올렸다: "여러분의 편집은 논쟁의 여지가 있으니, 토론 중에 다시 되돌리지 마십시오."[20] 그러나 다음과 같다.

1) Talk 페이지에는 새로운 편집에 대해 "논의"가 전혀 없다.위키피디아의 "토론"은 새로운 편집에서 주어진 정보와 참고문헌의 사실성/검증가능성에 주의를 기울이지 않고 어떤 편집도 차단하려는 게임마스터g9의 자의적인 결정을 의미하지는 않는다.내 생각에, 토론은 편집의 내용과 그 근거에 대한 논쟁과 반론을 제기하는 것을 의미할 것이다.그리고 이것은 Talk 페이지에서 하도록 되어 있다.대신, 게임마스터g9가 발표한 기사에서 삭제되기 전이나 이후에, 내가 편집한 논거를 언급하는 토크 페이지에서는 어떠한 항목도 수행되지 않았다.

2) 둘째로, 당신이 쓴 것에 대해: "당신의 편집은 논쟁의 여지가 있다."글쎄, 그건 오히려 그 반대야.그 대신에 내가 편집한 것은 사실에 근거한 주장과 함께 그 기사의 결함 있는 버전에 이의를 제기한 것이다.다시 한 번, 그리고 그 주장에 대해 사과드리며, 각각의 새로운 편집에 대한 근거는 Talk 페이지에서 설명되었다.

새로 편집한 내용이 무엇에 대해 이의를 제기했는가?몇 가지 예를 들어보자.

a) 선두와 섹션 "조직이 취한 상황" 및 나머지 글에서, 스웨덴HR이 처음부터 시행한 주요 활동(통계적으로 측정됨)에 대한 언급은 완전히 생략됨, 줄리안 어산지의 자유를 위한 캠페인이다.

b) 피터 헐크비스트(Peter Hulqvist) 국방장관이 스웨덴의 NATO에 대한 입장과 관련하여 한 성명에 대한 무뚝뚝한 표현.이 기사의 구본은 인용된 출처(스웨덴 신문 DN)에서 한 번도 말하지 않은 헐크비스트 장관(스웨덴 신문 DN)의 입장을 인용한 것으로, 즉, 기사에 잘못 나와 있는 것처럼, "장관이 스웨덴의 NATO 가입이 바람직하다고 주장했었다"는 것이다.그것은 Hultqvist가 말한 적이 없고, 언급된 출처가 보도한 것도 아니다.그는 스웨덴과 나토 사이의 "협업"에 대해서만 말했을 뿐, 회원 가입이나 가입에 대해서는 결코 찬성하지 않았다.이것은 스웨덴 국민과 정부(대신 중립과 비정렬을 선호함)에서 극도로 민감한 주제다.또는 기사의 주제인 SEDHR에 대한 다양한 허위 정보 또는 부정확한 정보.

c) 구본의 참고문헌에 인용된 주류언론은 본문에서 확인한 바와 같이, 스웨덴HR을 "러시아 선전 사이트"라고 언급한 적이 없다.그들은 SEDHR의 조사 결과들이 그 조직의 항의 이후에도, 그 후에 선전 목적으로 사용되거나 잘못 사용되었다고 말한다.내가 최근에 발견한 한 주류 언론 매체는 SEDHR에 대한 잘못된 주장을 "아이러니"라고 요약한다.그것은 "프로파간다, 거짓말, 비디오:러시아 언론과 칸 셰이쿤 대학살":"이 가짜 뉴스는 스웨덴 조직이 그 보도를 비난하고 연계시킨 이후에도 계속해서 퍼지고 있다."[21] (주류 언론의 관점에서 어떤 단체와 출판물이 "러시아 선전 사이트"로 등재되길 원하는 사람은, 그 대신 SEDHR이나 그 출판물인 인디케터가 등재되어 있지 않은 PropOrNot에서 그 목록을 확인해야 한다.[22]).

e) 이전 버전에서 발생한 라이프 엘린더 박사에 대한 잘못된 개인적 귀책.

3) 또한 검증가능성과 관련하여, 새로운 편집은 총 70개의 참고문헌으로 소싱된다.이전 버전(Gamesmasterg9와 사용자가 되돌린 버전)에는 22개의 참조만 포함되어 있었다.

마지막으로, 당신의 개인적인 고려와 게임마스터그9의 "의심스러운 COI" 편집에 대한 나의 "표정"에 대한 것은, 그것이 포함하고 있는 결함 있는 정보로 기사를 계속 유지하라고 주장하는 이유로 받아들여질 수 없다.다시 한 번, 게임즈마스터g9와 지금 당신에게, COI 이사회에 그 "의혹"들을 보고하고, 그들에게 조사를 의뢰할 것을 부탁한다.공식적으로, 나는 COI에 대한 어떤 암시도 전적으로 반대한다.COI를 부정한다.

참고로 나는 스웨덴 의사로, 나는 위키백과 기사 "스웨덴 의학 협회"의 저자 SMA.SEDHR에 대해 읽었어도 위키백과 기사에 대해서는 알지 못했다.그것은 스웨덴어 위키백과에 존재하지 않았다.SMA 기사(열 가지 편집을 하기 전에는 올릴 수 없었던)를 준비하면서 위키백과에서 SMA를 언급하는 기사를 검색했다.3개밖에 못 찾았는데, 그 중 하나가 스웨덴어 기사였어.그것을 읽고 있자니 얼핏 보기 흉한 양이 나타났다.특히 어산지 사건의 절대적인 누락은 그 조직의 주요 노력으로서, 그리고 그 기구는 스웨덴에서 가장 잘 알려져 있다.그래서 나를 위한 것이었다.

가장 신선한 예를 들자면, 오늘 아침 내가 하는 것처럼 스웨덴의 가장 큰 신문인 아프톤블라데(Wipedia에 따르면 "북유럽 국가에서 가장 큰 일간 신문 중 하나" [23])나는 "스웨덴의 교수들과 인권의사들, 스웨덴HR"의 지도부에서 교수들이 서명한 주요 기사를 보았다.기사의 제목(번역)은 "정부: 줄리안 어산지의 자유 요구"(Registeringen, Krav at Julian A산지 friges)"이다.[24] 지난 주 스웨덴의 또 다른 주류 신문인 시즈벤카 다그블라데의 기사를 통해 독자는 랑셋이 발행한 기사에서 스웨덴의 의사들이 서명자의 일부를 구성했다는 소식을 접했고, 또한 줄리안 어산지의 인권 테마에 대해서도 언급했다.나는 감히 랜싯이 세계에서 가장 잘 알려진 의학 저널이라고 말할 수 있다.

나는 우리나라 의료계의 전문적, 의학적, 사회적 파노라마를 잘 알고 있다.그리고 나는 스웨덴 언론이 스웨덴어에 대해 실제로 어떤 말을 했는지 직접 확인할 수 있는 가능성이 있다.예를 들어, 스웨덴 의학 협회의 저널이 스웨덴에서 알 수 없고 문맥상 관련 없는 것처럼 보이게 하기 위해 기사의 부정확한 진술보다 거의 2년 앞선 2015년 이후 그 단체에 제공한 공간을 포함한다.

마지막으로, 양해를 구하려고 노력하면서, 나는 전에 했던 것처럼 내가 편집한 모든 내용을 담은 전문을 다시 게재하지 않을 것이다.그럼에도 불구하고, 나는 지금 가장 본질적인 수정을 선택해서 요약해서 다시 게시할 것이다.귀하 또는 Gamesmasterg9가 새로운 편집에서 수정된 사실에 동의하지 않는 경우, Talk 페이지에서 이유를 설명하십시오.나는 토론에 완전히 열려있고 나는 정말로 우리가 합의에 도달할 수 있기를 바란다.

투명성을 위해 기사의 토크 페이지에도 이 글을 올리고 있다.

시간을 내줘서 고마워토버스터 (토크) 11:44, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

제발 너의 생각을 좀 더 간결하게 말해줘. 아무도 이 글의 벽을 읽을 수 없을 거야.더 중요한 것은, 내가 전에 말한 것이 사실이다: 당신의 편집 내용을 되돌리는 것은 "반달리즘"이 아니며, 당신의 편집은 논쟁의 대상이 되었다.

OP는 약간의 관리적인 관심이 필요하며, 기사는 더 많은 눈이 필요하다.토버스터는 여기서 벌어지는 논의에도 불구하고 편집 내용이 본질적으로 "코메틱하다"는 잘못된 편집요약과 함께 러시아 정부의 선전수단으로서의 스웨덴HR의 역할에 대해 대체로 삭제되거나 잘 전달된 문구를 다시 삽입하려고 시도했다.[25] 이러한 편집이 COI인지 확실하지 않지만(그들이 그렇게 느낀다고는 하지만), RS에 부합하지 않는 특정 POV를 밀어내려고 하는 것이 분명한데, 이 기사는 여러 번 (특히 2017년 5월, LTA의 양말이 갑자기 나타나 매우 유사한 편집을 하게 된) 이 기사를 뒷받침해야 했다.OP는 여기서 단순히 새로운 계정일 뿐만 아니라, 스웨덴 위키[26]에 대한 계정을 만들었을 뿐 아니라, 그들의 편집 내용은 모두 위키리크스와 줄리안 어산지에 관한 것이었으며, 스웨덴어 기사 초안(주로 엔위키 기사의 앞부분만 복사한 것)도 여기에 있다.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 17:57, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

위에서 언급한 후, 그리고 회신 대신 사용자 그란팔라마는 내가 한 작은 편집에 대한 설명 없이 삭제 작업을 진행했고, 타협점을 찾기 위해 (위 참조) 공지했다.그는 전혀 논란의 여지가 없는 편집사항들조차 삭제했다. (예: 위키백과 기사와 연결하기 위해 "[]]"를 삽입하는 것 등)물론 나는 이 모든 것이 명확해질 때까지 편집에 고집하지 않을 것이다.그러나, 누구에 의해, 또는 현재 진행중인 토론은 어디에 있는가?누가 나한테 말해줄래?관리자 중 이 게시물을 보는 사람이 있으면 어떻게 해야 하는지 알려주십시오.솔직히, 나는 그 위키백과 기사에 포함된 거짓을 바로잡기 위해 어떻게 진행해야 할지 정말 잘 모르기 때문이다 [27].만약 변경을 전혀 할 수 없다면, 나에게 그 점을 분명히 말해주면, 나는 따르겠다.토버스터 (토크) 17:18, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그러나, 누구에 의해, 또는 현재 진행중인 토론은 어디에 있는가?지금은, 당신이 행동 토론을 시작한 이후로, 바로 여기서 일어나고 있어.당신의 편집이 COI로 거부되었고, 당신은 다른 사용자의 행동을 보고하고 개입을 요청하셨습니다.잠재적 행위 우려는 이 단계에서 내용 토론(이 페이지에 속하지 않음)과 별도로 분류할 필요가 있다.하지만 당신이 제기한 혐의들에 대해 어느 정도 종결될 때까지 전쟁을 다시 편집하려고 해서는 안 된다. 물론 이 모든 것이 명확해질 때까지 나는 편집에 주장하지 않을 것이다.또한 게임마스터g9를 다시 핑하는 것, 누가 정말 끼어들고 있어야 할 것인가.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 18:04, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC) 또한 2017년 기사 정리에 도움을 준 관리자로 드미스와 엘 C를 지목했다.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 18:09, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

오, 세상에!이틀 동안 외출하고 이거.그랜드팔라마, 여기서 대응할 시간이 좀 필요하겠지만 간단히 말해서 SEDHR은 주로 러시아 정부의 선전에 대한 "외부" 참조를 제공하기 위해 존재하는 POV 밀기 조직이다.조직 자체에서 만든 WP페이지와 연계된 러시아 매체들은 자체적인 의미를 크게 과장했고, 전적으로 조직과 구성원들이 운영하는 블로그에 인용했다.우리는 대대적인 정리를 거쳤는데, 그 동안 나와 다른 편집자들은 그 단체의 소식지에 의해 서구의 제국주의 지지자로 불려 나왔지만, 결국 우리가 우세했다.이제 새로운 사용자(스웨덴 의사인 우연히)가 정확히 한 페이지를 편집하기 위한 목적으로 계정을 만들고, 이전에 삭제되었던 과장 및 자기주장 인용의 상당 부분을 다시 삽입한다.나에게 있어, 그것은 WP의 분명한 사례처럼 보인다.COI, 하지만 나는 다른 사람들을 살찌게 할 것이다.게임마스터 G-9 (대화) 07:24, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 2월 26일 11시 44분 수정본과 함께 전체 소포를 다시 게시하는 것을 중단하기로 한 나의 결정을 보고했다.나는 또한 거기에서 다른 글들에 대한 토론을 시작하기를 희망하면서, 대신 나는 리드만 수정하겠다고 발표했다.그 편집은 "주류 단체들이 러시아 선전 사이트로 보고 있다"라고 쓰여 있는 현재 선두에 있는 허위의 논쟁을 구성했다.

그 직후 그랜드팔라마가 내가 발표한 편집본을 삭제한 후, 그는 내가 "편집된 내용이 본질적으로 "코스메틱"하다는 허위 편집 요약본과 함께 삽입했을 것"이라고 이 게시판에 보고했다.그것은 전혀 사실이 아니다.대신에 이것은 내가 수정하고 있던 그 선두에 있는 잘못된 정보와 관련하여 내 요약에 서 있는 것이다: "스웨덴 주류 언론이 스웨덴어를 러시아 선전 사이트로 묘사했다는 것은 사실이 아니다."내가 "코스메틱"으로 요약한 것은 WP 기사에 연결하기 위해 삽입한 "[ ]]"에 대해서만 언급했다.

사용자 그랜드팔라마는 가메마이스터9 위에서 스웨덴어를 "러시아 정부의 제안다 팔"로 매도한 것에 대해 "잘 소싱된 진술"이라는 거짓 서술을 반복했다.아래의 사실들에 비추어 볼 때, WP 독자가 확인할 수 있는 것을 어떻게 진지한 편집자가 감히 반복할 수 있었는가?

허위 진술서(현재 기사에서)는 7개의 참고문헌 목록에 의해 "지원"되고 있으며, 참고문헌 목록에서 2부터 Nr 8까지 번호가 매겨져 있다고 한다.그러나, 참조서 6 (ETC)에 있는 같은 기사가 목록의 ref 8과 같이 속일 정도로 다시 복제되었다!이로 인해 6개의 참조가 남는다.그러나 ref 5 (f-Plus)는 ref 7 (DN)의 기사에서 발췌한 텍스트만 포함하고 있으며, DN 기사를 출처로 명확하게 인정한다.이로 인해 우리는 단지 4가지 출처만을 가지게 되었고, 그 중 3가지 출처만이 주류다.한 작품은 르 피가로에서, 두 기사는 스웨덴 신문 DN에서, 한 기사는 미국에 기반을 둔 온라인 사이트(코다 스토리)에서 출처했다.WP 중 단 2개:RS는 위키피디아 기사를 가지고 있다.그럼에도 불구하고, 가장 중요한 것은 스웨덴인에 대해 그들이 실제로 말한 것이다.

유일한 영국 소식통(코다)의 헤드라인은 "러시아는 시리아 가스 공격의 보도를 부정하기 위해 2년 된 비디오와 '대체' 스웨덴 그룹을 사용했다"고 말했다.기사 어디에도 SEDHR은 "러시아의 선전 사이트"라고 하지 않는다.

스웨덴 신문 DN의 헤드라인에서도 같은 것이 "스웨덴 의사 단체의 도움을 받아 가스 공격을 거부한다"는 것이다.이 기사에서 스웨덴어는 "러시아의 선전 사이트"라는 확언은 전혀 없다.반대로, 이 기사는 SWDHR 대표와의 인터뷰로 구성되는데, 신문 보도는 "SWEDHR은 러시아 당국과 전혀 관련이 없는 완전한 독립 기구"라고 그가 선언했다.

다른 DN 기사는 더욱 노골적이며, "이제 스웨덴의 한 기관이 러시아인의 참여를 거부하는데 사용되고 있다…"("스벤스크의 Nu anvénds in svensk 조직 för attt för et förneka Ryslands inblanding…)"라고 말했다.

우파 르 피가로의 헤드라인(번역):"러시아에서는 아사드를 변명하기 위해 호기심 많은 논문이 반복되고 있다."이 기사는 코다스토리와 마찬가지로 의료구조 에피소드를 보여주는 동영상에 대해 스웨덴HR의 조사를 반복적으로 사용하는 것을 가리키는데, 이 단체는 의료사고와 역효과, 건강상의 이유로 결론을 내렸다.그 기사는 스웨덴어가 "러시아의 선전 사이트"라고 단언하지 않는다.

f-Fokus의 헤드라인과 같은 것은 "러시아의 선전용으로 사용되는 스위스 그룹"이다.두 곳 모두 '러시아 선전 사이트'라고 하지 않았다.

결론:가메마이스터/간드팔라마가 현재 기사에 '잘 소싱된 진술'을 대표해 제시한 7개의 'RS' 언급은 가짜다.그 수는 오직 두 개의 주류 신문과 온라인 사이트로 줄어들었다.그러나 이 논의에서 가장 중요한 것은 다음과 같다.

그 매체들 어디에도 스웨덴어가 "러시아 선전 사이트"라고 주장하는 곳이 없다.

그리고 그들 모두는 화이트 헬멧 영상에 대한 스웨덴의 조사가 인디케터에 실린 출판물 이후에 러시아 언론에 의해 발견되었다고 설명한다.

나는 대담한 내용의 과도한 사용에 대해 사과한다.사실, 나는 단지 "조직 X의 일부 조사나 진술이 X에 의해 독립적으로 생산된 후, 특정 국가에 의해, 그들 자신의 이익을 위해 사용되어 왔다"고 단언하는 것과 "조직 X는 그 나라의 선전 사이트"라고 단언하는 것 사이의 질적 차이를 분명히 하고 싶었다.

그러나 결국, 언급된 기사의 일부 편집자들, 심지어 직책과 선언까지도 창안하는 배짱을 가진 사람들은 우리 안보의 가장 심각한 문제들에 대해 그가 말한 적이 없는 우리 국방부 장관에게 귀속되었다.토버스터(토크)

• 스웨덴에 대해 2센트의 지식을 가진 사람이라면 몇 초 안에 스웨덴의 인권 의사들이 현재 (가메마이스터/간드팔라마 버전으로) 완전히 형편없는 기사라는 것을 알게 될 것이다.현재 "스웨덴 국방장관은 최근 러시아의 군사력 증강으로 인해 나토에 스웨덴이 가입하는 것이 바람직하다고 주장했었다"고 되어 있다.
• 자, 스웨덴에서 원자 폭탄이 터지는 소리를 들은 사람이 있는가?아니야? 나도 그래.스웨덴 국방장관이 위와 같은 말을 했다면 스웨덴에서 (정치적) 원자폭탄을 터뜨리는 것과 마찬가지였을 것이다.말할 필요도 없이, 그것은 주어진 원천에 있지 않다.
• 그 기사에 대한 더 많은 관심이 절실히 필요한데, 현재 가메마이스터/간드팔라마는 완고한 태그 티밍 노력에 의해 (그들이 말한 대로) "우승했다"고 WP는 말했다.IDNTHEART 전술, 헐드라 (대화) 21:15, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

헐드라, 나는 어떤 것에 대해서도 "예비"하려는 것이 아니며, "나의" 버전도 아니라는 것을 명심해라.너도 그랬듯이, 나는 바로 이 실에서 그 기사를 좀 더 자세히 봐달라고 부탁했다.유일한 WP:발생한 IDHT는 새로운 계정으로, 주요 재작성 과정에서 전쟁을 편집하려 한 후, 즉시 다른 사용자를 ANI로 데려갔다(이것은 그들이 개념적으로 "반달리즘"이라고 불렀다).토론이 진행되는 동안 기사를 마지막 안정적인 버전으로 복원하는 것은 '스텁본 태그 티밍'이 아니라 표준 관행이다.기사의 이전 버전은 오랜 시간이 걸렸고 2017년에 그것을 정리했던 많은 편집자들의 합의에 의해 도달했다. 하지만 나는 당신이 그 내용에 동의하지 않는다는 것을 알고 있다.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 21:45, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그랜드팔라마:그것은 게임마스터 G-9 (당신이 ping한) 위의 단어였다: "마침내 우리가 우세했다."이전의 "합의"는 당신이 기사(나 같은 편집자)로부터 다른 견해를 가진 사람을 몰아낸 후였다.그리고 나는 그것이 WP라고 말한다.IDHT(Toverster 인수)에 대해 반박하지 않은 경우.우선 SEDHR을 "러시아 선전 사이트"로 낙인찍은 것으로 알려진 믿을 수 없을 정도로 설득력 있는 언급(2-8)부터 시작하십시오.이러한 언급에 대한 토버스터의 각 지적사항에 대해 반박하십시오. 이 언급이 끝날 때까지 WP를 플레이하고 있다고 하겠다.IDHT-game, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

PS: 하지만 내가 토버스터에게 말했듯이, 나는 이 페이지가 그것에 적합한 페이지가 아니라고 생각한다.우리는 그 주장들을 Talk로 옮겨야 한다.스웨덴 인권의사 헐드라 (대화) 22:04, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

PPS: 나도 이 쓰레기("스웨덴 국방장관이 최근 러시아의 군사력 증강으로 인해 나토에 스웨덴의 회원국이 바람직하다고 주장해왔다")가 분명히 수년 동안 "안정적인 버전"에 들어 있었다는 생각에 몸서리를 친다.헐드라 (대화) 22:09, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

@Huldra, 나는 SEDHR 페이지를 편집한 적이 없기 때문에 아니, 나는 당신이나 다른 편집자들을 기사에서 몰아내지도 않았고, 나 자신의 주제에 대해 특별한 견해를 제시하지도 않았다.게다가, 내가 G-9 게임마스터를 처음 ping했을 때, 그것은 그가 그의 역전을 논의해야 한다는 것과 그의 침묵이 좋은 것이 아니라는 것을 언급하기 위해서였다.나는 중립적이고 무자세적이었고, 오직 적절한 BRD와 COI 대 반달리즘의 혐의의 해결을 추진해 왔을 뿐이니, 나에 대한 당신의 태도를 재고해 보고 약간의 선심을 가지십시오.나는 토버스터의 주장에 대항하는 것에 관심이 없다. 왜냐하면 ANI는 콘텐츠를 위한 장소가 아니며 토버스터가 (여러 번 지적했듯이) 토버스터가 토버스터를 여기로 몰아붙이면 안 되기 때문이다.COI의 주장은 이 새로운 SPA가 Gamesmaster G-9의 페이지 편집을 막으려는 시도는 말할 것도 없고 공공 기물 파손과 악의적인 편집의 혐의로 반박되었다. 그것은 ANI의 우려 사항이다.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 17:40, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:할아버지:응?당신은 토버스터 13:41, 2020년 2월 26일, 둘 다 스웨덴어 기사에서 나를 01:46, 2020년 2월 27일로 되돌렸으니, 도대체 어떻게 그 페이지를 편집한 적이 없다고 말할 수 있겠는가?헐드라 (대화)20:30, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

헐드라 컨텍스트.이전의 "합의"는 당신이 기사(나 같은 편집자)로부터 다른 견해를 가진 사람을 몰아낸 후였다.나는 이 ANI 보고서 전에는 그 페이지를 편집한 적이 없어서, 아니, 나는 이전에 의견 일치를 세우거나 기사에서 당신을 멀어지게 하는 편집을 하지 않았어.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 20:40, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

실례합니다, 사용자:그랜드팔라마, 하지만 나는 "SEDHR 페이지를 편집한 적이 없다"고 해석한다.스웨덴어 페이지를 편집한 적이 없다.또한, 솔직히 말해서 "나는 중립적이고 책임감이 없다"는 너의 말은, 네가 최근에 주요 반전을 하고 있을 때, 내게는 좀 공허하게 들린다.

그렇긴 하지만, 나는 모든 당사자들이 그 언어를 약간 줄일 수 있다고 생각한다; 즉, COI에 대한 근거 없는 비난, 공공 기물 파손에 대한 비난은 더 이상 없을 것이다.

그러나 무엇보다도, 편집자들은 토크에서 제기된 문제들을 정말로 다룰 필요가 있다.스웨덴의 인권 의사들.지금까지 아무도 이 10일 동안 질문에 대답하지 않았다. 헐드라 (대화) 20:56, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 "SEDHR 페이지를 편집한 적이 없다"고 해석한다.스웨덴어 페이지를 편집한 적이 없다.음, 그렇다면, 꽤 솔직하지 않은데, 내가 직접 당신의 진술을 언급했고 내 말이 무슨 뜻인지 분명했으니까.말꼬리가 적고 불신임을 전제로 하면 아마 더 정확하게 해석할 수 있을 것이다.그 기사는 관리자의 주의가 필요하며, 나는 Drmies나 El C가 초기 정리에 관여했기 때문에 끼어들기를 바랐다.그리고 당신은 내가 관여하지 않았다고 생각할지 모르지만, 나는 내가 그 페이지를 편집한 적이 없다는 사실과 문제가 있는 ANI 보고서에 대한 반응이라는 사실은 교과서 "무자극"에 꽤 가깝다고 말할 것이다.그랜드팔라마 (대화) 21:05, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 동의하지 않는 것에 동의하자.당신의 환상은 명백히 잘못된 정보로 복권되었다. (NATO 회원국 문제처럼); 맹목적인 환원은 내 세계에서는 "불가역" 교과서에 가깝지 않다.헐드라 (대화) 21:17, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그랜드팔라마:당신은 "논의가 진행되는 동안 기사를 마지막 안정적인 버전으로 복원하는 것이 표준 관행"이라고 썼다.그렇다면, 당신이 차단한 편집에 대해 내가 제시한 이유에 대해 토론하면서, 이 "논의하는 토론"(여기 또는 기사의 Talk 페이지)에서 당신과 게임마스터 G-9의 주장은 어디에 있는가?예를 들면 다음과 같다.이전 항목(위)에서 제공한 팩트 기반 정보가 가짜 2-8 참조에 대한 잘못된 정보인가?그렇다면 이유를 설명하십시오.그리고 틀린 것이 아니라면 수정된 편집을 기사에 "허용"해야 한다.그렇지 않으면 당신(또는 게임즈마스터g9)은 WP 편집자로서 당신이 가지고 있지 않은 "힘"을 행사하고 있다.아니면 당신이 그것을 가지고 있다고 가정했을 때, 당신은 그것을 남용하고 있을 수도 있다.당신이 지운 편집 내용을 설명하는 [토크] 페이지 [28]에 언급된 나의 나머지 주장에 대해서도 마찬가지 입니다."논의중"에서 당신의 주장은 어디에 있는가?

당신이 현재 버전으로 들고 있는 기사는 다음과 같다: "(스웨덴 국방장관은) 스웨덴의 NATO 가입이 바람직하다고 주장했었다."평범한 발명품!스웨덴 국방장관은 현재 버전에 언급된 DN 기사에서 정말로 이렇게 말했다.

"우리는 NATO와의 회원 가입 접근법 대신 협력 접근법을 선택했다."("Vihar valt en samarbetslinje och in medlemslinje iörhelande to Nato.") [29].

당신은 현재 버전에서 스웨덴 정부의 중앙 입장을 전면적으로 내세우고 있는 G-9 등의 수치들이 뒷받침하는 조작된 인용문들이 즉각 수정되어야 할 심각한 문제라는 것을 깨닫지 못하십니까?

당신은 현재 버전이 "오래된", "스티블 버전"이라고 말함으로써 이러한 모든 거짓을 정당화한다(그리고 당신이 보호하는 버전에는 더 많은 것이 있다.반면에, 그 반대인 것은, 그러한 거짓들이 그렇게 오랫동안 생존해 왔다는 사실이 중립적인 관점과 검증가능성의 기준에 따라 그들을 가능한 한 빨리 바로잡기 위해 더욱 긴요하다.토버스터 (토크) 11:09, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자에게 중요한 상담: 1) 위키피디아에는 단순 편집자가 기사 편집 히스토리의 요약에 있는 "COI"로 다른 편집자에 재정적으로 태그를 지정하는 것으로 충분하다는 규칙이 있는가("COI"에 대한 설명 없이, COI가 WP에 보고한 이유 없음), [30] 태그가 붙은 편집자의 모든 편집 내용을 삭제한 규칙도 있는가?그의 추가 편집에 대한 후속 금지법은?2) WP가 태그가 붙은 사용자를 "등록"(그랜팔라마, 위와 [31] 참조), 그리고 3)라고 생각할 만큼 단순한 태그가 충분한가? 그러한 이유로 태그가 붙은 편집자가 기사에서 추가 편집하는 것을 금지하고 있는가?토버스터 (토크) 11:29, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

토버스터, 제발 글의 벽 포스팅을 그만해.이런 질문을 여러 번 받으셨군요.해당 기사의 대화 페이지에 내용 토론을 계속하십시오.

하지만, 몇 가지 이야기를 해주면 좋을 것 같아.새로운 사용자가 어떻게 ANI, CONE의 존재와 3년 전에 일어난 특정 AfD의 세부사항들을 너무나 잘 알고 있었는지와 같이; 이것은 불가능하지는 않지만 위키백과에서 과거가 없는 누군가의 일반적인 행동은 아니다.당신은 SEDHR의 멤버인가? 그랑팔라마 (토크) 17:51, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그랜드팔라마, 지금 당장 내게 필요한 것이 무엇인지 잘 모르겠지만, 이전의 AfD에 관한 구체적인 질문에 답하고 다시 쓰고 싶다.그러나 위의 월화적 비난에 일일이 대응할 수 없을 것이며, 시도조차 하지 않을 것이다.한편, 여기서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 여러분에게 알려주기 위해서 - 그들이 주류 미디어의 모든 비판에 비슷한 방식으로 반응하는 페이지가 있다.보시다시피 그들의 상대는 허핑턴 포스트, 더 슈피겔, 익스프레스엔, 다겐스 니헤터, 르 피가로 등이다.게임마스터 G-9 (대화) 21:18, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Gamesmasterg9: 우리가 당신에게 필요한 것은 쉽다: 우선, 대화를 시작하라:스웨덴어_Docs_for_Human_Rights#Break and breat버스터가 선두에 있는 그 문장에 대한 7개의 언급에 대해 이의를 제기하는 것에 대해 22:28, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 토버스터, 투르 드?이 편집을 보다 쉽게 읽을 수 있고 탐색할 수 있도록 게시물(예: 긴 게시물)을 만드는 포인터로 수락하십시오.둘째로, 이것을 처음 편집한 사람은, 본질적으로 심각한 규모의 되돌림으로써, 다른 사용자들이 최소한 눈썹이라도 치켜올리기를 기대해야 한다.셋째, 너의 첫 번째 대화 페이지 포스트는 내가 읽을 커피 한 잔 이상을 요구할 것이다.드레이미스 (토크) 22:17, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 3년 전 편집한 내용을 새롭게 기억하면서 이것을 들여다보고 있는 동안, 나는 이것이 관련성이 있고 검증된 내용을 가진 중립적인 백과사전이라는 개념을 진지하게 받아들이는 편집이라는 것에 주목하겠다.그리고 내가 이 편집자와 많은 접촉이나 어떤 접촉도 없었다고 확실히 하기 위해 덧붙일 것이다.드레이미스 (토크) 22:22, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 몇 개의 관측치 및 포인터가 있는 경우:

1. 나는 3년 전에 내가 제한적으로 관여해서 이 기사를 기억하지 못한다.
2. 헐드라는 그 당시에도 최근과 마찬가지로 이미 {{unbalance}}}라고 기사를 표시했었다.지금까지 한결같았다.
3. 토버스터는 이 기사와 관련하여 이해충돌을 하고 있는 것 같다.그들은 직접 편집하기보다는 대화 페이지에서 편집 내용을 제안했어야 했다.→ 그러나, 그들의 편집은 COI만을 근거로 한 것이 아니라 내용의 장점으로 되돌렸어야 했다.
4. 이 게시판에 실린 토버스터의 논평의 길이는 다소 과도하다 → 그것들은 새로운 것이지만, 여전히 그렇다.누가 그렇게 많은 문자로 자원 봉사 프로젝트의 구성원들에게 부담을 주는가?그건 옳지 않아.
5. 분쟁 해결과 함께 제공되는 요청을 통해 외부 의견을 더 많이 얻는 것은 분쟁의 각 당사자들이 선호하는 버전에 대해 자신들의 입장을 어떻게 진전시켜야 하는가에 관한 것이다.
6. 나는 이 논쟁에 대해 어떤 식으로든 익숙하지 않고(과거에 대해 최신의 것을 따라잡지 못했거나 마음을 상쾌하게 하지 않았다) 그 외에는 어느 한 버전의 장점들에 대해 불가지론적이다.El_C 22:48, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:El C OK, 여기서 질문:왜 토버스터가 COI를 가지고 있다고 말하는거야?그가 스웨덴 의사라서?모든 스웨덴 의사들이 COI wrt SEDHR을 가지고 있는가?헐드라 (대화) 22:53, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

헐드라, 바보같이 굴지 마.나는 편집의 성격이 우리가 조직과 그것의 관점을 홍보하기 위해 여기서 COI 편집자를 상대하고 있다는 것을 암시한다는 El C의 의견에 동의한다.공식적으로, 나는 또한 스웨덴 의사인데, 그것은 내가 가진 많은 재능 중 하나이다.드레이미스 (토크) 23:06, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

공식적으로, 나는 러시아 춤추는 곰이야.EENG 19:19, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

롤@드라이즈!정말 많은 재능들이...어쨌든, 헐드라, 내가 토버스터가 이해충돌에 빠진 것 같다고 말한 이유는, 그것들(지금까지)을 유력한 단일 목적 계정으로 설정한 그들의 다소 제한적인 기여 때문이었다.그리고 많은 단일 목적의 계정과 마찬가지로, 그들의 외곬수는 또한 그들의 논평의 과도한 길이에 반영된다.이 모든 것은 내게 이해충돌의 징후다.El_C 23:12, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

네, 음, 사용자:엘 C: 거의 15년 전에 팔레스타인 기사를 편집하기 시작했을 때, 내가 만났던 것을 떠올리게 해.하지만 너무 길지는 않다.그러나 내가 가장 자주 본 편집자는 지나치게 긴 게시물을 가지고 있다고 해서 SPA가 아니다.미안, 네 주장을 "사주지" 않아 그리고 사용자:드레이미스: "조직과 그 관점을 홍보하려고 노력 중"이라 해도, 거짓말(...나토 담화, 다시 한 번)을 제거해야 한다고 말할 수 있었을 텐데.현재 그 기사는 ANTROTECT 기사에 지나지 않는다.

SEDHR의 의견은 확실히 주류가 아니다.그러나 나는 2003년 사담 후세인이 대량살상무기를 가지고 있다는 것을 믿지 않았다면, 그리고 어떻게 프랑스인들이 그것을 의심했다고 비난받았는지를 생생하게 기억한다(후렌치 후라이를 프리덤 후라이로 바꾸기를 원하는 미국 지도자들을 소환하는가?정말, 넌 이걸 꾸며낼 수 없었어.

이런 말을 하기는 정말 싫지만, 러시아나 중국 언론은 서방의 MSM보다 그 WMD에 훨씬 더 정확했다. (그리고 WMD로 추정되는 것들은 2003년 침략의 카수스 벨리였고, 그 뒤에 일어난 모든 비참함을 상기하라.)Sooooooooooo, 러시아 언론이 SEDHR을 사용하는 것은 나에게 SEDHR을 비방할 수 있는 자동적인 이유가 아니다. (Wikipedia가 현재 하고 있는 그대로), Huldra (대화) 23:47, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

@Huldra: 첫째, 나는 논쟁을 "판매"하고 있지 않다.COI 편집자와 SPA 편집자에 대한 나의 폭넓은 경험을 바탕으로 한 나의 인상들이다.둘째, 열성적인 니시다니 독자로서, 나는 그들이 토버스터가 여기 있었던 것만큼 원격으로 장황하지 않다고 말할 수 있다.El_C 00:36, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

@El C: 내 영어를 용서해 줘, 내가 "사주지 않는다"는 말은 단지 네가 너의 주장으로 나를 납득시키지 못했다는 거야.헐드라 (대화) 22:03, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

헐드라, 레시몇 년 전 너의 경험은 요령부득이다.나는 이런 종류의 어떤 것에 대해 별로 관심이 없지만, 그 정보를 선전하는 회원들의 복원은 엉뚱했다("Anders Romelsjö는 스웨덴 최고의 정치 블로그의 연간 순위 상위 3위 중 몇 년 전부터 포름에 의해 행해진 최고위직들 중 하나인 [http://globalpolitics.se/]의 발행인이다.gtoplist.se)은 그것을 부인하는 것은 어리석은 짓이다.나는 "그 나토 성명"이 무슨 뜻인지 모르겠고 나는 정말 신경 안 써.드레이미스 (대화) 03:16, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

헐드라, 만약 "러시아 언론"이 "서양 언론"이 틀렸다는 것을 옳게 알았다면(그리고 이러한 일반화는 이미 정당화되지 않았다), 그렇다고 해서 17년 후 다른 세계의 다른 문제에 대해서도 같은 것을 의미하는 것은 아니다.그리고 어쨌든 그것은 RSN의 문제지, 여기의 문제가 아니다.드레이미스 (대화) 16:16, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

Drmies: 나는 일반화하지 않았다; 나는 한 가지 특정한 (그리고 매우 중요한 문제)를 언급했다...2003년 이후 중동에서 수십만 명의 목숨을 앗아갔다.나는 또 다른 이슈를 언급할 수 있다: 2011년 리비아 군사 개입: 다시:잘못된 전제에 대한 서구의 개입(아니, 카다피는 리비아에서 사람들을 학살하려 하지 않았다: 그것은 서방(믿을 수 없는)이 믿었던 이슬람교 출처로부터의 거짓 정보였다.다시 말하지만, 서양 언론은 그것을 삼켰고, 갈고리와, 줄과, 싱커를 삼켰다.(일반적으로) 러시아 언론은 그러지 않았다.

봐, 나는 이런 말을 하는 것이 행복하지 않다. 하지만, (또한 지난 20년 동안 내가 셀 수 있는 것보다 더 많은 중동을 방문한 사람으로서): 우리 정부와 우리의 주류 언론은 끊임없이, 중동에 대해 거짓말을 한다. (좋아, 여기 내가 일반화하고 있다!) (예를 들어)Asad AbuKhalil twitter account, 그가 ME에 대한 MDM 보고를 조롱하는 방법) 100가지 사례를 언급할 수 있지만, (동의하시겠지만): AN/I는 실제로 그런 곳에 있는 것이 아니다...

"fluffery" 재설치에 대해서는: 나는 토버스터 버전이 완벽했다고 말하는 것이 아니다(나는 동의한다: "defluffing"이 필요하다).BUT: 다른 (=Gamesmasterg9/Grandpallama 버전)은 명백하고 다소 황당한 실수를 가지고 있다. (위에서 언급했듯이: 스웨덴 국방 장관 Peter Hultqvist는 어떤 이유로든 "NATO 가입이 바람직했다"고 주장한 적이 없다.) (만약 그랬다면 그는 스웨덴에서 누구와도 마찬가지로 정치적 하라키리를 저지르고 있었을 것이다.스웨덴 정치에 대한 사소한 지식도 알 것이다), 헐드라 (대화) 22:03, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

Drmies에게:설명 편집해줘서 정말 고마워.친절하십니다.우선 토크 페이지(내일)의 그 장을 다시 편집하는 것으로 시작할 테니, 커피가 아직 컵에 따뜻할 때 복습하는 것을 마치길 바란다.변명은 아니지만, 내가 영어를 잘하지 못하기 때문에, 나는 설명을 너무 많이 해서, 정반대의 행동을 하는 경향이 있어.내가 그것을 고치도록 노력하겠다.나의 역설적인 상황: 나는 여가 시간이 한정되어 있기 때문에, 내가 요약하고, 더 간결하고, 그래서 더 명확해지는 데 도움이 되는 내 자신의 본문의 심각한 수정에 탐닉할 가능성이 별로 없다고 생각한다.나의 오랜 편집본이 한꺼번에 출판되어 "심각한 규모의 되돌림"을 초래했다는 점에 주목했다.이제 나는 아마도 내가 Talk 페이지의 별도 섹션에 해당하는 주장을 가지고 그때 한 번의 편집으로 시도했어야 했다는 것을 이해한다.BTW, 나는 이런 종류의 수사 작업이 꽤 흥미롭다는 것을 알았다.앞으로 좀 더 창의적인 이슈에 대해 편집하는 시간을 가졌으면 좋겠다.

드 아르 뒤 앙 스벤스크 레카레Snella, skulle Du inte okset protesta mot den Karikatyr Swedhr Artikeln Gör av den Aktuela svenesk non allignitet samt "비정렬" 정책?Samt hjaelpa mig at förklara hér att Sveriges lékarebund viste om Swedhrs가 2015년에 존재한다고?토버스터 (토크) 00:26, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

그랜드팔라마에게:내가 왜 여기에 글을 올렸는지 네가 물어봐.그건 네가 나에게 그렇게 지시했기 때문이야.편집에 대한 현재 진행 중인 논의는 어디에 있는가?다음과 같이 답변하셨습니다."바로 여기서 일어나고 있다"새로운 편집자(무작위 태그 COI, Single PA 등)로서 나를 향한 당신의 공격 광고는 오히려 위태로운 주요 이슈에서 벗어나기 위한 목적으로 보인다.안 될 거야.너는 내가 WP의 규칙을 어떻게 아는지 궁금해한다.편집자에 대해 궁금한 사람은 편집자 발표회에 간다.누구나 거기서 읽을 수 있다 [32]:"내 첫 번째 임무는 위키백과의 기사 편집에 관한 규칙과 복잡한 지시사항을 이해하려고 노력하는 것이었습니다."내가 그들을 잘 안다고 주장하는 것은 아니다.하지만 내가 배운 것도 이 토론 덕분이다.너는 내가 나의 불평을 해결하는 데 있어서 "어떻게 해야 할지" 알고 있다고 가정하는 네 자신을 부정한다.내가 "반달리즘"에 대해 잘못 알고 있다는 것을 나에게 증명해 준 것은 너였기 때문이다(그 후 나는 헤드라인을 바꾸었다)."COI 의혹"에 대해 이미 내 답을 알고 있잖아모두 이 실에 들어 있다.그런 것은 아니다.내가 COI를 어떻게 아는지, 그것은 Gammesmaster에서 요약본을 되짚는 것을 본 후였다.구글에서 슈퍼 링크가 있는 WP 약어 목록 링크를 발견했다."3년 전에 발생한 특정 AfD의 세부사항"에 대해 어떻게 알 수 있는가?AfD에 대한 정보와 링크는 기사의 Talk 페이지 맨 위에 있는 BAN에 강조 표시되어 있다.금지 조항은 다음과 같다: "이 기사는 2017년 4월 3일에 삭제 후보로 지명되었다.토론 결과는 지켜졌다.토크 페이지를 편집할 때마다 "실종할 수 없다"는 금지 사항.

이미 알고 있는 것을 묻지 말고, 대신 이 문제에 대해 의견을 제시하십시오. 이 진술은 맨 앞에 나타난다.

"그(SWEDHR)가 제시한 견해는 러시아 정부의 견해와 일관되게 일치한다."(No WP:그 진술을 뒷받침하기 위해 기사에 제시된 RS).

영어 사전은 "일관적으로"는 "항상"의 동의어라고 말한다.그렇다면, 그 조작된 진술이 현실에서 대신 일어나는 일에 직면했을 때 얼마나 진실된 결과를 얻는가?

2019년 10월 13일, SEDHR은 러시아가 영국 및 다른 EU 국가들이 유엔 안보리에서 제안한 결의안을 저지하기 위해 발표한 거부권에 대해 러시아 정부를 공개적으로 비난했다.SEDHR은 그것을 "불멸할 수 있는"이라고 불렀다.

이제 의심하게 될 거야. 나한테 물어봐, 내가 그걸 어떻게 알아냈지?답변: 왜냐하면 그 출판물에 대한 이름과 링크는 나(그리고 바라건대)가 분석하고 있는 SEDHR에 관한 위키백과 기사의 현재 버전의 조직 섹션에서 제공되기 때문이다.이 보고서에는 러시아에 대한 스웨덴HR의 비판성명이 트위터에도 실렸다.토버스터 (토크) 00:48, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

P.S. 토 그랑팔라마 : (다른 최근의 해설자들도 이것 좀 봐줘)

위키백과에서 짧은 시간 동안 나는 이 기사에만 집중되어 있다는 것을 궁금해 하는 당신의 모순에 대해서.그 밖에 무엇을 기대할 수 있겠는가?그리고 완전히 그렇지는 않다.이 짧은 시간에 나는 스웨덴 의학 협회 기사도 만들었다.나는 이미 SMA 초안 조사를 할 때 이 기사를 발견했고 "충격당했다"고 설명했다.하지만 확실히, 나의 자유시간은 제한되어 있다.그리고 스웨덴 백과사전에도 기여하고 싶다.아마도 나는 수정되고 진실된 기사가 나온 후에, 미래에 다른 주제로 편집된 내용을 다양화할 수 있을 것이다.

반면에, 위키피디아가 나에게 다른 기사들을 동시에 편집하도록 강요할 경우, 그렇지 않으면 나는 'COI' 트롤 같은 것으로 의심받게 될 것이다. 그렇다면, 위키피디아는 나에게 중요한 것이 아닐지도 모른다.좋은 밤 보내세요.토버스터 (토크) 01:00, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

흠, 사용자:토버스터, 아무도 강요하지 않아. 내 충고 2센트는: 그냥 모든 WP를 무시하라.PA(Yeah, I know, doesn보다 더 쉽게 말하면....), 그냥 WP에서 편집:WP:RS, Huldra (대화) 22:03, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]을 사용한 NPOV 방식

이 줄기의 모든 사람에게: 여기 건설적인 요점에 관해서,

나는 일부에서는 동의하고, 다른 일부에서는 동의하지 않는다.

동의한다: a) 나의 광범위한 텍스트.미안해, 짧게 하려고 노력할게 b) 편집(El_C) c를 되돌릴 수 없을 정도로 한 명의 사용자가 임의로 "COI" 태그를 붙이는 것. 헐드라의 제안대로 편집내용에 대한 논의는 기사의 Talk 페이지에 계속되어야 한다(또는 실제로 시작되어야 한다). d) 수정 편집내용을 한 번에 모두 게시하는 것은 불편했다.제안된 해결책: 한 번에 하나의 편집을 게시하는 방법(Talk 페이지에 제시된 근거 포함, 별도).내가 직접 편집하거나, 또는 '반복'을 방지하기 위해 Drmies, El_C 및/또는 Huldra가 모니터링하는 Huldra에 의해 편집하거나(예: Gamesmasterg9).e) 참고문헌의 일부 주석(예: 교수)Drmies에 의해 언급된 Romelsjö)는 피험자의 활동과 관련된 정보를 포함하지만, 기사는 포함하지 않는다.그것은 스웨덴에서 완전히 알려지지 않은 것으로 추정되는 교수/의사 그룹을 게임마스터 G-9가 거짓이라고 반박하기 위한 것이었다.내가 복습할게.

나는 동의하지 않는다(또는 유감이다): f) 나의 편집에 대한 비판의 중심 초점으로서, "Only Purpose"는 나의 짧은 편집 시간과 제안된 변경사항의 중요성을 고려해야 하며, 사실에 근거한 변경을 무시하는 데 이용되어서는 안 된다.이러한 필요성은 편집자로서 나와는 무관하다 g) (헐드라를 제외한) 여기서 거짓과 모호한 진술을 폭로하는 사실과 주장, 그리고 경합된 기사에서 가짜 언급에 대해서는 아무런 언급도 하지 않았다.대화 페이지에서 아무도 나의 주장을 반박하지 않았던 반면, 할아버지는 나를 이곳이 그런 논의를 위한 장소라고 믿게 했다.

나는 위의 d)로 나의 제안을 논평할 것을 부탁한다.만약 우리가 적어도 그 제안에 동의할 수 있다면, 우리는 아마도 여기서 이 에피소드의 종료를 선언할 것이다.고마워요.토버스터(토크) 16:09, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

Gamesmaster G-9에 연결:

위의 El_C 관리자의 코멘트에 유의하십시오. 편집 내용은 COI 혐의만으로 되돌려서는 안 된다는 점을.공식적으로, 나는 그것을 당신의 토크 페이지에 게시할 것이다.

5년 동안 4개의 우익 매체에 대한 반박 링크를 포함한 한 SEDHR 페이지에 대한 이 줄의 "복구"에 대해:그 정보는 당신이 2020년 2월 19일부터 임의로 되돌리고 있는 기사판[33]의 "2017년 논란" 섹션에 추가 세부사항과 참고자료와 함께 이미 제공되었다.여기서 다음과 같이 읽는다.

그는 "러시아 정부 채널이 다양한 지정학적 이슈에 대해 SEDHR의 '대안적 견해'를 퍼뜨린 것도 유럽 주류 언론에서 비판적인 발언을 이끌어냈다.예를 들어, Der Spiegel, [31] Le Figaro,[32], De Groene Amsterdammer, [33], Dagens Nyheter 등이 있다.[34] SEDHR은 각각의 반박문을 인디케터에 발표하였다.[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] 답변서에서 스웨덴HR은 이러한 매체에 대한 비판은 의사들의 조사 결과나 논쟁에 대해 다루지 않는다고 주장했다."분명히, 그들에게 그것은 우리가 말하는 것이 아니라, 우리가 누구에게 말하는가에 관한 것이다." SEDEDHR은 세계인권선언에서 "전방에 관계없이" 어떤 매체에서든 의견을 표현할 수 있는 권리는 제19조에 의해 보장된다고 거듭 주장해 왔다.[40]“

또한 5년 기간의 4개 미디어 보고서와 비교하여 2015-2020년 같은 기간에는 중요하지 않은 방식으로 SEDHR 관점을 보고하는 미디어가 훨씬 더 많았다는 것을 언급했어야 한다.가장 최근에는 스웨덴 최대 주류 신문 아프톤블라데트(2020년 2월 26일)의 전체 페이지다.토버스터 (토크) 16:28, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 여전히 읽을 수 없는 텍스트의 거대한 벽을 만들고 있고, 여전히 기본적인 질문에 대답하지 않고 있는데, 그것은 단순한 예스냐 아니오냐 하는 것이다: 당신은 SEDHR의 회원인가? 그랑팔라마 (대화) 19:23, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

2017년 5월 4일 Gamesmasterg9는 WP를 창설했다.거의 3년이 지난 지금까지도 부정확한 내용이 남아 있는 SWDHR 관련 기사에서 ED 섹션 "친러 선전 고발".이러한 광범위한 중단 편집은 이전에 Talk(토크) 페이지에 제시/논의된 바 없다.Gamesmaterg9 편집:

1. "2017년 4월 현재 스웨덴의료협회에 알려지지 않은 조직"그것은 사실이 아니었다.그 대신 스웨덴 의학협회지 레카르티디닝엔은 2015년에 이미 SEDHR의 입장을 보고하고[34] 이 단체의 홈페이지에 링크까지 게재했다.

2. "2017년 4월 현재 국제앰네스티 조직은 미상"그건 사실이 아니야.대신 2016년 3월 11일 국제앰네스티 스웨덴 섹션의 임원 에이미 헤덴보그가 KILTR 저널리스트 에릭 샌드버그에게 이메일을 보내 인디케터에 게재된 스웨덴어 기사의 내용을 연설했다.이븐은 [KILTR] 2016년 3월 17일에 [35]에 의해 방송되었다.이메일의 전체 텍스트는 인디케터에도 있다.[36]

4. "조직이 취하는 원인은 친러 편향성이 강하다"고 편집한 데 대해 게임마스터g9는 WP를 제공하지 않았다.RS. 왜냐하면 게임마스터g9에 의해 만들어진 형용사는 말할 것도 없고, 그와 같은 직접적인 고발을 포함하는 MSM 출처가 없기 때문이다.

5. 게임즈마스터그9의 편집은 (스웨르가) 친러 운동가 46명의 죽음을 초래한 오데사에서의 폭력 충돌을 라이히스타그 화재에 비유했다"는 무뚝뚝한 거짓말!그것은 스웨덴인의 진술이 아니다.사실:A tweet image titled “what history shall remember”, originally published in The Professors’ Blog in June 2014 [37] before the existence of SWEDHR), mentions that in 1933 Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on Russian Comintern “communist agitators” (WP article “Reichstag fire” [38]), while in 2014, Carl Bildt, then Foreign Minister of Sweden, blamed"러시아 깡패들"에 대한 오데사 화재[39]

6. Gamesmasterg9의 같은 날짜 편집 "그들의 자매 간행물 Indicator는 이전에 말레이시아 항공 MH17 항공기가 친러 반군이 아닌 우크라이나군에 의해 격추되었다고 주장해왔다." Indicter에 이르는 참고/연계 대신, 스웨덴인도 Indicte도 아닌 WP 기사[40]에 참고문헌을 게재했다.r이 언급되어 있다.대신 Indicter op-ed 기사(스웨덴인이 아닌 저술자)에서 언급된 바는 다음과 같다. "이 네덜란드 위원회는 MH17 항공기가 러시아제 미사일에 의해 격추되었다고 결론지을 수 있었지만, 누가 방아쇠를 당겼는지 판단할 수 없었는지 알 수 없다고 강조한다."

7. 게임마스터g9 편집: "페라다 드놀리 박사는 2017년 4월 4일 칸 샤이비뉴 화학 공격이 시리아 정부가 아닌 반대 단체들에 의해 발생했을 가능성이 있다는 견해를 러시아 언론으로부터 인터뷰 받았다."그러나 게임즈마스터그9가 출처로 제공한 DN 기사[41]는 페라다 데 노리가 칸 샤이비구니 사건을 언급했다고 말하지 않고 대신 반대 세력이 화학무기에 접근할 수 있는 일반적인 가능성에 대해 언급하고 있다(러시아 언론 인터뷰에서 그는 MSM 보고서와 유엔 조사관 카를라 델 폰테를 인용하여 포스를 결론지었다).반군에 의한 화학무기 체온).DN은 인터뷰에 응한 의사가 제시한 이유조차 게재했다. "- 바샤르 알 아사드 대통령은 그렇게 생각하지 않는다.그것은 정치적으로 비논리적일 것이다.시리아 정부가 지금 전쟁에서 이기고 있다.핵무기는 야당에만 도움이 된다.(-자그 트롤 정수는 바샤르 알 아사드 괴르 드트 대통령)스컬 바라 폴리티시스크트 올로기스크트를 제거한다.Den syriska regeringen vinner kriget nu. 시리스카 레지링Kemvapen tjanar bara against.)

8. 게임즈마스터g9은 스웨덴인이 조사한 '화이트 헬멧' 영상을 참고해 위키백과 기사에 올린 글에서 "기사에서 증거로 인용한 영상을 조사한 결과 2015년 3월부터 사르민에서 실제로 화학 공격을 당한 영상임이 밝혀졌다"고 밝혔다.편집자는 스웨덴인이 비디오에 대한 또 다른 날짜를 제시했음을 시사한다.그것은 완전히 기만이다.스웨덴어는 간행물 [42] [43]에서 이 비디오는 2-15에서 나온 것이며, 스웨덴인은 HRW 회고 보고서 덕분에 2017년 3월에야 이 비디오들을 발견했다고 분명히 밝혔다.

9. "미국과 영국의 의료 전문가 그룹이 (화이트 헬멧) 비디오를 조사했고, 스웨덴HR의 주장대로 그것이 무대에 올랐다고 단정하는 것은 불가능하다고 말했다."게임마스터그9의 출처는 위키피디아가 "옛날 열린사회재단 중앙유라시아 프로젝트에서 운영하던" 유라시아넷의 온라인 출판 파트너인 코다스토리 사이트 [44]의 기사다.그럼에도 불구하고, "미국과 영국의 의료 전문가 그룹"은 어떤 신원확인도 없이 오직 한 명의 의사만, 다른 네 명의 "목소리"로 바뀐다.분석 결과(Swedhr 관련되지 않은 저자) "On Coda Story's Try to Discredit SEDHR"에 따르면, 주로 익명의 의사 집단의 결론이 스웨덴인의 결론에 도전하지 않는다는 아이러니한 점은 [45]

10. 게임마스터g9: "SWEDHR은 다우마 화학 공격 이후인 2018년 4월에 유사한 캠페인을 실시하여, 스웨덴 좌파 잡지 ETC가 인포워즈와 비교하게 되었다." 또 다른 명백한 오보!ETC가 실제로 작성한 내용은 다음과 같다."러시아와 시리아인들은 미국 제국주의에 비판적인 인포워스와 같은 음모 이론가, 언론인, 블로거들에 의해 도움을 받는다."ETC는 스웨덴어를 Infowars와의 비교나 연관성에 언급하지 않는다.ETC 기사에서 SEDHR에 대한 언급은 대신 De Noli의 개인 계정이 트위터에 올린 이미지에서 인용한 것이었다.더우마 공격 두 달 전인 2018년 2월 1일 드놀리가 작성한 글에 근거한 글![46]

Douma에서 보고된 사건 이후 SEDHR이 취한 실제 입장에 관하여:스웨덴인은 2018년 4월 13일 미국에 본사를 둔 '인권의사'를 지지하는 성명서를 발표하면서 "환경 및 생물학적 샘플의 수집을 포함해야 한다"는 조사를 요청했다.스웨덴어가 "치료 환자 및 병원 기록에 대한 독립적인 의료 평가"를 추가했다. [47]

11. 끝으로 게임마스터그9 편집집에는 "SWEDHR도 2018년 세르게이·율리아 스크리팔 독살에 대한 러시아 정부의 책임에 의구심을 던지려 했다"고 적혀 있는데, 이 때문에 그는 두 가지 출처를 밝힌다.그의 출처를 살펴본 결과 인디케터 편집자가 실제로 말한 내용은 다음과 같다.소식통 fPlus.se은 그의 유일한 진술로 러시아가 큰 국제적 사건을 무릅쓰려고 영국으로 죽음의 사단을 파견한 것은 터무니없는 것 같다고 말했다.수십 명의 러시아 외교관이 추방된 것으로 대표되는 대형 국제 사건을 가리킨다.러시아가 "책임감"을 갖지 않을 것이라고는 말하지 않았다.단지 국제적인 큰 반향을 볼 때 그런 짓을 하는 것은 불합리하다는 것뿐이다.[48] 출처 DN에서, 이것은 신문이 스크리팔 항목에 관해 인터뷰에서 보도한 내용일 뿐이다: "- 러시아가 배후라는 명확한 증거는 제공되지 않았다"고 그는 말하고, 계속한다: - 역사에는 유사한 사건들의 몇 가지 예가 있다.영국이 이라크가 더 잘 알고 있음에도 불구하고 대량살상무기를 보유하고 있다고 잘못 주장했을 때 처럼 말이다."("–- Det har intertes fram några tydigi bevis för attt. ér Rysland som ligger bakom, séger han, och forthttter: – Histrien har harienselser.Som nér Storbritannien felaktigt påstod at Irak hade massfösteurrelvapen och gick, trots at man vissteste bettre").[49]

참고: 위와 같이 이 스레드에서 편집한 내용을 종료한다.고마워요.

토버스터 (토크) 22:49, 2020년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

예고편이나, 아니면 그냥 이상한 점일 수도 있다.

나는 이 행동이 누구에게도 종을 울리지 않는 한 어떤 조치도 요구하지 않는다.오늘 사용자로부터 오프위키 이메일을 받았다.호주의 종신형을 찾아보고 확인해 보라고 하는 ARzip은 관심도 없는 주제인데, 나는 그 페이지를 보지도 못한 것 같다.ARzip은 영어 WP에서 정확히 0을 편집했다.나르키 블러트 (대화) 21:44, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:ARZIP가 사용자:ARzip의 Talk Page: diff 1과 diff 2는 다른 편집은 하지 않았다. 이것은 눈에 확연한 것 이상의 것이 있을 수 있음을 암시한다.나르키 블러트 (대화) 21:50, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그들은 다른 사용자들에게 많은 이메일을 보냈고, 그 중 4명은 사용자 토크 페이지에 응답했고, 그들은 즉시 그 응답을 논평했다.이글스24/7(C) 22:08, 2020년 2월 27일(UTC)[응답]

내 생각엔 그게 내가 3번째나 4번째 이메일일 것 같은데? 모두 연결되지 않았어.편집 횟수가 많은 사람에게 도움을 청하는 사람을 제외하고 나는 다른 사람들을 무시했다.그런 것에 관심이 있는 팀의 이메일을 듣고 이메일을 전달하고, 다시 더 보람 있는 일을 하기 위해 돌아갔다.나르키 블러트 (대화) 22:36, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 ARzip의 이메일 수신자 중 한 명이었다.이것을 읽는 사람이 모를 경우, 신뢰할 수 없는 사람이 보낸 WP 이메일에 회신하는 것은 현명하지 못하다. 만약 회신할 경우, 수신자가 당신의 이메일 주소를 가지고 있다.모든 베스트, 2020년 2월 27일 미니애폴리스 23:09 (UTC)[응답]

@미니애폴리스:그것에 동의해.둘 다 차단해도 될까?이러한 전자 메일을 ArbCom으로 전달해야 하는가?Deepfriedokra (대화) 23:21, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이메일 액세스는 반드시 이루어져야 하지만, ArbCom의 개입에는 이점이 없다고 생각한다.미니애폴리스 23:24, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 단지 두 번의 오프위키 이메일 교환을 했다고 생각한다. 하나는 다른 편집자와 내가 1마일 정도 떨어져서 더 나은 포럼에서 이야기를 교환하는 것을 선택했다는 것이 밝혀졌을 때 그리고 또 다른 하나는 내가 사이트 전체 WP에 휘말렸을 때:WP에 의한 레인지 블록:스튜어드, 그리고 다른 사람에게 의지해야 할 사람을 몰라서 나를 아는 행정관에게 도움을 청했다.미니애폴리스가 옳다: 안전한 육각제를 실천하라.나르키 블러트 (대화) 23:40, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 이메일들 중 하나를 받았고, 그들의 토크 페이지에 답장을 보냈다.이 사용자의 이메일 주소를 차단하는 것이 적절하다는 데 동의한다.-gadfium 01:08, 2020년 2월 28일(UTC)[응답]

내가 여기에 글을 올릴 자격이 있는지 모르겠지만, 오늘 아침 ARZIP에서 호주의 교도소 리스트에 있는 테이블들을 '축소해야 한다'고 요청하는 이메일을 받았다. 내가 표를 봤는데, 이것들은 괜찮아 보인다.Cowdy001 (대화) 01:55, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Vetop이라는 편집자로부터 2018년 호주의 교도소 리스트에 편집한 두 가지에 대해 감사하다는 두 가지 통지를 받았다.Cowdy001 (대화) 05:48, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 코우디001, 네가 여기서 논평하는 것은 전적으로 적절해.너는 문제를 일으키기보다는 유용한 정보를 제공하고 있다.조언해줘서 고마워.컬렌렛³²⁸ 2020년 2월 28일 05:51, (UTC) 토론하자[응답하라]

나는 베탑, TheARzip, ARzip을 양말 퍼즐리용으로 막았다. 서로 확인되었다.이상하게도, 그들은 또한 이번 SPI에서 포니아키에게 확인됐어무슨 설명인지 잘 모르겠는데, VPN일 수도 있어.그러나 어떤 경우에도 그들은 세 개의 계정을 사용하여 사람들에게 이메일을 보내고 "고맙다"는 스팸 통지를 보낼 수 없으며, 그들은 확실히 누군가의 양말인 것처럼 들린다.ST47 (대화) 06:26, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

이드와아에게 확인됐어Mwvr은 그 기사의 또 다른 SPA인 것 같다.닌자로봇피리테 (토크) 06:38, 2020년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

메일이 Mwvr에 의해 편집된 것에 대해 불평하고 있었는가?왜냐하면 그것은 Mwvr이 관련되지 않았다는 것을 나타내는 것 같기 때문이다.닌자로봇피리테 (토크) 07:02, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 받은 이메일은 민사적이고 일반적이며 특별한 문제를 내포하지 않았다.내가 원래 올린 글의 요약은 완성되었다.나르키 블러트 (대화) 07:39, 2020년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

기만적인 관행의 고발, 장기화

사용자 Varun2048 및 저작권 위반

칸나비디올

슬레이터스티븐

블록을 빠르게 피함

• 188.206.68.138 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)

같은 ISP, 같은 관심사는 잡초다.파보니아어 (토크) 17:51, 2020년 3월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

세타하비바세타하비

사용자:합의를 무시하고 협업을 거부하는 지속적인 소유권 문제 해결

나는 이전에 편집자 1차 보고서와 2차 보고서를 보고한 적이 있다.그들은 편집 전쟁과 합의에 대해 여러 차례 경고를 받았다.하지만, 그것은 여전히 일어나고 있고 나는 약간의 행정 조치가 필요하다고 생각한다.현안이 많은 것도 정책을 제대로 이해하지 못하는 것 같아서다.이 때문에, 나는 이 강연에 대한 지역적인 합의에도 불구하고 RfCs를 시작해야 할지도 모른다.잠시 후 그것은 모든 사람의 시간을 낭비하는 것이다.

1. 2019~20 코로나바이러스 발생과 관련된 제노포비아 및 인종차별에 대한 장기간의 전쟁/무시적 합의 편집 - 2월 12일, 2월 14일, 2월 15일, 2월 16일, 2월 24일, 2월 12일, 2월 12일, 2월 15일, 2월 24일 문구의 반복 삽입.이는 문제의 편집이 복수의 편집자에 의해 삭제되었고, 그 삭제에 대한 대담[56]에 대해서도 의견이 일치하고 있음에도 불구하고 그렇다.
2. 싱가포르의 WP:OWN.예를 들어, 편집자는 "싱가포르의 국어로 된 말레이"라는 사실을 infobox에서 삭제/삭제하는 것에 대해 단호히 반대한다.
   1. Feinoa 편집 - 2020년 2월 22일, 2020년 2월 22일, 2020년 1월 16일, 2019년 10월 31일, 10월 27일
   2. 이러한 편집은 복수의 편집자에 의해 2020년 1월 16일,1 2019년 11월 27일,에 의해 되돌리거나 변경되었다는 점에 유의하십시오.
   3. 편집자는 토론회를 열려고 솔선해 본 적이 없다.나는 마침내 [57]을 만들었지만(지역적인 공감대가 어느 정도 있다) 그들은 참여하지 않는다.
3. 토론 요청을 받았음에도 불구하고 여러 편집자를 편집하고 되돌리기
   1. 원본 편집, Feinoa별 Revert 1
   2. 복원됨(1), Feinoa에 의한 리턴 2
   3. 복원됨(2), Feinoa에 의해 리턴 3
   4. 복권 (3) 페이노아에게 [58] 경고를 하고 토론을 촉구한다.그들은 또한 요약 편집을 통해서가 아니라 대화에서 토론이 이루어진다는 것을 알게 된다.
   5. 편집 요약과 함께 Feinoa의 4번 되돌리기 "당신은 읽기를 귀찮게 했는가 아니면 단지 내가 편집한 내용을 되돌리는 것을 좋아하는가?나는 편집 요약에서 사소한 편집에 대해 두 번이나 요점을 말했는데, 당신이 어떻게든 충분히 찾아내지 못했다는 사실은 우리가 지금 모든 편집에 대해 토크 페이지에서 새로운 '토론'을 해야 한다는 것을 암시하는 겁니까?"
4. 비소싱(그리고 명백히 부정확한) 정보 추가 - [59] 오키나완과 야마토 등을 동남아 민족으로 추가함과 동시에 실제로 동남아에서 유래된 다른 민족을 제거함.또한 신도를 종교의 하나로 추가했는데, 아무런 출처도 없었다.

어떻게 해야 할지 잘 모르겠지만, 이미 충분한 경고가 주어졌고 그 중 일부가 파괴되기 시작했다고 생각한다.--드림링커 (토크) 18:20, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

부분 차단이 가능해서...다른 관리자 및/또는 커뮤니티에서 Feinoa(및 다른 사용자)가 이러한 기사에 득보다 실이 많다는 것에 동의한다면, 나는 프로젝트 내의 다른 기사와 페이지에 긍정적으로 기여할 수 있도록 허용하면서 특정 기사의 편집을 차단하는 것에 반대하지 않는다.~오슈와~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

오슈와, 내 생각에, 나는 여기서 가장 큰 문제는 협력할 수 있는 부족/거절과 적절한 분쟁 해결을 따르기를 꺼리는 것이라고 생각한다.차단하는 대신에, 아마도 편집자에게 1RR과 같은 제한이 부과될 수 있을 것이다.이것은 아마도 편집자가 논쟁의 여지가 없는 편집을 할 수 있기 때문에 최선일 것이고, 반면에 논쟁의 여지가 있는 편집의 경우, 그들은 대화에 대한 합의를 얻어야 할 것이다.합의가 어떻게 이뤄지는지 파악되면 풀릴 수 있다.--드림링커(토크) 06:50, 2020년 3월 1일(UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 개인 공격:아무리

빅 시티 그린스에서 User:아마리. 내가 실제 논의를 시작하기 전에 분쟁을 너무 오래 방치한 것은 인정하지만, 마침내 RFC User를 시작한 후:Amaury는 그 이슈 대신 RFC에서의 나의 행동에 대해 계속 이야기했다.나는 그것을 논하는 것이 잘못된 곳이라는 것을 분명히 했고, 만약 그가 내 행동에 문제가 있다면, 그는 그것을 이곳으로 가져와야 한다.그는 그것을 무시했을 뿐만 아니라, 인신공격에 대해 완전히 부당한 요구를 하기 시작했다.[60] 및 [61]을 참조하십시오.나는 그의 논평에서 인신공격은 제거했지만, 나머지 논평은 그대로 두고 [62] [63] 인신공격에 대해 경고했고, 다시 그에게 내 행동에 대해 여기서 토론을 시작하거나, 아니면 단지 직접 Talk에서 실제 주제에 대해 토론하는 데 집중하라고 요구했다.빅 시티 그린스.대신 그는 토크에서 인신공격성 발언을 낭독할 뿐이다.대도시 그린스[64].JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've doing) 14:42, 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

Amaury는 아마도 당신에 대한 그들의 반응이 그렇게 강렬하지 않았어야 했다.그러나, 당신이 옳다고 주장하면서 WP:3RR을 위반했는데, 이것은 위키피디아에 대한 명백한 반대다.슬라이라이터 (대화) 2020년 2월 23일 15:00 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그만큼 인정했다.만약 그가 나를 신고했다면, 나는 그로 인한 어떤 결과라도 받아들였을 것이고, 나는 그에게 그가 나를 신고할 수 있다고 여러 번 말했다.그러나 내가 워렌드를 편집했다고 해서 그에게 인신공격 허가를 내줄 수는 없다.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 23일(UTC) 15:13, 응답하라]

어머리의 말을 지우지 말았어야지.그것들은 제거할 필요가 있는 종류의 인신공격은 아니었고, 편집 요약본에서 아마우리씨는 당신이 그것들을 제거할 권리가 없다고 느꼈기 때문에 다시 삽입한 것이 분명하다.논평 자체에 대해서는 인신공격의 경계선이다.그들은 더 선동적인 언변이고 확실히 요구되지 않는다.우리가 위키피디아라고 부르는 이 사랑스런 미개한 환경에서, 아마도 경고를 받을 만 하겠지만, 그들이 제재의 수준으로 올라선 것은 의심스럽다.--Bb23 (대화) 16:35, 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:AussieLegend는 그것들을 다시 추가한 후 제거했다[65]. 그래서 그는 분명히 그것들이 거기에 속하지 않는다는 것에 동의한 것으로 보인다.JDDJS (Talk to me • see what I've done 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Feenyfan2019는 양말이지만, 이것이 고립된 사건이 아니라는 것은 여전히 옳았다.[66] 당신이 옳든 그르든 간에, 그것은 적절한 편집 요약이 아니다.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

• 노트 아마우리(Amaury)는 여기에 그가 이 토론에 참여하지 않을 것임을 암시하는 것 같다.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

공식적으로, 나는 IJBall처럼, 그것은 무의미하기 때문에, 문제의 기사에서 토론을 계속하지 않을 것이라고 말했다.그리고 내 블록로그를 보고 인신공격으로 막혔던 지난 시간을 말해줘.지금 말해줄게.2009년이 훨씬 지난 시기였으니, 나는 네가 말하는 이런 역사를 보지 못하겠다.그리고 만약 당신이 전쟁을 편집하고 있다는 것을 알았다면, 왜 계속 그렇게 하는가?어쨌든, 만약 경고가 이 보고서의 결과라면, 나는 기꺼이 받아들이겠지만, 정말로 이것이 내가 그 문제에 대해 게시할 전부다.Amaury • 21:04, 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

이력은 당신이 다른 편집자에게 2달 전에 편집 요약에서 망치라고 했다는 사실이다.당신이 차단되거나 경고받지 않았다고 해서 그것이 인신공격이 아니라는 뜻은 아니다.그리고 만약 여러분과 IJBall이 기사 토크 페이지에서 이 주제에 대해 실제로 토론하기를 원한다면, 여러분을 막을 수 있는 것은 아무것도 없다.하지만, 두 분이 논의해 온 것은 저의 편집 행태뿐인데, 그 내용을 논하고 싶다면 여기서 보고서를 열 수 있는 것은, 이 기사의 토크페이지에서 논의되어야 할 별도의 에피소드 기사와 이 사이트 어디에도 속하지 않는 나에 대한 인신공격 문제뿐입니다.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 2009년 이후 인신공격으로 차단되지 않았다는 주장은 거짓으로 밝혀지지는 않더라도 지극히 오해의 소지가 있다.2019년 8월 '전쟁과 캐스팅 질식 편집'으로 막혔다.인신공격의 구체적인 표현방법에 불과해그래서 이것이 그의 입장에서 하나의 패턴이라는 증거가 있다.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 23일 (UTC)[응답] 22:40

여기서 캔버스 만들려는 것이 아니라, 닌자 로보트 피라테가 왜 8월에 Amaury에게 인신공격과 경고를 받은 이력이 있는지 규명하는 데 도움이 될 수 있기 때문에 그들이 왜 "전쟁과 캐스팅 질식"을 막았는지 자세히 설명해 줄 수 있다면 정말 도움이 될 것이라고 생각한다.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과 참조:관리자 알림판/InsidentArchive 1015#Amaury - 내 계정을 Sockpuppet이라고 비난하고 이유를 밝히지 않음.닌자로봇피리테 (대화) 01:44, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• 좋은 제거와 Aussie의 경고를 지지하라.어머리의 공격성은 분명히 통제 불능이 되어 누군가가 개입하는 것이 적절했다.~스왑~ 02:04, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]
• 왜 마지막으로 차단됐는지 살펴본 결과 편집이 마음에 들지 않을 때 마주쳤을 때 아이디어 대신 사용자를 공격한 이력이 있는 것으로 보인다.그는 또한 나 또한 가지고 있는 문제인 그가 옳다고 느낄 때 전쟁을 편집하는 것을 기뻐하는 것 같지만, 그가 같은 문제를 가지고 있을 때 그것 때문에 나를 공격하는 것은 꽤 위선적이다.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC) 02:32, 응답하라]
• 세 가지 사항:
  1. 나는 정말로 Amaury의 말을 이해하지 못하겠다. ... 지금 너는 너의 뜻대로 되지 않아서 RFC에 출마했다.RFC는 우리가 우리의 뜻대로 되지 않을 때 받아들일 수 있는 형태의 분쟁 해결이 아닌가?
  2. 어머리는 그 진술서를 만들고 재설치하고... 넌 좋은 쌍둥이와 엄마의 작은 천사야 너는 아마 한 번도 버릇없이 굴지 않고 항상 엄마의 규칙을 따라 편지에 따라다녔을 거야.선을 훨씬 넘었다.누군가를 엄마 아들이라고 부르는 것은 명백한 PA일 뿐만 아니라 구시대적인 성 역할과 고정관념을 불러 일으킨다.그것은 여성혐오적이며 대학 환경에서는 설 자리가 없다.
  3. 위의 아무리 씨의 진술, 어떤 경우든 경고가 이 보고서의 결과라면 흔쾌히 받아들이겠지만, 정말이지 이 문제에 대해서는 이것밖에 올리지 않을 것이다.내 생각에는 절대 받아들일 수 없는 것 같아우리는 편집자들이 PA를 만든 다음 그 경고를 "훌륭하게" 받아들이도록 내버려 둘 수 없다.편집자들은 경고를 위해 PA를 "거래"하지 않는다.나는 이것을 읽을 때까지 위에서 경고하는 bb의 제안에 동의했을 것이다.분명히 경고로는 아마리의 행동을 바꿀 수 없을 것이다; 더 강력한 제재가 요구될 것이다.어쩌면 PA가 만들어진 페이지의 단방향 상호작용을 금지하거나 부분차단을 할 수 있는가?기사 토크 페이지에서 편집자에 대한 PA를 만들고 중지 또는 철회("경고 수락")를 거부하려면 해당 편집자와 상호 작용하거나 해당 페이지를 편집하는 것이 허용되지 않아야 한다.– Levivich (대화) 04:27, 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• @Levivich:
  1. 정확히 내 생각이야.그는 내가 토론 없이 편집하고 있다고 불평하고 있었지만, 내가 토론을 하려고 했을 때, 나는 여전히 틀렸다.
  2. 내가 왜 그를 신고했는지 바로 그 이유야.
  3. 그는 이미 그 토론을 포기했다고 주장하기 때문에, 나는 그 페이지에서 차단하는 것이 정말로 어떤 성과를 거둘 수 있을지 모르겠다.나는 단방향 상호 작용 금지가 어떻게 작용할지 잘 모르겠다.물론 내 결정은 아니지만, 만약 그렇다면, 나는 임시 차단 조치를 취하겠고, 더 이상의 인신공격은 더 긴 차단을 초래할 것이라는 경고를 할 것이다.하지만 다시 말하지만, 이건 분명히 내가 결정할 일이 아니며 나는 분명히 여기에 편향되어 있다.JDDJS (Talk to me • see what I've doing 2020년 2월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• 편집자에 의해 인신공격, 호통, 전장행동, 태그테밍을 당한 후 나는 그들의 행동에 대한 보고서와 어떠한 제재도 전적으로 지지한다.두 편집자 모두 여기서 정책을 위반했지만, 한 편집자가 정책을 위반하는 것은 다른 편집자가 그렇게 할 핑계나 이유가 아니다.이러한 상황은 몇 년 동안 계속되어 왔으며, 그 결과 불과 6개월 전만 해도 차단되었다. 경고는 그들의 행동을 단념시키는데 아무런 도움이 되지 않을 것이다. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:48, 2020년 2월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• @알렉스 21: 자네를 상대로 인신공격을 하는 그의 예를 한두 가지 보여줄 수 있다면 아마 사건에 도움이 될 거야.JDDJS (Talk to me • what I've done 2020년 2월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• 다시는 그런 일이 일어나지 않을 것이라는 어머리의 확신만 있으면 나는 기쁠 것이다.레비비치 (대화) 01:50, 2020년 2월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

@Levivich: 내 계획은 지금부터 이성 안에서 그들을 피하는 것이다.Amaury • 03:31, 2020년 2월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• Alex 21에 따른 지원 제재 - Amaury는 실제로 이곳 어디에서도 인신공격, 파괴적인 편집 또는 위의 다른 심각한 문제들에 대해 사과하지 않는다.그의 차단 로그가 이미 얼마나 긴지 생각해 보면 경고만으로 그렇게 되지는 않을 것 같다.아히로이 (토크) 13:32, 2020년 2월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 어떻게 보고된 사용자가 인신공격에 대한 ANI 실을 닫았는지 흥미롭다. 정확히 같은 행동을 위해 보고서가 존재하는 같은 페이지에서. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:26, 2020년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

@알렉스 21: 그는 여기서 몇 가지 논의를 마무리하고 있었다.어떤 규칙도 어기지 않았지만, 여기서 열린 토론이 있는 사용자가 생각하는 가장 좋은 행동은 아니다.JDDJS (Talk to me • see what I've done 2020년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:나는 여기 있는 아무리로부터 그의 어떤 행동도 철회나 사과는 고사하고 용납될 수 없다는 것을 인식하지 못하고 있다.레비비히가 제기한 포인트 2는 특히 비위행위의 극악무도한 사례로, 포인트 3은 저조한 태도와 자각을 암시한다.— 마크H₂₁^talk 12:58, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  나는 위 사항에 전적으로 동의한다.불행히도 지난 한 주 동안 행정 개입이 없었고, "제재는 처벌이 아닌 예방적 조치"로서, 이 보고서는 케케묵은 것이 될 가능성이 높으며, 아마우리도 인신공격, 호칭, 전장행동, 태그테밍을 계속할 것이며, 아무런 변화도 없을 것이다. -- /알렉스/₂₁22:56, 2020년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• @알렉스 21: 우리가 할 수 있는 일은 그에 의한 어떤 오행도 계속 주목하는 것뿐이다.만약 그가 이 토론이 아직 열려 있는 동안 정책에 반하는 행동을 한다면, 반드시 토론에 그것을 토론에 추가하십시오.만약 그가 이 토론이 끝난 후에 다시 정책을 어긴다면, 여기서 새로운 토론을 열고 이 토론으로 연결하십시오.만약 그가 이러한 현재의 행동을 계속하고, 우리가 계속 보고한다면, 행정관은 결국 그를 막을 것이다.JDDJS (나에게 말하라 • 내가 무엇을 했는지 보라) 20:09, 2020년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

칼릴-르-레흐만 콰마르에서 BLP 반달리즘 지속

사용자 대화:우스르0001

current events

Another Corona virus disruptive editor

I just semi-protected Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases due to an IP -- 202.168.59.122 -- repeatedly reverting edits. (It's late for me, so I did little more than count 3 reverts, but this may involve as many as 20 reversions.) I've dropped a warning on the talk page of the editor in question.

In brief, while the situation has been handled for the moment it looks like everything related to the coronavirus epidemic could benefit from at least one more set of eyes. (Panic shopping at supermarkets is not the only side effect of this uncontrollable medical event.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The virus page is also unprotected again, but not doing very well on its first day—mostly editors trying to add a variety of different nicknames involving Wuhan or China, whether or not they are in widespread use. Dekimasuよ! 11:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both the IP and the editor Rethliopuks for 24 hours, following the report of this issue at WP:AN3, as both reverted each other many more than three times. And it looks like a straight content dispute over what to include in the template, rather than disruptive or vandalistic editing by the IP. There is a short discussion already started on the talk page, but that needs to be continued there rather than the two parties warring over it. — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal and Harassing Attacks

It has just come to my attention that a Wikipedia has been slandering me behind my back, if you wish to make allegations could you perhaps try to display some level of decency by telling the accused of the allegations? It is highly offensive to discover that Wikipedia has seen fit to covertly add this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Daeron slander to chronic harrassment I have had to endure since becoming an obcession of User:Wik and User:Merbabu. FYI it took all of thirty seconds to discover that the IP address that I am being accused of using for abusive behaviour, is based in Brisbane; I do not and have never lived in Brisbane. Nor did the talk-page edit that I found leading to this allegation behind my back, appear to be anything other than a reasonable suggestion to which User:Merbabu appears to taken covert offence on which he has acted. In 2004 I said Wiki appeared to be a good use of php and other technology, but within twelve months the ugly head of bigotry rose not simply because I knew something about the subject I was writing about, but because 99.9% of people want to look the other way when ever the alleged racial superiority of Causian and Asian people over African and Melanesia people has come into play; and for fifteen years Wikipedia's unwillingness to address this systemic facilitation of biggoted behaviour has made the platform the throughly unpleasant platform that it has become.Daeron (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question were made 10 years ago, Merbabu added those sock templates in 2010. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's much more likely to be a blunder than an attack. My guess is that Merbabu got confused when creating categories and tagging and used the wrong user name. Assuming no one can give a reason to keep the category, I suggest deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daeron and removing all occurrences of {{sockpuppet Daeron}} (for example, at User:58.107.10.36). I will notify Merbabu about this discussion but User:Wik has been blocked since February 2005 and their last edit was in May 2004. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've notified Merbabu about this thread, which is a requirement when posting a discussion here about another user. Unless there was a good reason at the time, I don't think it is appropriate for that category to exist, as you were never blocked and it's unclear whether edits by those IP addresses were ever abusive in violation of WP:SOCK. Eagles24/7(C) 02:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pft - the dates are 10 years ago. I've recently returned to wikipedia after perhaps a 5 year break. So it seems I suggested a user was a sock puppet. To look at it in detail would be a waste of my time...but I suspect it wasn't a typo on my behalf, rather I would not have done so without reasonble cause. Does checkuser work on edits made 10 years ago?

As for User:Daeron, as i recall, he was a one-issue editor that didn't like it if people had a different idea on how wikipedia should be written. I think his post above says enough. "Personal and harrassing attacks" indeed - with his accusations of biggotry and racial supremacy...I think Daeron's behaviour is more the issue.

goodnight --Merbabu (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly sure it was not was not a case of wrong username. This [71] seems to suggest it was a genuine belief to me. I mean Merbabu could have just remembered the wrong name when posting that too but I think when people make such messages they tend to get the right username. The fact that AFAICT, Merbabu seems to have tagged usernames based on edits a few years old in some instances would be another sign of this.

I make no comment as to the correctness of the claim since I don't know the editor involved. However the IPs would never be publicly linked to an account by CU data no matter the age, so are a moot point here. I don't think "I've never lived in Brisbane" is particularly relevant here. Geolocation can be inaccurate. More importantly, current geolocation of IPs used 10 to 15 years ago may be inaccurate for that period even if accurate now. ISPs need to adjust their management especially with the spread of mobile broadband, IPv4 exhaustion etc. I mean these IPs could even be belong to some ISP outside Australia 10-15 years ago although that's probably not that likely.

About the socking issue, editors editing from IPs is always a complicated one. However generally speaking, if an editor persistently edits the same articles, and especially if they get into disputes with the same editors [72] [73] [74], without ever making their connection to their account known, it starts to become a problem. And even though this is ancient history now and no one would care, if an editor comes along and actively disclaims responsibility for those edits, that seems to be evading scrutiny if not true, even now. This [75] would also be an ancient sign of the same problem if it is an edit made by Daeron and the name "Andrew" was not widely associated with the name "Daeron". (Beyond simply making so many edits to the same articles and getting into disputes involving the same editors without declaring their connection.)

P.S. While researching this, I came across [76]. I did not recall any interaction with either Daeron or the IPs while writing most of this message.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is particularly interesting to me [77]. Unlike Merbabu and others the IP got into disputes with who were active so it's possible possible their experiences were recent, Wik had evidently been long banned or blocked by 2007. So that they are being brought up Wik means it's some editor with a significant history when Wik was still active. This [78] also supports that view.

This suggests an even longer history [79]. There's of course nothing wrong with someone editing with IPs in general and many of us did it before creating an account. But as I said, it is problem if you persistently use IP to edit the same articles which you do as an account, especially if you get into disputes with the same editors, in a manner that may lead people to believe you are a different editor.

The nature of IPs means it's possible that not all of those IP's edits were from the same editor. Also even if some of the IP's were used by a certain editor, it doesn't mean they all were. But I repeat my earlier comment, that especially after 10 years, no one really cares. So I'm not sure if it's wise to make a big deal over any possible misidentifications unless you're sure all were misidentifications.

In other words, while it's up to User:Daeron, I would just drop this.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: But why should there be a sock category for Daeron when they have been blocked once only (in January 2005 for a 3RR problem). There is no SPI page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daeron. I think a speedy delete of the sock category should occur, and the tags should be removed. I looked at a couple of your links but I must be missing something because I can't see the connection with Daeron. Re whether it was an error or not, I have done some spectacular copy-paste blunders on- and off-wiki—you write a message and hit Ctrl-V to insert the name so you only need to get it wrong once. At any rate, it is not reasonable to keep sock pages just because someone "suspects" socking when the target (Daeron) has had no significant block and is not mentioned at SPI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: to be clear, I have no idea if the IP is Daeron. I explicitly said I was not commenting on that aspect since I do not know about the history of Daeron. My main points were

1) If that IP was Daeron, it's hard to say it wasn't abusive sockpuppetry since they were extensively editing the same articles and getting into disputes with the same editors, to the extent of maliciously modifying comments left by other editors and also signing with a name that wasn't Daeron in at least one instance.

2) Whoever was behind that IP was clearly an experienced editor.

3) Daeron should consider carefully whether they want to go down the route of disavowing all those edits. Normally no one would care about edits made 10 - 15 years ago. But if you come here now in 2020 to claim abusive edits were not yours when they were, then it becomes a problem now. If Daeron is certain that all those edits were not theirs, then fine. If not, it seems a bad idea to me since if anyone bothers to look into it it may become a problem for you now.

As for the rest, I make no comment, but I'm fairly sure it's not unheard of. The ideal process may not have been followed, but there are so many things like that. And again, no one would normally care about something 10-15 years ago, unless you make them care.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for the wrong username issue, while it's not impossible, I still find it exceedingly unlikely. Again it's one thing to accidentally copy and paste the same user name when identifying suspected socks including socks which haven't edited in several years. It's another to post a personal message nearly a month later asking that editor why they are socking. Especially when the that user name is so short. Maybe I'm unusual in this regard, but if I am writing something nearly a month later, it's based on something in my mind rather than simply something that I copied and pasted. In other words, it means a genuine belief in my part based on an ongoing pattern I'm seeing and familiarity with the editor's history. It's not just because I see a tag I placed and go 'well it must be true since I wrote that even though I see no similarities'. I probably am not even going to copy and paste the name, I'll just write it out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. If anyone does want to look into this: Although I still make no comment on any connection between Daeron and the IPs, beyond the similarities in edited articles and users they were in dispute with, I also noticed both seem to make typos or spelling errors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment I promise. I forgot to mention that IMO, this is one area where saying too much may be more harmful than helpful. If this thread was started simply as a question over whether the process used by Merbabu was correct given the details, and what should happen if not, then concerns are far less likely to arise especially given the age. Frankly I still wouldn't have bothered anyway since I suspect few would have come across that stuff, but still a better way to handle things IMO is to not bring up unnecessary questions by defending yourself if it isn't really necessary unless you have looked into those IPs and contribs enough to be sure they aren't you. (And personally, investigating whether some 10-15 year old IP was me seems a lot of wasted effort.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andybasil

The user refuses to formally declare his COI or stop editing EIFA International School London in violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID despite my {{Welcome-COI}} notice on the user's talk page and his admission that his wife works for the article's subject in this edit. See also the discussion at User talk:Jeff G.#EIFA International School London. — Jeff G. ツ 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit early to say that he refused to do anything. He asked for help, which seems to indicate a willingness to comply with our policies once they've been explained. 331dot looks to have explained the situation, so maybe we should see what happens next. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't refused to do anything!? I don't have a conflict of interest. I just wanted to learn how to use wiki and chose a subject matter I know something about. I've been transparent and honest. Why would I attempt to write about something I have no knowledge of? I also edited a Jaguar cars page but have noticed that has been deleted.. so I guess ths is all a learning curve. Frankly I'm very annoyed that jeff has taken this aggressive attitude towards me. Please delete the EIFA edits as you see fit. As for me, this is not the friendly environment I hoped it was and want nothing more to do with wiki editing, if this is the result. Jeff, grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybasil (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andybasil: Please sign your posts. I'm sorry if I was unclear or overly strong in my use of the word "refuses". You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here. What gave you the right to make that claim, and to license the file freely? — Jeff G. ツ 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: 1. I would sign my posts if I knew how to so kindly stop pointing out my errors without also providing the solution 2. I quote; "You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here".. Yes, and I also ASKED for help, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT I WAS DOING. Condemning people who make mistakes, especially new 'editors' who realise they have made a mistake and ASK for help, is not clever and not acceptable. You clearly wouldn't talk to me in person with that attitude so why should the anonymity of the internet be any different? There is enough abuse and rudeness floating about the internet as it is, without displaying it on a site such as Wiki. As a result of this unfortunate turn of events, I am remaining a 'member' only so long as this 'conversation' has breath to continue, after which time I shall cancel my account and resume life in the real world. Please, consider your tone, your response and the consequence of your accusational attitude. Hopefully I have even discovered how to sign this post.. User:Andybasil

@Andybasil: Not sure what you mean by "cancel my account", that's not possible, accounts can't be deleted. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When I don't know what I'm doing, I don't do it. Has that somehow gone out of style? The lack of personal responsibility here is reprehensible. Yes, our help systems need improvement. But bottom line, if you cannot accept responsibility for your own actions, you're not mature enough to participate in a collegial project like this. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon:..and this is what I'm talking about. Your post is once again antagonistic and unnecessary. making assumptions over my 'maturity', questioning my actions etc.. bottom line, I was experimenting, made a mistake, asked for help and was met with abuse. If I can't cancel my account I can simply choose not to use it! What's the difference? What's your point.. other than to throw your hat into the ring and join in the bullying. Posts from Jeff and now yours just reinforce my growing opinion that wiki is being administered by a bunch of rather petty, small minded, anally retentives, more interested in lambasting new 'members' over minor misdemeanors than actually providing assistance. If you really want to continue with this fruitless attack you feel free and fill your boots. I'm logging out. (Andybasil (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Andybasil: Descending into ad-hominem personal attacks can get you blocked here; I suggest you strike them out like this. Your signature worked, aside from a superfluous set of parentheses. Did you design the school's new logo? Did you snap the photo of Isabelle Faulkner which you tried to upload? — Jeff G. ツ 11:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.:Dear Jeff. As I've already stated I would prefer to cancel my account than continue on with this abuse, though have been told I can't actually cancel my account, so I would be very grateful if you would block me please. That at least will put paid to your repeated attacks. You are obstinately missing the point - in that I requested help, not a telling off from some anonymous pompous arse such as yourself. So please, I say again.. do your worst, block me.. it really won't spoil my life. I realise wiki is not the place for me and I have no wish to become as petty-minded as you have proven to be. Amazes me you can't see the irony in describing my posts as ad-hominem personal attacks. Anyway, I sincerely hope I've 'personally attacked' you more than enough to warrant blocking me.(Andybasil (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Andybasil: Jeff G is not an administrator Special:UserRights/Jeff_G. so they cannot block you. Even if they were an admin, they're potentially too involved to block you. Others here could block you, but frankly if I were an admin I don't know if I would bother. If you really no longer wish to edit here, it would be far simpler to simply stop editing. I'm not sure why there's any reason to complicate things so much when you have a simple solution that does not require action from anyone else. BTW, when you want help, it's generally ineffective to insult and yell at anyone and everyone in sight. This applies to much of the world, and not simply the English Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Thanks for your response. I agree it's ineffective to insult and yell however, my original request for help was perfectly civil. It was Jeff's response and subsequent replies that have irritated me. I object to being treated somewhere between a naughty child and a petty criminal. As I've just mentioned in a different post, I wanted to try editing 'something'. I scanned through many pages connected with my life and knowledge and came across the school page, found it to be out of date so decided to give it a go. True I failed to read up on Wiki policy BUT, I realised I was making mistakes and asked for help. What I received from Jeff cannot be construed as such. Best. (Andybasil (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Andybasil: I was trying to help you and the WMF to avoid costly litigation by respecting content creators' rights, and to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I'm sorry I was so blunt in doing so. — Jeff G. ツ 07:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andybasil: I'm not planing to look into the history here so I can't comment on the specifics of how you were treated. However Wikipedia has a big problem with editors being paid to edit articles who refuse to declare their connection, even lying about it, and who make a big mess because the articles they write are utterly crap. Such editors waste a great deal of volunteer time, and to be clear, since there a lot of them the problems they create for wikipedia are not simply minor. They harm wikipedia an incredible amount. So plenty of us have zero tolerance for such editors.

While inexperienced editors often also have problems, at least most of them are here to help built an encyclopaedia, in other words, their hearts are in the right place. Further, because they are here for the right reasons, most of them can over time learn how to be good editors producing good work. So many experienced editors here are willing to spend their time helping such editors, and we can better tolerate the problems they cause

Because of the great similarities between the initial outputs of these two sort of editors, it's often difficult to tell them apart. So well meaning editors are sometimes unfortunately caught in the cross-fire. Because of the risk of misidentification, we do try to to deal kindly with editors suspect of a COI, but it a very tricky area. and unfortunately, there is no simply solution to such problems. Despite our TOU and occasionally legal action by the foundation, and also the Streisand effect on some occasions for those paying, it's very hard to stop those who are destroying Wikipedia for money.

As for the copyright issue, I in part agree and in part disagree with Jeff G. In reality, the chance of any lawsuit over a logo copyright against the WMF is likely to be slim. However, we are here to create a free encyclopaedia. We have some allowance of non-free content which is clearly marked as such. For many of us, our free content goal is an important one, and a key part of it is ensuring that any content which is marked as free is indeed free. Unfortunately plenty of editors have a very poor understanding of copyright. While there is always tolerances of mistakes by editors, copyright is an issue we don't mess around with, in part because of the legal risks but in big part also because of the harm it does to our free content goals. Therefore editors who do make mistakes on copyright issues need to quickly learn, or they will be restricted.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Fair enough, thanks for the response. In my case I did 'rush ahead' to edit but once I realised I was getting things wrong I asked for help, not aggression. I was also transparent with Jeff. I explained my wife worked for the school in I believe, my first response to Jeff. I think it must be pretty obvious I'm not a 'professional' wiki editor, with so many rookie errors and so on. I have had a wiki account for some time and never had the time to use it until now. In choosing my first page to edit, I looked through many pages connected to my interests, people and companies I know, including the school page - because my wife worked there - and I saw it was completely out of date and decided to use the page as my first attempt at editing. There was no COI as far as I'm concerned, as I neither sought permission from the school nor requested payment. I saw it was wrong and decided to have a go at putting it right. I really have no objection to being told when I get things wrong and will seek to rectify, but I strongly object to being treated disrespectfully and abruptly by Jeff (and John). Thanks again (Andybasil (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Continued disruptive/WP:CIR editing despite multiple warnings and blocks

94.175.199.138 seems to be a hopeless WP:CIR case. Looks like a static IP, same type of edits to British children's TV show articles, mostly adding/linking actors' names (usually incorrectly), on and off over the past year. The IP has already been blocked four times last year for disruptive editing and for creating talk pages for non-existent articles. Today they created ten more (now deleted).

It looks like they also edit from some mobile dynamic IP numbers in 92.40.174.0/24 and 92.40.175.0/24, though it doesn't look like a block would be possible there. Compare: [80], [81], [82], [83]; and [84], [85], [86], [87], etc. --IamNotU (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 94.175.199.138 and deleted the eligible pages. Regarding those two ranges; /24 ranges aren't that big (256 IPs each); there's definitely more bad than good that I see at a glance. Partial block might be tricky due to the wide breadth of articles targeted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can also see some blatant vandalism in those ranges, not sure if it's one person or more, but I don't think it's from this person. This one is just focused on the children's shows, especially Mr. Bean, and Thomas the Tank Engine, Team Umizoomi, etc. The edits are mainly haphazardly adding redlinked names of actors. I just noticed them also in 92.40.170.0/24, which was rangeblocked a few days ago. I looked through the whole 92.40.* and didn't see them anywhere else. Maybe a short rangeblock on those would be good then, though it's already been a few days for the one, and a couple of weeks for the other, so maybe a bit late. --IamNotU (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mild edit war on Ellington, Connecticut with canvassing from Reddit

Sorry I haven't edited WP in years so I don't remember all the exact terminology/procedures, but there's a slow-motion edit war brewing at Ellington, Connecticut over whether to include the [crime of some very low-level official] with some canvassing from Reddit [[88]] ("Id say create a bandwagon of people willing to edit the wikipedia page to where it needs to be everytime the stuff gets hidden. MAKE it stay"). Just wanted to let you guys know in case in needs some temp protection. SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. As an actual Connecticut resident who's been to Ellington, even people in Connecticut almost never care about that town. I'll keep an eye on it. Anyone for a WP:LAME entry? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on it. I have no dog in this fight and just stumbled across this while browsing Reddit, but I find it amusing they think some volunteer ambulance worker is a "highly important official" that an entire town would conspire to protect. I could maybe understand including him in the article if it were the mayor or something, but honestly many small towns have a sex offender who turns out to have worked in some public facing position (I can literally think of two off the top of my head from my own rural town that were discovered in the last couple of years). We don't list them in every town's article. SheepNotGoats (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, this is the state that had no less a corrupt slug monster than John G. Rowland for governor, a nobody in a nowhere town there is totally insignificant in an article like this. Definitely good work on your part keeping it out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the material should be revdel'ed. It is sourced, but not to very strong sources, and it makes serious accusations as if they are fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Don't forget about Joe Ganim! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, gotta love our biggest city. Sometimes I just can't with this state... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reaction to the statement you guys made from the person who made the reddit post. I notice I did something bad to this community and I'll say my part. I'm sorry. I didn't know better. I was honestly just concerned and I freaked out too much. I wasn't trying to raise a lynch mob, I stated I wanted to have support on what to do but it backfired as people came here. Even I stated in the Reddit thread I only wanted advice and I never added more. But that was not enough. I should have blurred out the IPs and names. I've already deleted everything regarding it so no people attract more attention from that. I didn't mean to raise a mob one bit, but the internet is a crazy place and someone wanted to boycott it and get people to bring more people here to keep it in here or something. That too, I didn't mean to conspiracy monger. I used cover up because I didn't have better english to use, I meant to say they removed it and it was bad. It violated trust a bit for them to do that to this and it felt like a slap on the wrist for any of the people who were abused by him. The person who said "Make it stay" I did not endorse either, I just said "I'll contact the mayor" and nothing else. I hope you guys don't put this on WP:LAME, because I honestly didn't mean for it to get this way. Of course being a human I have my misunderstandings. It is your choice though I guess. I would quote the reddit post on my wording on why I didn't want to start a "edit war" and just wanted advice, but I already deleted it and I just deactivated my reddit account because of the damage I caused. I'm sorry, I will research more on many things and I will admit the tone of the edit I put back in from another user was a bit biased.

I don't think an edit war will start now. I deleted everything on that Reddit thread.

Chennai94 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chennai94: Thank you for removing all that from Reddit. Please don't be too hard on yourself and consider finding productive ways to contribute to the Encyclopedia!
...Or you can be like me and run for office IRL in Connecticut to shed light onto the issues you care about (Just make sure to leave your political agenda at the door here, though!). In terms of disruption, this wasn't the worst by any means either way. Lessons learned, and I hope to see you around on Wikipedia soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

adding "Pogrom" to a riot in Delhi, India

Situation in Delhi, Inida are kind of violent right now, and there is an edit war going on at the relevant wikipedia article regarding this. This notice is regarding including "pogrom" to this incidence. Some editors are engaging in edit-war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#This_is_not_a_pogrom for the talk page.

Please advise. Crawford88 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring. Keep discussing on the talk page until you come to WP:consensus. If you fail, use some form of WP:dispute resolution (and ANI is not part of that). Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, IDHT issues

Incheon International Airport Terminal vandalism

This users change the image on infobox on the Incheon International Airport Terminal 1 Station and Incheon International Airport Terminal 2 Station using this photo i keep revert his edits how many times.

Not an admin: I reverted, gave a final warning to the user, and put in a RPP for the pages. Thanks for reporting this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found that user spamming that image on kowiki as well, after looking into it further. Tagged it for speedy deletion on Commons and reverted the kowiki vandalism as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just quickly noting that 175.118.193.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for 1 month by Ymblanter. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Report for Cdneh95

• Cdneh95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am here to start a ANI against Cdneh95 for doing a WP:3RR deliberately (1) and other disruptive behavior. The disruptive behavior was noted by numbers of editors, but seems to be ignored by page blanking. 2 3 I seek a preventative measure against user. The ongoing chaotic behavior was noticed by Rockchalk717,CASSIOPEIA, and Gsfelipe94. The user was blocked by C.Fred before for edit warnings. 4. 5 El_C blocked the user even earlier (May 2019).Regice2020 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regice2020, the user is allowed to revert/remove other people's edits on their own talkpage as many times as they like, if that is what you mean. If you mean their article edits, please note that several reverts in a row, without anybody else editing in between, only counts as one revert. Also, thank you for reporting, but if you have a complaint about edit warring again, the noticeboard WP:AN3 is the best place for it. This place, ANI, is indeed the right place to report disruptive editing, but you'd need to provide specific diffs and descriptions of the behavior. In other words, please tell us what's disruptive about it. Bishonentålk 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Its for both disruptive behavior and edit warnings. I would assume the user would not get in anymore trouble after learning the lesson in 2nd block. After 2nd block expired, the user jump back into trouble again Diff. This user been noted for sourcing issues 1 2 (not being collaborative) 3. The user proceed on disruptive behavior by reverting back without giving a source. 4. The belt was already vacated long time ago, but the specific user cant accept it. Regice2020 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* On topic comment It continues. Considering he always blank the talk page. It will be difficult to connect with the user. Waiting for a admin to response to this issue. Regice2020 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

_

Regice2020, who do you mean when you say "we"? You should not be talking on behalf of anyone except yourself, so "I" is the appropriate pronoun. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Regice2020 changed "we" to "I" in this edit without striking or replying here, thus making this question look meaningless. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of an aside that is not relevant to the main issue here

(And, as an aside, why is it that people who edit articles about martial arts seem to be unable to resolve issues in the normal way by consensus on talk pages?) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"as an aside, why is it that people who edit articles about martial arts seem to be unable to resolve issues in the normal way by consensus on talk pages?". That is uncalled for. If you have a specific complaint to make, provide examples. Generalised unfocussed accusations will get you nowhere and may reduce your credibility. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Absolutely uncalled for. This report is not about content dispute, but a user lesson not being learned after being blocked 2nd time. The WP:DISRUPT behavior can be seen in Wikipedia pages, not just MMA. That is the reason why the disruptive editing page was created just for that reasoning. Regice2020 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger Regarding the small comment you made at end. Was that even necessary? Regice2020 (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comment is absolutely necessary, but I think it was relevant. How about answering the substantive, normal type, question? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger I understand your reaction, but i am currently focusing on that small comment you made. What is the real reason you decided to add that small comment? Regice2020 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I share Phil's frustration with the inability of both editors to work it out (his comment is appropriate). And I am not seeing any major disruption to the project. So I would also ask why are we here? Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Phil's question is that these editors -- like editors in the pro wrestling, video game, and classical opera topic areas -- lack cultural role models displaying skill in nonviolent conflict resolution. EEng 00:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason that I added that comment was simply that I see lots of disputes over articles about mixed martial arts being brought here, in sharp distinction with their real-world importance. As I said below, I don't remember any dispute about boxing being brought here, and it is very rare for much more important issues, such as international conflicts that involve wars leading to very many deaths, to be brought here. Something is failing in our dispute resolution processes for articles in some areas that most people regard as comparatively trivial, and I simply asked the question of what that is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Regice2020: For what it's worth, there are subject areas where regular editors seem to constantly cause problems that uninvolved people have to solve. Sometimes it's admins handing out sanctions, sometimes it's RFCs where people with no expertise weigh in, and sometimes it's stuff getting elevated to ANI or other noticeboards. When a topic's biggest editors always seem to be fighting, the topic itself can turn toxic. Some users who frequent locales where disputes get settled get driven absolutely up a wall when they see the same stuff over and over and I think we're seeing that in this thread.

Any user saying something like what Phil said surely didn't do so for evil reasons. He has a right to be frustrated by a recurring problem. But strongly implying that there's something specific and inherent regarding that topic that makes it a problem is not a good look. (See also the comment above mine, where an editor who absolutely knows better bemoans a lack of "cultural role models" with regards to martial arts.) Phil isn't taking your concern seriously because you're not explicitly spelling out what you're obviously getting at. So I'll try.

@Phil Bridger: martial arts is, by and large, a topic area whose key BLPs are almost all about non-white people. Similarly, most martial arts were created, developed, and mastered mostly if not entirely by non-white people. Did you mean to say that you think martial arts is a contentious topic because, culturally, it's primarily non-white? Assuming you wouldn't be caught dead in hell actually answering "yes," will you, next time, take a minute to think about how what you're saying comes off? You're working to portray most heavy contributors at a mostly non-white topic area in a uniformly negative light. It's not because you're racist but surely you can see how, like I said, it's not a good look. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is rubbish and rot. That you took to the time to articulate that nonsense is alarming. I hope you will put yourself in the corner for a timeout. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how I managed to evenhandedly offend non-whites (martial arts), rednecks (wrestling), hipsters (video games) and, of course, snobbish Eurotrash (opera) all at once. EEng 03:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are teaming with talent in your brevity, EEng - clearly a plus if you ever decide to run for president in the US. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I personally have no talent so I try to team with it when I can. EEng 18:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expand your horizons, WP:GLOBALIZE. Narky Blert (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blerting things out. EEng 06:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I certainly didn't expect so many responses to the question that I asked in a small aside, but Wikipedia discussions often throw up the unexpected. I was a bit sloppy in my wording, because the problem seems to be particularly with articles about mixed martial arts and professional wrestling rather than, for example, traditional East Asian martial arts and, more relevantly in the light of later postings, boxing. Boxing is a martial art that, in recent decades in the Anglophone West, has seen a disproportionate number of black people at the top level, and I am not aware that there is any great difference in the number of positive role models that it has thrown up between it and mixed martial arts. So why have I never seen an article about boxing being brought to this noticeboard but regularly see articles about mixed martial arts? This difference doesn't seem to be explained by either 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724's or EEng's responses to my question, which was a genuine, rather than rhetorical, one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SharabSalam

User repeatedly engages in personal attacks and shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Responded to a merger I proposed at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders with this remark, threatening a misuse of ANI and failing to acknowledge a distinction between a deletion review and a merger discussion. Also, continues to make combative taunts[89]. Made an unfounded accusation of tagteaming and "trolling" over a content dispute at an ANI thread. There are probably many more examples, but this should be enough to justify a warning. Edit: Note that user has been previously temp blocked for personal attacks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section up this page was closed to stop the bickering. Please don't start again. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has continued to make taunts on other article talk pages after the discussion was closed (see diffs above). These are uncalled for and should stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making a personal attack, followed by restoring the personal attack after it was replaced with {{npa}}. --WMSR (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMSR, that's not a personal attack. This editor has an issue with identifying personal attack. Removing my comment is disruptive and might get you blocked if repeated.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me. You were taunting another editor. --WMSR (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start again. Huh, maybe you should have dealt with it, then, instead of sweeping it under the rug. --Calton Talk 06:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sharab's comments were taunting, thus could warrant a short block. But that's not gonna fix the underlying issue: Sharab and Wikieditor are deadlocked in a drawn-out struggle over Bernie Sanders (Is this what BernieBros are?) and can't seem to get along. Not sure what the next step is here. An IBan? Topic bans? I think a close of the thread above involving WikiEditor might go a ways to help solve this mess. I'm dissapointed to see Sharab at ANI...again. A perusal of the archives shows that Sharab has been at the noticeboards an awful lot over the last few months. So to Sharab: please remember to keep cool headed, and civil at all times. If you can't discuss an issue calmly, please seek outside help. Dispute resolution is an excellent tool. Please use it. If you can't, you may find yourself with an American politics topic-ban, or worse. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, When was the last time I was reported in an ANI thread? The OP has a thread #Wikieditor19920 above which I added some links to where he made comments under each vote in AfD, review deletion and RfC. He doesn't have disagreements with, he is probably following me after I reverted him in Jeremy Corbyn article and his ANI thread.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also what's this comment about "Berniebros"? I am not even American!. I don't know where are the civility issues with me but your comment is absolutely insulting and warrants a short block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, Don't play coy, you know very well: you were at reported at ANI twice in the last month; [90], [91]. You also brought two, rather spurious, claims just two months ago [92], showing that you were already not making good use of dispute resolution and instead running to the "drama boards". I'm not sure what you mean about you and WikiEditor not having a disagreement, it seems plain that you are disagreeing about Bernie Sanders. Correct me if I am wrong, but WikiEditor wants Media coverage of Bernie Sanders deleted, and you don't, which has culminated in an ANI thread. I would call that a disagreement.

As to your last point, I see my attempt at levity has backfired, I will remove the comment. You might wish to learn a lesson from my action: when someone suggests that you may have been in the wrong, more often than not, they are right, and you might wish to follow their suggestions, such as striking an alleged NPA, even if you think it isn't. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These petty civility issues are not the problem. The problem is the war over the article, putting staunch advocates of deletion against supporters of keeping the topic. The former have engaged in relentless trimming of sourced text and repeated attempts at deletion or merger, despite overwhelming consensus to this point that the article is warranted. That consensus may change perhaps after enough supporters are topic banned or blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that the filer of this report also initiated a largely frivolous DRV link recently. At this point further efforts such as the merge discussion recently opened are disruptive. Responding to such repeated efforts can be frustrating and editors should be given a bit of leeway for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That DrV was opened in good faith and was not without any agreement in my position. This has nothing to do with edit warring. I partially agreed with a point SharabSalam made on talk page and implemented it in the article, even though I didn't like how he was arguing it. I've never been involved, that I can immediately recall, in edit warring or even extensive editing at Bernie Sanders-related articles. Several opposers to deletion suggested they didn't like the idea of "nuking" the article, but would be open to a merger. Maybe the merger discussion should've come first, but I don't see why that's disruptive now. That's why I also opened a section on the merger to field responses on it before formally proposing one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro tip: Starting an ANI section accusing another editor of personal attacks with the sentence "...(he) shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors" is not the brightest idea ever, especially just after you've written the following about them in another section on this page; " SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another". Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bring on the Boomerang. This is a waste of everyone's time. I have reviewed all the diffs by OP and I dont see this worthy of ANI. You seem to have content disputes, Follow WP:DR. ANI cannot be used in attempts to sanction folks you disagree with. I suggest this thread be closed immediately and OP be warned for WP:BOOMERANG if he repeats this in future. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Boomerang See what the OP started with, he said that there is a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Also, he said that I failed to acknowledge the distinction between a deletion review and a merger when I said that there a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor who is starting a merge discussion after his deletion review (of the third deletion request) got denied. Indeed, there is a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor and he cited the same diff saying that I am "threatening to misuse ANI". Also he said that made a trolling accusation, I didn't make a trolling accusation, I said that reverting for typos might be trolling. You can't revert someone's work and say "contains typos". FWIW, the editor has made a clear accusation to me saying "SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another" and that I should not be allowed to make a comment here unless I am involved, he made that comment in an ANI thread which I was involved. After his accusation, he joined the discussion in the article against me and also requested a merge and he also filled a report against me. Sounds like clear harassment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's amazing how an issue can be misconstrued and then blanket bans suggested for all involved like candy. I have not bludgeoned any discussions nor, frankly, have I had any protracted disputes with SharabSalam about content. My interactions with him have been pretty limited, other than an ANI thread here that he's been piling onto. This was not about a content dispute. I can handle an editor disagreeing with my proposal. What I have a problem with, and what the diffs I provided in my report show, are personalized taunts directed at me on an article's talk page. Despite several editors on this thread dismissing SharabSalam's comments and characterizing my calling his behavior here immature as a "personal attack," the kind of remarks that brought me here are expressly prohibited by WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hopefully, when Sanders either wins the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination or drops out of the race, this delete/keep dispute over the related Media coverage article, will come to an end. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

• Comment I’ve had the opportunity to see both of these editors on pages I watch interact with each other, and with the editors in a particular topic area. And I’ll say that they’re both generally net positives for the encyclopedia, though occasionally problematic in certain topic areas, or in terms of certain behaviour. I’ve interacted with both of them, but only minimally. I will say that Sharab is very good at editing articles related to Yemen, and while there is a bit of intrinsic bias, it isn’t overriding or interfering with his editing. He does less good work in articles related to Israel and Palestine, Islam (though he’s been somewhat amenable there), and AmPol. As far as the latter, I think it’s mainly due to a lack of familiarity with the nuances of American Politics, which is perfectly understandable. I do think there’s a definite battleground mentality in certain topic areas, though. Likewise with Wikieditor. A certain degree of battleground mentality, but most of their edits and proposals are firmly within policy and generally based on reason. They edit in highly contentious areas where they’re likely to encounter entrenched editors though, and bludgeon the talk page. They’re both decent editors learning the ropes. I don’t think the sanction for either, is unreasonable. But I do think there needs to be less battleground behaviour, irrespective of whether they’re the ones trading barbs. I think Wikieditor was right to bring this up as well, as he has been on the receiving end a bit more, and Sharab isn’t providing the full context. But I’d urge both editors to just drop it, and be less reactive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #2

A two-part proposal. (1) SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920 are restricted not to reply to each other more than once in a rolling 24 hour period, and (2) Wikieditor19920 is restricted to a maximum of three edits to each discussion page in a rolling 24 hour period, both restrictions to be lifted 90 days after implementation.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An unbalanced and vindictive proposal. So I'm to be subjected to a severe three-month sanction for reporting a personal attack, and in-turn, the editor who made the personal attacks is let off with this "mutual restriction."

I'm not sure what entitles you to make a proposal for sanction as a non-admin, but your comments here are consistent in a) criticizing/punishing me based on vague innuendo and b) overlooking the blatant personal attacks by SharabSalam that were the basis of this report. This follows a content dispute between you and I over my recent AfD nom of the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article, where you disagreed with my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why these "proposals" involve me at all. This seems a purely punitive measure for my filing this report, perhaps egged on by users who chimed in here and have personalized content disagreements with me in the past. SharabSalam, nor any user, is not permitted to make personal attacks in response to content suggestions, which is what occurred. My response consisted of a warning, and then a resort to ANI when the conduct continued. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, call it a sort of WP:BOOMERANG if you want. This case acc/ to me was trivial and should have been resolved at each other's user talk. It should not have been dragged to ANI, but you thought it was a good idea. So here we are. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Marshall has suggested a milder sanction (albeit a tad difficult to follow). Your response is to suggest that they are doing this as retribution for a content dispute, which is not a good move IMO. I suggest less combative responses would work better. And anyone can make a proposal here. O3000 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, 1) your whole report here is a boomerang, you said I "threatened to misuse the ANI"? What does this mean? and the diff shows that I said This is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. I think I should note this in your ANI thread after you start again a merge proposal just days after your deletion review which you filled with comments under each vote and yet got denied and I didnt even participate. You also said that I "failed to acknowledge the distinction between a merge and a deletion", OMG, what does this mean? I failed to acknowledge? because I said that starting a merge proposal after a deletion review of the third deletion request is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT? Did any admin actually read Wikieditor19920 report?.

2) The section diff I pointed out that an editor revert because of typos is absurd might be trolling, that's not a personal attack, I also wasn't talking to you nor that you were involved at that time.

3) Then you added that I made a tag-team accusation, I didn't accuse you and I didn't make a direct accusation. I have also pointed out that the same editors who got involved were previously accused of tag-team also I didn't accuse you.

4) You said I was blocked for a personal attack, yea, that was at my beginning times in Wikipedia, I said to an editor who has insulted me, to stop acting like "something insulting" and I appealed for unblock, the editor who insulted turned to be a sockpuppet. I am asking admins to actually review this editor report, its baseless.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this appears innovative to me, is not hard to follow and most importantly isnt anything remotely draconian. Unless there are strong oppositions from SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920, I would support this and ask both to give this a try. These are much milder than TBANs or IBANs that will eventually come if the community starts loosing patience. Both editors are requested to use the extra volunteer time (saved by not replying to each other) in other more productive work elsewhere. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, Perhaps you're familiar with WP:NPA, perhaps not, but I'll repeat again that SharabSalam's comments on that threat were clearly personalized taunts/jeers, and this was noted by myself and WSMR at the talk page, and additional users here at the ANI thread. SharabSalam's responses in the closed discussion above continued this pattern of personalized comments. SharabSalam has been banned for personal attacks before (see block history above). I have never been blocked for any such behavior (discounting a mistaken block that was immediately lifted and still shows up on my block log) and none of my participation here or anywhere else justifies a sanction. No editor is required to tolerate personal attacks and ANI is the appropriate forum for resolution of these issues. I resent that I've had to answer these kind of charges for filing an appropriate report and worry about the kind of precedent this sets.

Perhaps you would be fine with an editor making similar comments towards you following a content proposal. Maybe you wouldn't have filed a report. But that doesn't mean that other editors aren't within their right to do so, like I've done here, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be subject to punishment for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, I looked at your diffs again, Just to make sure I had not missed anything. No sir. You are way over reacting. Can you list the actual PAs that you are referring to ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are included in my report summary and you are free to scroll up and review them anytime, along with other editors' comments agreeing that they were personal attacks (which, indeed, another editor tried to strike, an attempt which SharabSalam reverted). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote.

Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another (prejudiced by past content disagreements/possible disputes with user) and should be wholly disregarded, and probably forbidden from commenting on threads unless they have a reason to be directly involved

Wikieditor19920: [SharabSalam] shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors.

This is all just in this page. Compare to what I said. And you have just accused the editor who made the proposal of being biased just because you had a disagreement with him..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, each of the improperly presented comment "excerpts" above are specific references to behavior originally supported by diffs or other context, and made at the appropriate forum (here). You should focus on providing diffs, as required, not disruptive higtqighting/other inappropriate formatting. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all on this page. Anyone can see them. And they are not supported by evidences, they also shows how you don't assume good faith which is also a personal attack if repeated, just like your accusation against the editor who started this proposal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support obviously. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem I have is that I see zero realization from Wikieditor19920 that they have any part in the problem. Without that, it’s difficult to see how behavior will change. Looks to me like a “deep end of the pool problem” as the articles are higtqy controversial. That’s not to say that SharʿabSalam, with a longer history and a block log, doesn’t also have responsibility here. But at least that editor is asking for a bit of guidance. I like to see some indication that there will be a change that won't bring us back here once again. And, timesink is a real problem and applies. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have said that I apologize if I have caused any stress to other editors and that it wasn't my intention to do so.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I observe with some amusement that these users' conduct in this very thread justifies my proposal as written. I know it's a novel idea, but I think tbans and ibans would be disproportionate. Neither of these editors is irretrievably disruptive. Both are congenitally incapable of stopping themselves from replying to each other, so the community needs to assist them to do so. Wikieditor19920's the more problematic because he can't stop himself replying to anyone.—S MarshallT/C 11:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall, both of them have a right to defend themselves on an ANI thread about them. No defendant should be shamed for defending themselves. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely agreed. They have the right to defend themselves. This' self-defence is taking over the board. It's not any individual edit that's problematic, it's the sheer volume of edits that's the issue here.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Something needs to be done. Where my proposal was adjudged too harsh, I think this one is a good start to calming things down for a while. --Jayron32 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This may be relevant. If there are any global CUs or someone with advanced permissions on Wikivoyage, that may be helpful in getting to the bottom of that. --Jayron32 14:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall Nothing I've done justifies this kind of draconian talk page community sanction, and this proposal is only more unfair than the prior one in how completely unbalanced it is. Notice that SharabSalam has gone ahead and continued the very same behavior that I and others have justfiably pointed out as problematic here on this page. Jayron32, you remarked on this earlier, and I'd say your warning had little effect:

• Here, SharabSalam opened a talkpage thread with a header specifically naming an editor and criticizing their edits in violation of WP:TPG, and again, focusing on an editor, not content.
• Here SharabSalam reverted 10 edits by that same user with a short and largely unhelpful summary.
• Continued commentary focusing on other editors, not content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When you say "I'm not doing anything wrong", when the wrong thing you are doing is "not disengaging from the situation with SharabSalam and backing away", you then (like he did in my comment you alude to) ALSO disprove yourself. If you want to make this sort of thing go away, stop making yourself the self-appointed SharabSalam investigator. It's the repeated refusal to back away and disengage from him, including stopping trying to catch him doing something wrong and trying to play "gotcha!" which is THE PROBLEM everyone is trying to sanction you for. You can't say "I'm not doing that" and then immediately with the next breath do that. --Jayron32 17:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use quotes when you are paraphrasing me, because that's not what I said. I said that there is no basis for this ridiculous proposed sanction against me (because that's essentially all it is), I never claimed perfection. Others have offered constructive feedback that I'm completely willing to consider going forward.

Further, I'm allowed to present evidence of the issue I raised in my report. I don't appreciate SharabSalam's remarks towards me, and I don't think that it contributes to a healthy talk page discussion when he does it to others. With those headers, the talk page looks like a war zone. Naming editors in headers is explicitly prohibited, (edit) and I pointed this problem out[96] to the user previously when I had to change another problematic header they created. Perhaps as an administrator you should try to assume good faith, not just accusing me of being petty or selfish. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know that talk headers should not contain a name of an editor. There was a lot of problems in that editor edits and I didnt know what would the title of that header be

Wikieditor19920, Which remarks I made against you?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the two folk under discussion have made clear in this filing that they cannot make a point and then sit back – but must respond to every parry even when in view of the community as a whole. I don’t think much of IBans. I’ll not make a formal proposal. But, I think it would help both the project and the two editors if they were both TBanned from all articles under any DS for two months, giving them the opportunity to edit elsewhere, better familiarize themselves with the concepts of consensus, and how to gain such, while dealing with a less fraught environment. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reminder, Wikieditor19920 edited my comments in violation of WP:TPO. This editor can quote guidelines but refuses to obey them. Their entire goal on Wikipedia is making it a WP:BATTLEGROUND; while I have apologized and volunteered to take responsibility for my errors on ANI, in their mind they have never made a mistake, and never will. I'm not going to defend everything SharabSalam has done but judging by their contributions they have made Wikipedia better by helping build an encyclopedia; I cannot say the same about Wikieditor19920. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing these two go at it makes clear that this is necessary. Personally, I think that the iban proposal would have worked better, so I tend to think that that was closed prematurely, but I guess this is sufficient. Worldlywise (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam—I think you should read WP:TALKNEW. We debated this at Talk:Religion in Israel. Here are diffs from that debate including one to my User Talk page. [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], and this on my Talk page. And I just gave up. The section header now reads "A chart that is about religion". The simple rule of thumb is that section headings "should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." You suggested a section heading of "Chart that is actually about religion". I find that not quite neutral because whether or not nonobservant Jews have a "religion" is part of the question. In essence you are creating a section heading that provides an answer for an aspect of that which is being disputed, when all that is called for in a section heading is that it "indicate what the topic is". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then just write "religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm)". There's your section header, SharabSalam. It is one of many neutral headers. Shortly after another editor said "Replace with a chart that is actually about religion, not ethnicity" you changed the section header to "Chart that is actually about religion" from the entirely neutral section heading "Proposing a new chart". They are permitted to make that argument in Talk page discussion space but in my opinion you are not permitted to make that argument as a section header. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Innovative and fairly applicable to the situation, but too complicated to implement in practicality. I much prefer Floq's suggestion above in the first proposal (1 month blocks handed out to anyone who continues to push the envelope). This is seriously getting out of control. They're essentially flooding several talkpages/noticeboards with this immature behavior and apparently simply can not help themselves. We're not in primary school, and are expected to act like mature people with a goal of collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Waggie (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree; there's nothing overly complex about it. If you have the English comprehension, analytical skills and mature good judgment necessary to edit encyclopaedia articles, then you can certainly follow this restriction. And these users will police each other -- or they won't, in which case, the sanction has worked.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie Yes it is seriously out of control and what would be helpful is if the people who realized this would support proposals that might improve the situation, rather than oppose them. (And if those proposals are inadequate, then at least there will be precedent for the idea that there is a problem and that something should be done about it.) --JBL (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel B. Lewis—disjointed communication is the antithesis of interaction. You are only partially correct when you say that we are looking for "proposals that might improve the situation". Shouldn't there also be interaction on this noticeboard? Should I be content with "Bus stop, how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue"? Is SharabSalam really interacting with me? What does it mean that they were "trying to solve that issue"? They changed a neutral section heading to a section heading that advanced a specific view about the topic being discussed. They changed the section header from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion". The first is neutral, the second advances a viewpoint on the very issue being discussed under that section heading. They chose to use the section header to advance their argument which in this instance happens to be that the term "religion" would not apply to nonobservant Jews. The question is valid, but need that question be touched upon in the section heading? I don't think so. It is not necessary that this question be addressed in a section heading, but SharabSalam does not seem to grasp this point—if I am to judge by their interaction with me on this noticeboard. Why did they change the section heading from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion"? WP:TALKNEW tells us: "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been spending too much of my life on ANI recently, so please stop tempting me to open a thread requesting that your topic ban be reinstated. --JBL (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel B. Lewis: Perhaps it's time that you stop showing up to stir the pot. Bus Stop, You bring up a valid point, but I think enough has been said about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A measure of how entrenched the problems with your behavior are (and hence why restrictions are necessary): I first asked you to stop pinging me more than 10 months ago. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jayron32: OK, you were right, I was wrong. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Jayron32 11:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by SharabSalam I am going to self-impose ban on myself from making any type of comment in response to Wikieditor19920 in the politics or noticeboards area and if I violated I get a block with any duration that the admin thinks is appropriate, the ban will start as soon as this report get closed. I am not going to lose anything. Even if the other editor replied to my comments, I dont want to reply. I saw a comment above saying that we are flooding several talkpages/noticeboards.I never noticed this?. This is started just lately after some content disputes, I am not going to blame anyone, it doesnt actually matter to me. Since the community thinks I am annoying them with my interaction with the other editor I am willing to impose on myself a ban from making any type of comment in respone to Wikieditor19920 in the politics or noticeboards area. The self-imposing ban will start as soon as this report is closed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The problem is now apparently solved. It seems SharabSalam has a self imposed Iban. If anything changes we can find ourselves back here to revisit. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the problem is with WE19920, the problem is obviously not solved. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And the proof there is, which of the two editors has volunteered to step aside, and which hasn't? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just pointing out to Lightburst, that SharʿabSalam▼ has not proposed an WP:IBAN so it is inappropriate to claim that he did so. And I do agree with Mr. Vernon and JBL above. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Voluntary bans take effect only after they are logged by an administrator at WP:Editing restrictions, until then it's an unenforceable claim at best. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all have memories. I take the editor at their word, that they will stop engaging. Solution for peace is offered and committed to by one party and we can revisit if there is disruption to the project. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose part 1, at this point (though I was leaning support earlier), in light of Shar'ab's voluntary undertaking above and in preference to the proposal below. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I keep flip-flopping. I'd support part 2 of this proposal (as well as Proposal 3 below), if there is no voluntary commitment forthcoming from 19920. S Marshall makes a good point that the problem extends beyond interactions with Shar'ab. I agree that part 2 of this proposal is maybe more complicated than it's worth, but at the same time, I hear what others are saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and not opposing proposals that may be better than nothing. I'm still holding out hope of a voluntary resolution, though. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my commitment, Levivich. I don't need SharabSalam to impose an IBAN on himself or any other form of restriction. All I ask is that a) he focus on content, not editors, and b) stop with the personal attacks, at me or anyone else. I, of course, commit to do the same, though I've made no personal attacks. If that occurs, I'd be thrilled to collaborate and edit with SS. Despite what some other editors in this thread believe, SharabSalam and I are not diametrically opposed on all content or locked in some dispute, and I find several of their proposals to be reasonable, though not always. I think that's the most satisfactory way to move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, your definition of personal attack seem to be very wide and something I do not agree with. As I said above, I do not consider those diffs you presented here ANI worthy. It seems you do. There is a difference of opinion. Despite what you have said above, I feel that it is highly likely that during the course of interaction. you will again call a non PA by SharabSalam as a PA and drag him to ANI. Where you will use this thread as a justification for sanctions making mountain of a molehill. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple objective and uninvolved editors here have already acknowledged and agreed with me that SharabSalam's remarks were taunts, and taunts are personal attacks, so I'm not going to try and persuade you on that issue. I agree this has become too drawn out, and I've provided what I believe are clear and reasonable guidelines on how I see a path forward. These punitive, one-sided sanctions against me that you and others have pushed for repeatedly and failed to get community support for has not brought any sort of productive resolution to this, so this is my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals are still ongoing, I would not rush to tag them as failed. If you think you have a better proposal feel free to present them as proposal 4, 5 etc. regards. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, my advice: it's well past WP:1AM; get a good night's sleep, come back tomorrow, re-read this thread. Ignore the obvious at your own peril. The obvious is that there is already consensus on this page to sanction you; the only disagreement is over what kind of sanction to apply. The reason a sanction hasn't already been instituted is because everybody recognizes how easy it would be to avoid a sanction, since all that is really being asked of you is to back off. But you're refusing to back off. And the longer you refuse to back off, the stronger both the consensus, and the sanction, will become. Through multiple threads over many days you have been asked to climb down from the Reichstag. Seize the opportunity! Shar'ab did. You should, too! This won't matter in a month, if you let it go. If you don't let it go, you won't be here in a month. That's not a threat, that's my attempt to get you to understand the seriousness of the situation you're in, and the ease with which you can get out of it. Levivich (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it even more clearly: You don't currently look like an editor we can work with to build an encyclopaedia. You've got the judgment and the language skills, but you're uncollaborative in that you don't admit fault or error, you don't accept when the consensus is going against you, you get overly invested in an outcome, you're oversensitive to perceived slights and you're exhaustingly disputative because of your insistence on replying to everyone saying what you've already said. And if we can't work with you then we'll arrange matters so we don't have to. I tried saying this less bluntly but you seem to miss the subtleties here, which is another bad sign.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that my comments above seemingly aren't registering. Another objective editor, whose feedback about my own editing I said I'm perfectly willing to consider and adopt going forward, commented I think Wikieditor was right to bring this up as well, as he has been on the receiving end a bit more, and Sharab isn’t providing the full context. But I’d urge both editors to just drop it,. I've expressed a willingness above to drop it and move forward and collaborate with SharabSalam as long as things stay civil. You can take me at my word or not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes, one of us is having trouble with their comments not registering, and you think it's me. Time for a sysop to make the call, I suppose.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #3

User:Wikieditor19920 gets an WP:IBAN for User:SharabSalam. This seems to solve the root of the problem, WE19920's battlegrounding and abuse of Wikipedia policy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes even unsuccessful proposals can have a very beneficial impact if the editors involved take on board the feedback generated during discussion of a proposal (regardless of whether it passes). I think both Shar'ab and 19920 should re-read Symmachus Auxiliarus's comment at the end of the first #Proposal section above. Shar'ab's voluntary commitment above seems to be taking these comments on board. I'm hoping 19920 does the same. If not, I would support this proposal. Levivich (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, several folks have shown concern on Wikieditor19920. And I am especially concerned since Wikieditor19920 had made no efforts to discuss this "problem" with SharabSalam on his user talk page, before escalating it to ANI. Wikieditor19920 has not made a similar offer of avoiding interaction, yet. In light of all of these, I do agree with you that Wikieditor19920 should propose a similar restriction on himself or I would support this proposal. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason why this doesn't reach the root of the problem is because of pages like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 16, where Wikieditor19920's behaviour doesn't involve SharabSalam in the slightest, but is still unacceptably persistent and confrontational.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @S Marshall: WP:SBAN then, or something else? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's considerably too harsh; my suggestion's at Proposal #2.—S Marshall T/C 01:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Vernon's proposal accuses me of an "abuse of Wikipedia policy," without evidence or an indication of what that means, and a few lines back he said I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia," which is uncalled-for and untrue. This is dancing right on the line of a personal attack, if it hasn't already crossed it. No editor should be subjected to this at ANI or anywhere else.
• Levivich, DrBigXray, I didn't ask SharabSalam to self-impose an IBAN, and he's apparently retracted that. However, my interactions with this editor have been limited, and I wasn't the one who made the personal attacks, while this editor has a history of doing so and being blocked for it. Nonetheless, I am happy to collaborate with SharabSalam civilly if he a) stops the personal attacks, against me and others, and b) focuses on content, not editors. I did in fact raise this issue with SharabSalam in between the first and second diffs provided, before filing this report, as did multiple other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. I think you are here to win. Even now you refuse to admit any problem with your behavior. It's always someone else. And don't bring up editor history because you have your fair share of warnings, like Bishonen telling you that you will be blocked if you post to a certain user's talk page, or Bishonen asking you to stop personal attacks or you will be topic banned, or this 1RR violation, or this edit war warning, or this ANI about your move warring. I haven't even begun digging into the BLP warnings you've received. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, Mr. Vernon, with you, when you say "I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. I think you are here to win". On the contrary Wikieditor19920 is trying to keep the building of the encyclopedia honest and pure and free from bias and in accordance with our core principles. They are ardent about that and you may be perceiving that as being about winning. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They have a lack of willingness to look back upon their behavior and listen to constructive criticism from multiple editors and admins. That's not in accordance with WP:CIVIL which is policy. You are honestly not helping here; your defense of Wikieditor19920 is enabling. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Vernon, You are treating this like a battleground right now between this and canvassing at another thread and attacking Bus Stop for his opinion. Appreciate the kind words, Bus Stop. I've never violated BLP and edit them frequently, so don't insinuate that I'm some habitual BLP-violater, which is deeply prejudicial. I've collaborated with other editors and built consensus to get highly-contentious BLPs elevated to GA-status. The few other threads you linked over the past year were closed without action. This feels like a tirade, and I'm not going to continue responding to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is Al-anon, cocaine-anon, food-anon, game-anon, and about 20 others. We are now seeing on-and-on. 23 posts by Wikieditor19920 in this thread alone. I fully understand the desire to defend. But, this thread is looking like other threads involving this editor. First rule of ANI: Don’t manifest the problem on ANI. SharabSalam has exhibited some of the same problem. But, appears to have taken criticism here to heart. Time sinks are harmful to the project and must be dealt with. The editor must realize the problem. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, no they don't. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Vernon—you are linking to User talk:Wikieditor19920#way forward but I fail to see anything egregiously problematic there. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing abuse from sockmaster "LightFromABrightStar", possibly connected to WorldCreaterFighter

I would like to request an investigstion as to whether or not these sock users:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/LightFromABrightStar

And

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WorldCreaterFighter

Could be related. Both users have been identified as editing pages related to Turkic people's origins on sock accounts within the last week. They have continued to relentlessly abuse this website, in WorldCreaterFighter's case, for the past several years. -- Hunan201p (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated and in entirely different parts of the world.
  — Berean Hunter(talk) 22:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenagoras - WP:NOTHERE

Xenagoras has been performing many dubious edits throughout the Wikipedia project since they entered in August 2019. They began their participation in the project by making multiple edits on the Tulsi Gabbard article and were temporarily blocked after violating rules set on that article. The user has also allegedly been invovled in covert email activity to other users in an attempt of stealth canvassing.

The current issue is on WP:RSN, a noticeboard that has the specific task of determining verifiability, reliability and preventing falsehoods from being placed in Wikipedia. Xenagoras has repeatedly promoted false material in WP:RSN discussions. In these incidents, Xenagoras promotes "unproven" and "false" statements about the White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) as being true. Before going further, I want to state that the incidents are not about the conduct of the White Helmets at all, but about Xenagoras' blatant disregard of what the source concluded and how they purposefully misconstrued what France 24 stated.

The WP:RSN incidents go as follows:

• Xenagoras provides an article by France 24, inaccurately presenting it as "a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda".

• I reply to Xenagoras, stating that "[t]he allegations you make and try to validate with the France 24 source are described as either 'false' or 'unproven' in the analysis". This was easy to conclude, but it was important to read the source given the scope of the noticeboard.

• Xenagoras again uses the France 24 sources stating "the France 24 analysis proves my allegations", framing numerous events France 24 concluded as "unproven" and "false" as being true. In this edit, they blatantly ignore clear conclusions provided by France 24 and twist falsehoods in to truths, again showing that they continue this behavior.

Xenagoras has received multiple warnings about their edit behavior, but the promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia is unacceptable and dangerous to the integrity of the project as a whole. It appears that the user has received too many warnings for similar incidents for this to be accidental and that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I do not take the placement of this incident on the noticeboard lightly as I may have only done this once or twice before and only use this for serious concerns. Any reccomendations are helpful and thank you for taking the time to review this situation.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address the WP:RSN incident first: The only interaction I ever had with ZiaLater occurred in the RfC about the GrayZone Project, where I quoted France 24 to disagree [102] [103] with ZiaLater about the type of interaction/relationship between the White Helmets and al-Qaeda, because ZiaLater quoted other sources to say [104] that GrayZone disseminates propaganda and attacks about that topic. I quoted [105] France 24. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations about an event were "unproven", they said they could not verify the location where videos about these events were captured. France 24 never disputed that the events in the videos did occur. In these "unproven" cases, I quoted France 24' decription of the events. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations were "false", they said the military/religious rank of a person was falsely described or there was an incorrect translation from Arabic to English. In these "false" cases, I quoted what France 24 claimed to be true.

All things ZiaLater wrote in their first and last paragraph of this ANI report [106] are irrelevant to the disagreement in the RfC about Grayzone. Let me explain them:

• ZiaLater's first diff links to an unwarranted and false suspicion against me that was raised without any evidence and without any reason to have that suspicion [107]. That other editor had also attempted to damage my reputation and discredit my future edits by making a false statement of fact about me [108].
• ZiaLater's second diff links to a 31 hours block against me for an 1RR violation that I unsuccessfully appealed [109], because I attempted to make a series of consecutive edits that amounts to one revert. But I inadvertently failed to make this an uninterrupted series, therefore the admins ruled that I should take it as a reminder to be cautious editing articles under 1RR, so as not to even inadvertently cross over that line.
• ZiaLater's third diff links to my misguided attempt to get an uninvolved editor to give his opinion on a stuck dispute. I am not yet familiar with dispute resolution procedures and was not aware that an unsolicited invitation to participate in a discussion is inappropriate. Nine days ago I started my first RfC, aiming to solve a stuck dispute.
• ZiaLater wrote, I had received multiple warnings about [my] behavior, but gave no example. I therefore dismiss this claim as an attempt to discredit me. They also wrote, it appears that the user has received too many warnings for incidents [similar to promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia], but gave no example for such a warning and no example for any promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia. They also wrote, these alleged many similar warnings were too many ... for this to be accidental and that [I were] not here to build an encyclopedia. I have always been aiming to adhere to the highest standard of editing and conduct and I continue to improve my editing and conduct.
• I firmly reject all accusations. The behaviour of ZiaLater amounts to casting aspersions against me and they are mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. Addtionally, the lead of WP:ANI states, this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This ANI report by ZiaLater does not concern any urgent incident, and it does not concern a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. The ANI lead further states, before posting a grievance about a user on this page, consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page or try dispute resolution. ZiaLater did not discuss the issue on my user talk page and did not try dispute resolution. Xenagoras (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my observation, Xenagoras has been the kind of balanced, fair, and considered editor that Wikipedia seeks to attract. His acknowledgement of his missteps itself shows that as well. Humanengr (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like others, I have found Xenagoras' editing on Tulsi Gabbard to be uncollaborative and obstructionist. And I do not think that a character reference from Humanengr helps X's case. [110]. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, I discussed the user's edits ([111][112]) at Talk:Second Cold War about adding content related to Adam Schiff's speech. I don't know what to describe the user's response, but I can say that the user called my edits "one-sided", told (if not advised) me not to revert the user's edits on "Second Cold War", and that the user claims to have followed the lettering of the policy. Unsure whether the user followed the spirit of policies. Speaking of Gabbard, the user attempted this edit related to Gabbard, eventually reverted as "NOTNEWS". George Ho (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Please WP:AGF and remember to try to treat others with dignity. Humanengr (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're referring to. If it refers to this ANI, please be explicit. If it's something else, you're always welcome on my talk page. BTW your link is dead.. SPECIFICO talk 12:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "dignity" part refers to WP:etiquette, doesn't it? George Ho (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO made one edit [113] on the article Tulsi Gabbard[114], and I did not interact with this edit. Xenagoras (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xenagoras, your remark is not relevant either to my comment or to this complaint against you. One reason I have not edited that one more is that it's evident that there is tendentious POV edit warring going on there and that editing the article is futile. I have commented on article talk and at BLPN, and that's more constructive IMO in such circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I have not done edit warring, instead I always aim to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My remark revealed that your severe accusation against me is baseless, has zero evidence and therefore amounts to casting aspersions against me. You are right that editing on that article (and some other articles) is very difficult, but please address your concern, that editing the article is futile, towards those editors who cause that problem. Xenagoras (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be defending yourself of things that I did not say. I accused you of nothing. For reasons others have documented, I do find your editing disruptive, but that's just my opinion. I hope anyone who sees this ANI will follow OP's links and also look at Xenagoras' conduct on the article talk page and at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, Xenagoras, I think you're a big part of the problem on that article. The cited diffs suggest, maybe the biggest. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of IPs adding unreferenced content

Likely the same user simple switching IPs.

• 2601:2C3:4201:D70:E1A5:32B8:AA46:1FAD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 98.196.146.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:2C3:4201:D70:54FA:B357:1D59:1BAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:2c3:4201:d70:cc1a:c3c1:6db3:367b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:2C3:4201:D70:9CD8:1D1E:1CD9:885A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Wondering if a range block would work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 98.196.146.160 and 2601:2C3:4201:D70:0:0:0:0/64 have been blocked for one month. Was previously blocked in December for one week. No one else is using the range. He created gibberish pages which have been deleted. If he shows up on another IP in the 98.196.xxx.xxx range then we can consider a rangeblock for that one.
  — Berean Hunter(talk) 22:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Berean Hunter Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats?

• 210.6.209.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• "If you block this IP address, you are acting in an illegal manner"

Thought? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP is now edit warring to try to remove well referenced content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And obvious paid COI/spammer for the subject of the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continues to edit war. Well past 3RR. Meters (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring, for 24 hours. Asked to RPP the page since they'll be back. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper page move and maintenance tags

Could someone look at what I deem as an improper page move. Boris Nikolayevich Belousov was moved to Boris Belousov (cosmonaut) without discussion and as uncontroversial. Along with the move valid maintenance tags were removed and this is during an Articles for deletion/Boris Nikolayevich Belousov. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks by 68.132.126.95

• 68.132.126.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Classical library (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seraphim Rose (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

The IP editor in question is currently under a partial block for disruptive editing at two articles. They have now focused their attention on Serephim Rose. They have removed a sufficiently-sourced section of the article. When challenged on this, they have repeatedly attacked other editors, first by accusing one editor of vandalism for their good-faith edits [115] and then by accusing me of a conflict of interest over a two-steps removed connection (I am a member of an organization that used to have ties to an organization that the subject is a critic of).[116] They have claimed that there was a pre-existing consensus from discussion on the article talk page, but when asked where it was, they provided a link to a book on Amazon.[117]

Since I am now an involved party to this matter as the target of personal attacks, I do not feel it appropriate to take further administrative action on this matter. I therefore ask for a broader set of editors to counsel this user on how to constructively contribute to Wikipedia or otherwise prevent disruption of the project. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was not intending to attack the editor with ad hominems, and I submit that the user complaint to this effect by C.Fred is entirely frivolous and misleading. I was merely pointing out a conflict of interest in which this editor is involved, by editing the content of this particular page (Seraphim Rose). The subject of the article is well known as a severe critic of Catholicism and the editor indicates on his user page that he is a member of Phi Kappa Theta, a Catholic fraternity directly associated with the Catholic Church. His membership in this organization constitutes a prima facie violation of WP:COIN in connection with the edits he's made to this page, and at the very least raises serious questions about his neutrality. This is something which needs to be pointed out, because it involves a violation of Wikipedia rules.

Moreover, contrary to this user's complaint, I have commented profusely on content in the talk section, where I have added page upon page of explanation in support of the current revision, most recently in the talk page section entitled "Matters Up For Discussion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Matters_up_for_discussion and received no reasoned discussion from this warring editor in response, but only repeated, unilateral reverts with no real basis other than the fact that he apparently does not agree and seeks to perpetuate an earlier revision which, as I have pointed out, is highly problematic. The user C. Fred is the only one that I can see who is currently disrupting consensus by ignoring the long discussion in talk and simply reverting anything he does not agree with without any explanation or discussion whatsoever.

I have posted thousands of words in the talk section, he has posted literally none in connection with his edits. I am trying to reach an agreement, right now he seems to be the only one forcefully insinuating himself into this matter without providing any rationale in support of his edits. Also, I did not provoke this. There was an earlier revision which was tentatively agreed upon in 2015 after much discussion failed to yield agreement of all parties involved, and in the recent weeks user C.Fred and another editor named "Zaathras" suddenly began summarily altering the wording of this revision so as to subvert the earlier compromise struck as a provisional antidote to the persistent disagreement which had ensued over the disputed content, which had stood unchallenged for five consecutive years (from 2015-2020). When the problematic nature of the sourcing within the current passage was then recently pointed out to me I suggested that in the absence of the current phrasing (added specifically to achieve neutrality and compromise) the entire passage should be excluded and posted my intent to do so in the near future in the "Matters up for discussion" section of the talk page, before following up with the proposed edit two days later.

Finally, I never removed any entire section of the article, as User: C. Fred erroneously states in his complaint, but rather proposed a revision which excludes some passages of the "Early Life" section of the article. Far from being "sufficiently sourced" the claims contained in these passages are disputed and there are serious questions as to the veracity of the single and, in my judgment, highly problematic source from which they derive, which presents claims conspicuously at odds with the acknowledged major work on the subject and which are corroborated by no other independent source. In any event, I have within the talk sub-section previously mentioned, enumerated a list of reasons why, even assuming the source for the disputed info is accurate, that such would nonetheless bear no relevancy to a neutral exposition of the subject's life and work within the setting of an encyclopedic reference article, which should contain only the most straightforward, objective, independently verifiable, and relevant facts concerning its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on the Seraphim Rose article, and right about the time of this alleged consensus.[118] —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, due to some unintentional errors on my part being a novice user of Wikipedia and inadvertently violating rules which was then exploited by a pack of partisan editors to impose their biased views under the guise of an an exaggerated conformity to the strict punctilios of Wikipedia etiquette. It would take only a cursory read through the history of the talk discussion to establish the defamatory nature of the comments directed at both myself and others by some of these rogue Wikipedia users, and to notice the inappropriate bias expressed in them. Also, I made it clear that there was a compromise struck in 2015 which C.Fred and another user Zaathras attempted to summarily subvert with recent edits ignoring the preceding five-year-long compromise, after which I undertook further discussion in the "Matters Up for Discussion" sub-section of the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Matters_up_for_discussion in order to further clarify the issue and explain why I believe that this questionable material does not belong in the article in the first place. C.Fred then proceeded to ignore all subsequent discussion appearing in talk while embarking on a one man editing crusade to thwart the reasonable revision I had enacted after careful and precise enumeration of my reasoning in talk. But C. Fred should not be editing this article at all, since as I've shown in my earlier post citing his Catholic associations and Seraphim Rose's strident anti-Catholicism, doing so would involve him in a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's blindingly obvious that the IP and the account are the same person. The assumptions of bad faith have continued after my warning, so I'm changing the IP's partial block to a sitewide block, and blocking the account for the same behavior for the same term. The partial block idea is OK in principle, but all too often the partially blocked editor finds something else to argue about. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...And the IP's response "I don't take orders from a self-important little bug-man like yourself, so stop being rude and try being polite and maybe even kind for a change." speaks for itself. The named account's denial, albeit more polite is undercut by the same inability to sign posts. Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-communicative User: Whatiskeptinname

Whatiskeptinname (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki) is apparently an SPA for Tauthali and related topics who only comes back to revert/fix edits that they do not like in a few articles that they created/maintain, which is evidenced by the fact that they have not edited for months since I stopped reverting them at Tauthali. Attempt at communication at one of the article talk pages and their user talk page were both unsuccessful. I was advised to take our disagreement over how Tauthali should be maintained as a content dispute and to refrain from reverting them. Since they do not come back but to revert, I don't know how to make BRD work. This is probably too minor for ANI, but I am out of ideas. Please help. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to give conflicting advice to whoever told you to stop reverting. So maybe check with them first, or direct them here. But based only on what you've said, without investigating further, you should be able to revert back to your preferred wording if they have stopped editing. If that causes them to return and revert, without discussion, I'll block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, now that I've benefited from your reply, I should clarify that the advice to stop reverting that I got was not in exactly the same context as I have presented here. That "they have stopped editing" is the principal difference, although I'm sure that is only because I took the advice. Plus, I was also told to do as I saw fit except edit-war. So, I'll revert back and see if the editor comes back again. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, violating WP:NOTBROKEN, unresponsive

91.125.218.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is rapidly and without explanation "fixing" redirects, contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. IP has not responded to notices on talk page. Is this a pattern of behaviour that rings any bells? The edits are far too rapid to be being done by a clueless newbie. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm a DABfixer, and I don't correct even the easiest bad links that fast. (I have better things to do than fixing NOTBROKEN links; unless they're counter-intuitive WP:EASTEREGGs which might puzzle readers.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, I just left a note encouraging WP:DPL. Prodego^talk 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a heavy-duty DABfixer since 2016, and I don't recall ({{senile cackle}}, my memory could be going) any issue similar to this having been raised at WT:DPL or WT:DAB during that time. Although all help is welcome, I'd be reluctant to point to point an IP towards towards the tools we use the most; there's too much risk of difficult-to-detect damage. Narky Blert (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is now editing as 212.219.142.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), same edits, same articles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both. Materialscientist (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Materialscientist:. DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has started again now the block has expired. @Materialscientist:. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krish!

Krish! was recently unblocked per the Standard Offer after a long indefinite block. One of the reasons for the block can been in this ANI thread, in which he clashed with me with conspiracy theory claims of "taking money" and making up many such imaginary claims against me. This coupled with a general WP:Battleground mentality.

It should be noted that I NOT indulged in edit war with editor in last 24 hours. Krimuk 2.0 has reverted 3 edits on Priyanka Chopra's article, 2 edits at his talk page and I have only reverted his one wrong wrong edit which he later accepted here.Krish Talk 21:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read THE REAL version that happened. This version is written to make people confuse into think that I was the one who was edit warring.Krish Talk 00:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now within 24 hours of coming back, he is back to his old ways of whitewashing the page of his favourite subject Priyanka Chopra by adding unsourced puffery which I removed in this edit and removing negative critical notice and poor box office return of her film. When reverted and asked to maintain WP:STATUSQUO, he resorted to his usual edit-warring instead of starting a discussion on talk page (which I started), as he was advised to do. He did not make a single attempt to explain his edit on the talk page (update: he did after I opened this ANI thread, albeit still making accusations against me on the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Instead he began making more of the same claims against me (similar to the 2018 event), in this thread. He absolutely refuses to listen to my advice to "open a neutrally-worded talk page discussion and ask the community to gain consensus", which I said three times, and instead insists on only making accusations against me by saying "You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This complain was brought to ANI while I was working on the reply to the discussion at [HERE. Also note this discussion has nothing with any of the reverts as I did not revert any of his edits. So discussing about it is not even related to any of it. This discussion was added there much much after he complained about me at Hunter's page. But here he makes it seem like I was not ready to discuss.Krish Talk 21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: One of my reverts to the Chopra article was a mistake which I rectified myself, when pointed out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A request to the Administrators: Kindly read my warm post extending olive branch on Krimuk 2.0's talk page, then after being shut down my reluctance of editing any article fearing revert and then block and then here to read here. Thank you.Krish Talk 21:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PSS: My intent is to not get the editor blocked, because everyone deserves a second chance and some of their edits are quite constructive. But these constant accusations are aggravating when a simple talk page discussion with uninvolved editors can suffice, when he does indeed want to "challenge" me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly ask to the administrators to go through the history of Priyanka Chopra (an article that I have been updating and expanding; it was un-updated for a long time). It should be noted that I ONLY reverted him once because he did had reverted my last 5 to 6 edits (an improvement) without reading as he accepts here. I did not engage in edit war as I just reverted his edit saying you don't WP: OWN the article because as an editor I can add things in articles by giving strong sources. But he has been reverting all of my edits since last night BUT not once did I revert any of his edit, except the one where he accepted he reverted without reading. After his constant revert spree, I wrote to Cyphoidbomb on his about Krimuk 2.0 reverting all my edits and I been afraid of editing further in fear of getting blocked. I even tried to extend an olive branch but he rejected me twice: her saying "i was wrong, clearly nothing has changed. sigh" and here saying Not interested.Krish Talk 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Adding puffery and removing poor reviews (including changing a section header to "Widespread success"). Adding puffery ("Several critics and media publications have described Chopra as one of the most talented actresses in Indian cinema") and moving a mixed review down the paragraph in favour of a favourable one. This is a featured article. I am unconvinced that it is a good idea for someone who has just been unblocked from an indef per WP:ROPE to go straight back to doing exactly what they were doing before they were blocked. I suggest a partial block on Priyanka Chopra so that they can prove they can edit collegially on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite Chopra being "one of the most talented actresses of Indian cinema" was there in her article for 5 or so years, until 2018 and this editor was the one who removed it without any reasons. Same goes for "widespread success", it was there all those years but was only removed by the said editor in 2018 without any explanation. Also when he reverted my today's edits claiming PUFFERY, I did not revert him, I welcomed his edit. I had added several important things in the article that were missing and updated the article. He reverted most of my edit but I recerted just one edit. I only reverted his edit when he had added a misinformation in the article which he had later accepted [that it was his mistake yet he filed a complain against me. Kindly read my talk page post to know what really happened. Thanks.Krish Talk 00:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Krish is very dedicated and probably means well, unfortunately it isn't always expressed in a great way. I'd recommend instead of a block extend him a 1rr restriction. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket But I reverted him because he had added a wrong information and later accepted he accepted his mistake. That user reverted me 2 times on his talk page, 3 times on article and here I am. Please understand I did not edit war. Please read the post on my talk page. I am feeling so helpless right now. What I am supposed to do? I have done everything to explain what really happened yet I am being blamed.KrishTalk 01:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krish!, If someone removes your post on their talk page, leave it that way. It's allowed, the assumption is that they read your post. If they revert you on an article, leave it, and try to discuss it. If they don't use the noticeboards or other forms of dispute resolution. You need to be the perfect editor, in any circumstance. Ravensfire (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensfire I understand what you are saying but I did not revert any of the debatable stuff. I reverted his wrong edit where he re-added a wrong information. When he had first reverted my edit 2 days ago, I actually went to discuss on his talk. Then he kept repeatedly reverting my edit as if he [[WP: OWN]s the article. Should I have to now discuss about adding links to an article? He kept reverting my edits and I am here being reported. How is is fair? And, no one is ready to listen to my version.Krish Talk 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was unclear, but the problem isn't about edit-warring. It's about a recently unblocked editor who comes back and does these (which he should not do even once):

• 1) In this edit he uses this source in which a single journalist writes that "Priyanka has emerged as one of the most talented and versatile actresses in Bollywood" which he turns into "Several critics and media publications have described Chopra as one of the most talented actresses in Indian cinema". (For non-Indian editors, Bollywood is a smaller subset of Indian cinema).
• 2) He says that he wants to "improve" the article, but that involves only removing negative critical and commercial notice to two of her films. Note, that this "activism" does not extend to removing a single positive comment or mention of a commercial success, of which there are plenty.
• 3) He renames a section to "widespread success" when there is no such reference in that section that states that.
• 4) Deliberately removes an informative source from Moneycontrol.com (an RS) for another one that does not mention "box office flop" in its title.
• 5) The same battleground mentality, which led to his previous block, can be seen in this edit when he tells me "You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked."
• 6) Keeps making unverified claims against me, on the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in every "discussion": here, here, and above.

Are these valid edits for someone who is back on the standard offer? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To counter his points:

You clearly had said on Berean Hunter's page that I was edit warring. I only reverted your one edit that too the wrong UNICEF information one which you accepted later. Your contant reverts of all my edits shows that you were trying to provoke me to edit- war. I on the other hand was explaining every edit of mine.Krish Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Then explain why the same line was used in the article since 2018? You removed that without giving any explanations but hid it under "trim redundant info; add 2 new important lists" summary so that no one would notice.Krish Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 2) I had removed it and you re-added it by reverting me and then I realised you were right and I did not revert. So why are you trying to make it seem like I reverted them? It is notable that these two performances that have been shown as negative/mixed by Krimuk are actually well received as I proved it on the article's talk page. Plus see his response. He says he won't accept it as he considers a positive reviews only if the ratio is 100 positive: 1 Negative. This is violation of wikipedia guidelines.Krish Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 3) Again it was therein the article since a very long time, removed by in 2018 without explanations. So you think that you don't have to give explanation to edit but constantly wants explanation and discussion from others. Again WP: OWN violation.Krish Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 4) My summary clearly states there was no BOX OFFICE BOMB mentioned in the source but you had used BOX OFFICE BOMB in that article. Again WP: NPOV violation. MONEY CONTROL is NOT used on wikipedia for Box Office figures and that was my reason to remove it. I had replaced that source with a better source. Also, my other summary says I used it more widely accepted BOX OFFICE website source on wikipedia. Source was replaced but I still used a neutral tone to describe an unsuccessful film as unsuuccessful/did not do well and not BOMB like you did.]Krish Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 5) It's not about Battleground. It's about you constantly reverting, removing everything from articles without explanations YET you want editors like me to add a coma, link after taking persmission from you. I have challenged your edits on Priyanka Chopra's talk page and it's obvious that your edits violated WP: NPOV.Krish Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 6) You have been accusing me of WHITEWASHING Chopra's article. Is that not a WP: Personal Atack? Also people can see that I have properly given my response to your edits on Chopra's talk page discussion and it is obvious, they violate WP: NPOV. See his response [here and [119] when I quoted a wikipedia rule about WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight, he says "tiny minorities" would be 1 negative review for 100 positives, which does not seem the case anywhere". What is does suppose to mean?Krish Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please NOTE: This user behaves as if you WP:OWN the articles on wikipedia. Could you explain why you significantly changed Bajirao Mastani article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions on its talk page? You removed the version of the article that was the consensus of the same wikipedia community that you are talking about. But you reverted it without discussing with any editor forget community, why? As per WP: I Don't Like It or WP: OWN? Could you care to explain? Isn't this a violation of wikipedia rules to remove something from article that was decided after consensus of the community or you just do it as you please? Similarly, in 2018 he removed several things (with strong sources) that were present since a long time from Chopra's article, an FA written by other prominent editors, without any explanations. I saw no discussions happening there. Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article.Krish Talk 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article." that's yet another unverified claim against me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you revert most of my edits on Chopra's article. You reverted my edit when I linked an article, you reverted my edit when I corrected your false information about UNICEF, you reverted my edit when I added Chopra's "noted for philanthropy" line, you reverted me when I renamed a section and others. Yet you can do everything without any questions by others? After my response on Chopra's talk page on those discussions, it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Just Don't Like It problem as I gave my response and proved that Chopra's performances in those films were positively reviewed yet you are not ready to consider my voice. Why? I even provided my response with very strong sources yet you are not ready to accept an alternative view point.KrishTalk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Don't Like It problem". Instead of making repeated false accusations against an editor, comment on the 6 gratuitous edits highlighted above that go against your standard offer. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now, I cannot even defend myself by tackling each of your accusatory points? You have done the same thing that you are accusing me of and are still doing. I'm countering "your edits" and not you. While you have been accusing me of whitewashing and then falsely accusing you. I'm just explaining my version of what you have added here and ANI is about that. I am suppose to defend myself here.Krish Talk 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More...

• 7) Please note that the editor has removed the same Moneycontrol.com reference, as mentioned in point number 4 above in another article related to Chopra, here. And this much after the ANI was filed.
• 8) When asked to not reply under my comments above, as it can confuse readers, he reverted me again. And this after multiple editors have been telling him not to undo anything at this moment. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 7) NOTE: This editor has been trying to show me a constant edit-warrior. This was an INNOCENT mistake. You can see here that I MISTAKENLY removed THAT source, along with other sources as I was cleaning the TOP section. I have started working on that article as you can confirm that by checking its history. Now I have moved all the sources to the body of the article where it should have been all along, yet this editor had not added that in the body but only in the lead, despite him editing that article since last 4 months. It was my Mistake. Another NOTE: As I had said on Cyphoidbomb' talk page while discussing to him that MONEY CONTROL sources are NOT used for Box Office figures and that was the reason I had removed it 2 days ago, you can see it in Chopra's edit summary. I had replaced that source for "box office flop" claim with a BETTER source which is widely accepted here. That the Money Control source had no mention of BOX OFFICE BOMB yet was used for KRIMUK had added BOX OFFICE BOMB on his own; WP:NPOV violation). You can check my edit summary. These two are different occurrences but here he is trying to link those two different incidents to prove I am an edit warrior. Can he claim that I removed the claim of box office flop to whitewash Chopra?Krish Talk 13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 8) I did not revert. You can check the history of this page. It said this edit cannot be UNDONE. I did re-arrange my points which took so much time. Interestingly, this user has been reverting me all the time yet I cannot even arrange my points below his points like how the replies are done. And at ANI, one accused can reply those each points. But if that is not the norm I apologise for my mistake.Krish Talk 13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"MONEY CONTROL sources are NOT used for Box Office figures" -- please provide a written policy that states that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I, who has written over 1 FA and 17 good articles on films, know that for the first time I have seen a Money Control source being used in any Indian film article, especially for BO. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQdoes not list Money Control as an important source for Indian films. After replacing that Money Control source, I had given a link from Box Office India, widely used source here, that described the poor performance of the film. But it should be noted that your edit described that commercially flop film, as a Box Office Bomb. While even that Money Control article source did not say anything about the film being a Box Office Bomb, violating WP: NPOV. Would you like to tell everyone here, why?KrishTalk 23:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box office flop redirects to box office bomb. It’s a synonym. And also, as stated multiple times above, not the issue here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Box Office Bomb" is a term used for describing a very expensive film that looses a huge chunk of money, not for an independent/small budget film. Plus that article does not say anything about how much money it lost or what the budget was. So how did you come to conclusion that the film was a box office bomb? You even linked it. Yet I have observed you did not add "Box Office Bomb" to an another article you have been editing, Chhapaak which has been described as a "A Big FLOP" by Box Office India, the most widely accepted BO website on wikipedia, a site which you yourself have used several times to cite edits like XYZ is the biggest box office star in India but did not cared to use in that article. Box Office India wrote another piece saying "Chhapaak - A Rare Loser For The Industry". The analysis said "Chhapaak is that rare loser for the industry which will lose money. Chhapaak will put its investors in the red with even with satellite and digital." This sounds more like a Box Office Bomb. Don't you think?KrishTalk 00:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to draw attention away from the subject at hand. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's your WP: NPOV violating edits and then treating every article as WP: OWN, removing discussed/consensus reached edits like you did on Bajirao Mastani.KrishTalk 08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and very similar to the previous ANI thread in which you made unvalidated accusations against me, which got you blocked in the first place. Just like that case, this ANI is not about me and I am not the one who is back here on the WP:Standard offer. You are. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's here you changed a version of the article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions and different POVs of several editors on its talk page. Then you removed the version of the article without explanations or any reason, violating Wikipedia rules. So I am not pointing to just any random stuff because it is documented in that article's history. Now coming to the main point, one of the many Wikipedia rules says Be Bold and perform edits backed by strong sources. That's exactly what I did after coming back but you started reverting my edits. I did not revert any of your edits. I did not revert you for reverting my edits and I accepted my mistake and respected your reverts as those were discussion worthy and hence left it the way you wanted. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead which you later accepted saying "this was entirely my mistake -- i misread". Then you reported me at Berean Hunter's page and then started a discussion and when I was writing the response to that discussion, you reported me at ANI. So now you tell me what I am supposed to do? I would do exactly as you say. I s that okay?KrishTalk 09:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again an attempt to mislead. Your revert also included the re-inclusion of puffery terms and removal of negative critical and commercial response, as highlighted in points 2 and 3 above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my last 4 "constructive edits" just because you did not agree with my one edit but in process re-added a wrong information, yet somehow only I am wrong? In Chopra's article, critical and commercial response of many of her hit and acclaimed films/roles are not present either. So I removed it to balance it out. But I accepted your reverts of critical response of DDD and did not revert. I reverted you only once when you reverted five edits at once, with four of which were actually constructive and one was debatable. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead, which is a violation of wikipedia rules. Let's accept it we both were wrong and we should move on.Krish Talk 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Are you two quite done now? Honestly no one is going to read the above massive wall of sniping, arguing and bickering. Krimuk2.0 if you have a case to put forward please make it concisely and structured in a single post. Krish! stop responding to every single little comment, you're not helping yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Krish, the amount of bold you are using is excessive, please calm down on it.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail and LakesideMiners After coming back I my BOLD edits were not that bold. You can see at the article's talk page that the negative critical reviews that he had added actually violated WP: NPOV. There you can see her performances in those two films were not panned like his edits made it seem. WP NPOV says if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. So me removing a non-controversial thing was not that Bold. How can you show 22 positive review and 3 negative review as mixed review and 12 positive, 2 mixed-leaning towards positive and 2 negative as purely negative performance? But anyways, when he reverted me, I accepted it and did not revert as I was planning for a discussion in next few days. I did not revert him for reverting my edits and I accepted my mistake and respected his reverts as those were discussion worthy and hence left it the way he wanted. I only reverted him once when he re-added a misinformation to the lead which he later accepted saying "this was entirely my mistake -- i misread". Then he reported me at Berean Hunter's page for edit warring and then he started a discussion and when I was writing the response to that discussion, he reported me at ANI. Maybe we both are at fault and we should move on? And if only I am wrong here then I would like to apologise as I did not mean harm. I had updated that article as it wasn't since a very long time. So if I am wrong forgive me. I don't know if I can say more now.KrishTalk 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe LakesideMiners is talking about your bold sentences like this? -MegaGoat ^Contribs 19:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaGoat, yes, that is what I meant. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaGoat Oh I am sorry for misunderstanding. I know I overdid it above but I won't be doing it from now LakesideMiners. Thanks for calling out my mistake. I appreciate it.Krish Talk 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge trolling vandalism by User:96.238.128.155

The IP came back after the block expired with the same nonsense. I’ve blocked the IP address for 3 months and blocked the range for 1 month. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued uinsourced info to BLP article

Brynloughran

user:Dmehus

Incivility help

Generative grammar

DBigFacts

Gleeanon409

BHG again

Adding wrong categories of descent to bios – four months of disruption from New Jersey

Harassment by COI editor

Dave Meltzer

Rangeblock request

Epistle to the Galatians: multiple redlink authors massively changing and adjusting

Within the last hour or so (since around 20.00, 4 March) many new authors with no user pages, and a sampling of their contributions suggests WP:SPA, have started some huge changes at the usually quiet Epistle to the Galatians. This doesn't feel right. Could you advise, please, and possible take action? (My preferred action would be roll-back to before this action accompanied by some sort of page-protection.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feline Hymnic, from a quick look at the history, I'm guessing class project or something similar (see the edit comment in Special:Diff/943949348). Recommend a friendly message on their userpages about sourcing, etc. to start. ^creffpublic_{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits do indeed appear to be in GF, and given the timing It looks like a US class, as suggested. Later edits did start adding citations, though heavily primary as is common with new editors. I've watchlisted and will drop a line if it looks more than a flash in the pan. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the talk page asking the students to have their instructor register the course with Wiki Education, so they'll get training and support from us. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chuckwick 2020 - MOS:NUMERAL + no edit summaries

Chuckwick 2020 (talk·contribs) seems to have a preference for integers written as figures, not as words, and has been going through various articles modifying integers in them to number format (e.g.[154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163]). MOS:NUMBER, on the other hand, states "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)."
In addition to these entirely unnecessary changes, Chuckwick 2020 does not use edit summaries, nor do they use their Talk: page. Thus a series of notices on their Talk: page have gone unnoticed or unheeded. Is there some way of encouraging them to stop making unnecessary changes, and start using edit summaries? Jayjg^(talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified that I may be involved, but I only provided one of the six warning templates on Chuckwick 2020's talk page, and it was requesting the use of edit summaries, That was repeated by another editor a few weeks later, and the rest are actual warnings. From what I can see, some of Chuckwick 2020's edits apply MoSs correctly, while others do not. I think that we need to know what the editor is thinking and why the incorrect changes are being made, and engagement with other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the first step is to get them to respond here. They've continued to edit, but have neither replied on their Talk: page, nor commented here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Aranya:. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg, thank you for the ping. The only interaction I've had with Chuckwick 2020 concerned his edits on Tupac Shakur. The edits ([164], [165], [166]) removed some of the clunky inline Unreliable source? tags but also correctly changed the capitalization in a reference name to match its source title. It wasn't really evident to me why he removed the tags given the lack of edit summaries, and I myself didn't see any problems with the tags, so I reverted the edits so that the tags can possibly aid future improvements to the article. I then added a templated notice to his talk page as a courtesy. Although he seems (to me) like a novice editor acting in good faith, despite the lack of communication, I definitely think that competence is required at some point and that he should at least try to communicate his intentions (and help edit more in-line with MOS and the like as necessary). – Aranya (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (edited again 03:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

They are still editing, and still doing the same: [167][168][169]. They clearly know how to add an edit summary[170]; they just choose not to. Unresponsive users who have never used their Talk: page are typically blocked, to bring their attention to their Talk: page, and to get them to engage. Unless someone objects, I think that's the next step. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:210.6.209.89

Blocked user (second block, first for edit warring and now disruptive editing) is now attacking editors on their talk page, specifically this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also this though more incivility than a personal attack. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Vernon: please notify the IP of this discussion – even though they are currently blocked, they have to be notified. --bonadeacontributions talk 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, yikes, I thought I had done that. Thanks, notice given. Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my advice is to not argue with blocked editors. I've never seen anything good come of it. But I've revoked the IP editor's talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user warning needed

User:Wikieditor19920

Blocking of User:Shashank5988

Note that I've unblocked Shashank5988 after looking again. I've a script that shows blocked editors which should have shown the socks but for some reason didn't. It does now. It's unfortunate that Shashank5988 went offline immediately instead of, as he says he was going to do, explain on the talk page, but we all make errors. Azuredivay at least this eventually came to my attention, but I've never edited that article. Doug Weller talk 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Afdafadsfas - New user engaging in bot-like edits with no edit summary.

Afdafadsfas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Normally I'd take this to WP:AIV, but I want to get some extra eyes on this user's diffs after they appeared on my watchlist today. The acccount seems to have been creating today,a nd their only edits (160-ish so far) are adding or changing the {{Vital article}} template. No other edits, no user page, and no edit summaries have me a little intrigued.

I've not dug into whether these are valid contributions yet - Edits like these suggest to me the user is running some kind of bot script, but I'm not familiar with the behaviour. Someone more familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles may be able to provide more useful commentary than I can. -- a ^{they/them argue contribs} 13:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. ——SN54129 13:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catdogkid -- Not quite sure what the hell's going on here

There seems to be some... very schizophrenic editing going on by Catdogkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was going through my watchlist and caught the two edits in this diff, and reverted as blatant vandalism. I then checked their contribs, and found a weird mixture of genuinely helpful edits and more blatant vandalism (just a few samples of each). I'm... not entirely sure what to do about this, so I thought I'd throw it to you guys. It's almost as if either they think that productive edits "make up for" vandalistic edits, or we have two separate people logged into the same account at one time. Advice? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an LTA vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts

User:Winniepediaa

Hello, I didn't know where to put this but was suggested to write here. A user has the password of the account in the userpage. Anyone can log in the account. User: User:Winniepediaa. J3133 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account as a compromised account. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think his user page should be deleted.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been overkill, but I've also requested a global lock. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the user page should be deleted, for reasons that I won't state, per WP:BEANS. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nselaa Ward AFD

Nselaa Ward was AFDd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nselaa Ward and an IP nearly immediately closed the AFD as speedy keep with no rationale. That in itself wasn't that concerning, but then they took the notice off the page and put the past AFD template on the talk page suggesting a level of experience I don't expect in a new IP editor. See contributions Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1C22:1001:28FA:DC35:A47:4D68 Jahaza (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the deletion discussion has been reopened. I can't think of any better way to prejudice a discussion against the position supported by the editor. If I hadn't seen so many cases of gross stupidity on Wikipedia I would suspect that this was actually done by someone who wants the article deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Charlie Bondhus article and User:Mbondhus

Charlie Bondhus (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

Mbondhus (talk · contribs)

Can we get some assistance on this? Mbondhus says he's Charlie Bondhus, and he keeps changing the text of the article to a different name. Says he wants the title of the article changed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided links on the Talk page and have offered to supply the newspaper article announcing the name change. I tried to upload the latter to Wikimedia Commons but it won't let me because I don't own the rights to it. I'm not a Wikipedia editor and I don't really know what to do. I'd just like my page to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbondhus (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Bondhus' website reflects the name change, as does https://www.raritanval.edu/node/2421. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to "Michael McKeown Bondhus"— Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring at Lee Ka-eun

Vandalizing User Investigation Required

WP:AIV way backlogged

Deletion request

Mapsfly disruptive editing

Sulfurboy stonewalling changes at College Kumar (2020 film)

IP editor signing edit in a way that suggests a logged in editor

AIV backlogged again

Scott Piercy

Terry Christian

Please lock this and rev/delete the defamatory crap. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been protected. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. Now, short of me copying the link or quoting the offensive content, perhaps we can have the defamation expunged. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the problem goes back at least to February 1, if not longer ago. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make that at least 20 June 2017. Narky Blert (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not still in the article. Most articles get vandalised I assumed this was about long standing inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the edit history. Defamatory and libelous content may--must--be permanently reverted and deleted from articles and edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In UK. call a stranger by the names in my diff, and brace yourself for a punch in the face followed by a good kicking. They aren't banter, and IMO have no place in edit history. Narky Blert (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, Narky Blert. It wasn't clear to me that Slatersteven understood that whether the offending material is in article space, talk page or edit summary, it has to be removed permanently from public view. It's sometimes difficult to get administrative attention on the matter. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely bizarre that, while we're sitting around discussing it, the material is still in the blooming article. Wot gives? ——SN54129 18:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, Serial Number 54129. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CD63, exactly. What is jocular abuse, or even innocuous, in some circumstances or in some places can be wholly unacceptable elsewhere. It should be revdeled. Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert (et al), before my own RfA I had quite a few conversations with different admins about the threshold for what could fairly be described as grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, and the impression I built up was that it depends. I wouldn't hesitate to revdel unsourced sex abuse allegations, or edit summaries with racist abuse in them or similar - but, going only on the diff presented above, I don't think it's routine to do it for the addition of insults such as 'twat' to an article. Happy to be corrected by me learnèd colleagues if they feel differently. I haven't been through the article history though, so if there's something more serious in there, you can fire diffs over to the admin's IRC channel. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: There is actually no point at all in even joining a converation about BLP violations in an article history if in your own words you haven't been through the article history. ——SN54129 18:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, I didn't have time to read through three years of article history (since NB said it went back all the way to June 2017). I understand why CD63 didn't want to present diffs here, so I was suggesting an alternative channel (I don't know whether or not they were aware of that option already). That's perhaps not the most helpful thing I could have done, but I thought it was better than just ignoring the request entirely. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let someone close this before I have to point out that the most egregious was less than 24-hours old. Oops. Close, please. ——SN54129 19:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, brilliant. If I'd known that, I'd have looked. I saw NB's comment, thought I don't have time to sit sorting through years of vandalism working out which revisions needed revdel, and suggested another channel they could use to report the relevant diffs. Sorry for misreading the situation. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zzuuzz. ——SN54129 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. People complaining about lack of admin action need to consider we are a limited number of volunteers on a Sunday looking at a huge noticeboard among many other problems. About the revisions, I've removed what I've spotted of some clear BLP violations. When it comes to other edits, like the word 'twat', I am not so persuaded. I will have to have a think about it and revisit, so the response, if it comes at all, may be slower. I won't get into the technicalities of whether it's libellous or grossly offensive, but I quite like the definition mentioned by Narky Blert above - whether it would normally get you a swift punch in the face. Can we write that into policy? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, joking aside, I'd like policy to be a bit clearer on what ought/ought not to be revdelled - it seems very subjective. I remember being embarrassed a few times when I reported stuff that I thought was grossly offensive (certainly a lot worse than 'twat') on IRC only to be told that it didn't meet the threshold. Some sort of community discussion to arrive at a more helpful set of guidelines would be a good thing, in my view. The punch in the face test might be a good place to start... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think, now, that you've both been very reasonable about it, and from my earlier run through the history what's been caught was the most important. Many thanks. On a lighter note, I'm not sure I'd run with "what gets you a punch on the nose" being a good starting point—in my local that sometimes doesn't have to be much more than a raise of the eyebrow in the wrong direction ;) Happy Sunday all. ——SN54129 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. And I do understand that there are times when fewer volunteers are at the keyboard. Sometimes that results in issues sitting for so long that they're overtaken by newer threads. As for whether or not 'twat' merits the rev/deletion treatment, I'd venture that it does. Not from any sense of priggishness, but because it's reasonable to make a case that any aspersion that likens a subject to genitalia doesn't have much place in the edit history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, Terry Christian's entire recent career largely consistes of calling himself "a twat" (e.g. here, in which not only does he self-describe as "a twat" but a sympathetic profile nonetheless describes him as "the most hated man in television"; this is a reasonable reflection of his current reputation. By all means remove actual libel like the most recent diff, but if his biography isn't mentioning how widely disliked he is, something is wrong somewhere. We manage to handle it for other famous-for-being-disliked figures like Piers Morgan without too much difficulty. ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My "punch in the face test" was a rhetorical point made in argument, but it could be the basis for a rule-of-thumb guideline. Girth Summit: in which city would you feel it safer calling a stranger in a pub "a jessie"? (a) New York (b) York (c) Glasgow.

If someone self-describes, or is RS described, using a slur, either they (a) have a sense of humour or (b) deserve whatever's coming to them. Narky Blert (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't understand the point you're making - where do the word jessie, or these different cities, come into this? I know what the word means in Glasgow, and while I might use it to a friend in jest, I wouldn't use it to a stranger; I haven't heard anyone use it in York or New York, so don't know it there is a difference in meaning that I should be picking up on? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: My point was only that offensive terms can be regional or national. "Queer" now seems to be acceptable in North America; IMO, it remains barely acceptable or unacceptable in UK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Girth Summit, I assume it's an elliptical way of saying (correctly) that slang doesn't travel and the word "twat" has different meanings in different places. I remember a very confused David Cameron having to apologise for saying it in an interview back when he was PM; in the South of England it's pretty much exclusively used in its a term of abuse: a contemptible or obnoxious person; a person who behaves stupidly; a fool, an idiot&nbsp… implying that a persons's behaviour, appearance, etc., is stupid or idiotic, with little or no greater force than 'twit' (OED) sense. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, Narky Blert OK, understood. Yes, I agree that levels of offensiveness aren't universal - which I think brings us back to a case by case analysis. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's case-by-case. In at least parts of the Midlands, "twat" is only slightly less offensive than the c-word. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a history of promotional edits to the article as well. By all means add something about his public reception, so long as it isn't undue or rely on blogs or sources like 'The Poke.' But his being referred to by anatomical pejoratives in public discourse does not mean we accept it here. If someone drops an edit into Donald Trump's bio calling him a cunt, we revert it. Given the likelihood that it reflects the thoughts of millions, do we then leave it in the edit history? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to check the history of that specific article, but I expect that yes, we probably do. Revdel is uncontroversially used for libel and hate speech; generic rude words and insults, not so much. Worth considering that a general policy of revdelling words like twat would probably double the overall admin workload. ^{[citation needed]} GirthSummit _(blether) 21:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership and competency issues on Silver Ghost

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

@Eddaido: has made a series of reverts on this page, apparently on the assumption that $30 million 2005 dollars of “agreed value” (i.e., a claim of insurance valuation) are unequivocally larger than an actual cash sale for $48 million 2018 dollars. A quick look at the recent history of the article will show the certain questions of competence that spill over from his editing on Concord coach and Stagecoach in the past. Qwirkle (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a warning on their talk page first and requesting them to self-revert. Not only have they been edit warring, they've surpassed WP:3RR. I count seven reverts. If they don't self-revert, then perhaps a short block may be in order. Amaury • 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never had reason to question Eddaido's competence, nor often any particular sense of ownership to articles; however there refractory obstinacy is legendary. Their is little likelihood of any success in attempting discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Concord coach article mentioned above, he edit-warred to restore a claim he knew to be wrong, and added multiple cites to the talk page which explicitly contradicted his position. Perhaps this isn’t typical. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's typical. EEng 06:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A 48h block for edit warring and ownership seems appropriate at this point - this does need to stop I think. Guy (help!) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Although if we're to start looking at WP:COMPETENCE issues in car-related articles, the obstinate-but-competent Eddaido certainly isn't our worst problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d agree to a point there, certainly, but the drunk-under-the-streetlight research techniques are a competence issue, albeit one that’s pretty widespread. Qwirkle (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reader is invited to see the latest edits, by IP:73.148.104.176 AKA Obvious IP Sock Being Obvious. Like taxis, there is never a checkuser handy when you need ‘em. Qwirkle (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice thing about socks, how you can get ‘em in pairs.... Qwirkle (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Page - Dr. K. Hari Prasad

I have been trying to create a page for Dr. K. Hari Prasad - President - Apollo Group of Hospitals.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an incident requiring administrative attention. At the top, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Contesting or complaining about an AFD result is not one of those problems. Your contributions related to Prasad have been getting deleted for six years now. This is largely related to your inability to comprehend the reasons for deletion, which is badly compounded by the fact you do not appear to have ever taken the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about why the article is being deleted, instead simply repeating the same points endlessly, and then trying again months or years later. If anything, there appears to be an issue with you. I will leave by reminding you that this board does not exist to discuss the merits of any article. If you reply to me on this board with an argument for why Prasad should have an article, I will ignore it. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you are welcome to ask on my user talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Wikiasian2408: I agree with Someguy1221's first sentence (I have not read the rest, as I had drafted this before he posted his comment). ANI is not the appropriate forum for your request. Looking at your edit history, I was able to establish that you are talking about an article that was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (3rd nomination) and that you have previously been in contact with User:Ritchie333 about the matter. If you sincerely believe that the sources you have linked to provide significant, independent coverage of the person in question, then the correct forum of discussion (and instructions about how to use it) can be found at WP:DRV. I hope this helps! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deisenbe relies on the WP has no rules and ignores key policies

In this conversation, the user said:

• Original research — of course I'm doing original research. I wasn't going to mention it, but since it has come up, I was Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University

• I'm arguably doing original research on the present topic of sending free blacks places other than Liberia. I don't see the harm in publishing the result in WP, as opposed to some small journal I could probably place an article in. I'm not interested in formal publication any more, and then having a few dozen readers as compared with the hundreds or thousands my writing gets in WP.

They have submitted several articles for GA, but not participated in improving the articles based upon the reviewer's remarks, which I summarized in this thread:

• Excessive use of quotes - which becomes a copyright violation if they are long. See Quotation of non-free text
• What appears to be original research.
• Not citing all the content
• Need to rely more on secondary sources that are current

The reviews have included (but there are many more affected articles):

• The GA review of Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882 and discussion that they would not fix any of the issues
• GA Review of Union Literary Institute
• GA review of James Bradley (former slave), in which the user is researching with a primary source and relying on that information and the slave narrative over any other secondary sources. As I understand, the user would like the only cited sources to be the slave narrative and remove newspapers and other reliable secondary sources.
• There are also DYK that have the same outcome, after someone has taken the time to do the review, like one

The ultimate best case is that the user becomes aware of what is needed to Build an encyclopedia, but it seems that they rely on their knowledge as a scholar above researching with secondary sources. In the meantime, they are creating and editing articles with uncited content, based on their personal knowledge. Their latest comment from this thread is that

Wikipedia has no firm rules

At this point, all I am asking for is a warning that it's not ok to rely on primary sources and perform original research. And, that there are some policies and guidelines that are important, like copy vio issues with cutting and pasting a number of quotes into an article, using secondary sources, etc. And, to get guidance about how to manage their patterns of editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any copyright violations. If these are called to my attention, I will correct them.

Carolhenson and I have an unresolved disagreement about whether certain secondary sources are reliable.

The talk quote above has been taken out of context. It is from Wikipedia:Five pillars.

I was unaware that there were suggestions of reviewers that I had not acted on. I assume I was notified but don't remember it. I will review these and see what improvements I can make based on them.

My only intent has always been to help build an encyclopedia.

I have never said nor do I believe WP has no policies or that policies can be disregarded.

I will stop doing original research.

deisenbe (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really glad to read this, Deisenbe, I think you have a lot to offer! The copyright violations are from copying big blocks of quotes into articles. They have been mentioned in the GA reviews. And, if I can help, I will continue to do so. Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Report for Graeme Bartlett and Ncmvocalist

• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did nothing wrong here. There were no consensus passed for these changes which lead me reverting the change back to original. 1

Ncmvocalist

Ncmvocalist did not review issue before pressing the final button to warn me for edit war. Basically jumped the gun. 1 Action i seek here is clearing of that specific warning and review Ncmvoclist actions. Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The warning Ncmvocalist issued looks to be entirely justified because at the time Regice2020 had reverted the reversion of his change three times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually reviewed the "issue" before I warned you, Regice2020; you did the wrong thing by edit-warring - particularly when you (nearly) broke the 3 revert rule with repeated reversions at 04:19, 8 March 2020, 05:52, 8 March 2020, 06:52, 8 March 2020 and 08:05, 8 March 2020. Instead of taking a step back and reviewing the policies in the warning against your edits, you "jumped the gun" by demanding that the warning be retracted and submitting this report. Your behaviour and the way in which you are editing needs to change as it is not constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett

Graeme Bartlett claimed a edit change was passed on talk page, but it was not. Despite WP:CON was never passed. I cant find any history of it. The user went on being disruptive to move forward with unapproved changes. Telling me i going be in violation in 3RR? 1 Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regice2020 has been edit warring introducing his change several times. However it was a mistake, as he was changing the title for the Diamond Princess to International conveyance. However the row with that only included the statistics for Diamond Princess. See ([214] [215] [216] [217]) for Regice2020 getting up to 3 reverts of the change he put in. All the warnings on his talk page are justified. My plan was to report to the edit warring notice board for a block if there were any more reverts from Regice2020. There is discussion on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data‎ about how to deal with the Grand Princess statistics and other ships. instead of WP:BRD, Regice2020 has been involved in a BRRRRRRR. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that violates the assumption of good faith in warning you about edit warring when you have been edit warring. That is wrong even when your edit is correct, but is especially wrong when the edit introduces factual errors, as in this case. I would suggest that you withdraw this report before the inevitable WP:BOOMERANG comes your way. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Phil Bridger; the disruptive editing by Regice2020 as OP. There is no merit to the complaint against Graeme Bartlett. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regice2020 had violated 3RR on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data.

• 15:56, 7 March 2020‎ Dying talk contribs‎ 26,134 bytes -9‎ edit link for diamond princess

1. 04:19, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 26,598 bytes -4‎ Does not make sense to say Diamond Princess count as Grand Princess on the table of cases/deaths/recovered.
2. 05:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,016 bytes -5‎ Diamond Princess does not represent all others - No question askes undothank
3. 06:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,515 bytes +9‎ Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON
4. 08:05, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ 22,985 bytes +9‎ Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Pure WP:IDHT behaviour at their talk-page and at this thread (in combination with edit-warring). Further behaviour along these lines will result in much longer sanctions, I'm afraid. --qedk (t 心 c) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A topic ban may be in order since this is at least the second time in recent weeks that Regice2020 has been involved in a thread at ANI relating to SARS2/COVID-19. 2600:1003:B86E:82FF:A9E8:7CF0:E2DB:6FFF (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: ^ Blatant sock. Sleath56 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleath56: Of who? --qedk (t 心 c) 23:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close Who cares? Regice2020 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: Haven't the foggiest, but a fresh IP whose first contrib is advocating disciplinary measures on AN/I is pretty WP:DUCK material. Sleath56 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close @Sleath56: The person maybe from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. The ip suddenly typed "topic ban", and exactly know how to type "ANI" instead of referring as to the full name (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) like the person been here before. I do not know man. That COVID-19 outbreak Wikipedia article attracted more than 500K views and strange individuals. Regice2020 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close Sleath56 The ip information. This is so sudden the first edit somehow finds its way to ANI. 04:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Regice2020 (talk)[reply]

Personal abuse issue

Use of racial slur

Weird attack

I don't know what this editor is doing or what they are on about, but it seems like it might be intended as an unhinged and pointless personal attack on myself and another editor from Doncram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Warrowen_massacre#Nyah Perhaps they are having a mental health issue? Or someone has hijacked their account? Either way it's wierd, especially from an experienced editor. I don't really know what to make of it. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is weird but I don't think I'd call it an attack. It seems more like what I call "editing Wikipedia when one should be sleeping". It is sometimes revealing to consider what time zone the editor is working in...it could be the middle of the night. That's my polite interpretation from years of interacting with editors from all over the globe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently contacted Doncram about other problematic AfD edits they made, including attacking other editors[218]. They disagreed, but if they now start mocking people because an AfD ended with his prefered keep instead of delete, then it seems that the problems continue. Looking at e.g. this from today, containing gems like " If others support a good resolution of this AFD, please join into the edit war on the side of keeping some definition there! ", it seems like there really is a continuing problem with Doncram's comments at AfD and AfD talk. Fram (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To Bacondrum's suggestion, I am not seeing any indication that this matter needs to be handled with reference to Doncram's mental health, let along as a mental health emergency. Should I have missed something, I would ask users to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee which is a better vehicle for intervention than ANI. AGK ■ 08:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If I had a dollar for every time some keep !voter was gloaty and obnoxious I'd be able to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. The higher your keep percentage at AfD, the more exempt you are from WP:CIVIL. This is a double standards issue, not a mental health one. Reyk _YO! 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that I don't think this should be considered in the purview of mental health issue. But I would say that this is not a preferable or even necessarily acceptable level of decorum between editors. It's a mild WP:CIVIL breach but not a sanctionable one. Just something to make a note of and keep for later if another issue ever arises with this editor. WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I will note, regardless of whether or not we do anything about it, that this is not a new nor unexpected behavior for this user. A check of the blocklog going back almost a decade shows a clear pattern of tendentious, disruptive, incivil, and combative behavior. Whether or not we, as a community, want to keep encouraging such behavior is perhaps up for discussion, but this is NOT out of character, and fits in exactly in with the kind of behavior this user has exhibited continuously and without remit for pretty much their entire history here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What Jayron32 said. Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished, has gone on literally for years. (His current talkpage from this point onwards is a decent example of his typical "throw a tantrum until everyone else gives in just to shut him up" approach.) This is definitely not a compromised account or out of character; what would raise eyebrows would be if he wasn't being disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like Doncram should be blocked. Those 24 and 48 hour jobs don't seem to have worked though. ——SN54129 14:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Even a six-month block didn't have any effect; because he genuinely believes that he's perfect and all the rest of us are engaged in a conspiracy to bully him into submission, he just interprets any block or any other sanction as proof of the bullying. Since blocks don't have any effect (other than giving the rest of us a brief respite) and "civility parole" never works since civility is such a nebulous concept, only an indefinite block would have any effect, and although it could be reasonably justified given that Doncram is basically a one-man chilling effect, it would be extremely controversial and almost certainly end up at Arbcom. ‑ Iridescent 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I hate to think that a Super Wario effect exists for repeat offenders, in that an offense has to rise to the grievous threshold indicative of an indef, before they can be blocked. But you're right, that's where we are; this seems to be something where the community simply cannot resolve the issue and this has to go to Arbcom. Blech. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary (and I've argued this for years!) because the cornerstone of the blocking policy is "blocks are preventative, not punitive", all blocks should be indefinite and contingent upon the blocked user giving proper recognition of the problem that got them blocked, and proper assurances to change their behavior. A time-limited block on a registered account is, at its core and without any distinction from, a pure punishment. Since it self-expires, there is no motivation for the blocked user to self-correct or to learn how to be better, instead it is just putting someone in Wikijail for a short while. That serves no preventative measure beyond punishing the user and hoping the punishment makes them learn their lesson. Time-limited blocks should be reserved for IP addresses which may change after a time. If a registered account does something worthy of being blocked, they should have to establish that they intend to fix the problems that led to the block, that would emphasize the preventative nature of the block. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree; there are plenty of occasions where "have an enforced few hours off to calm down/sober up/avoid saying something that would get you in more trouble" is a perfectly sensible move. The trouble with indefinite-until-appeal is that it then leads to a back and forth between supporters and opposers of the block, which ends up making what began as a straightforward dispute turn into a full-scale multi-party flareup. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram is one of the hardest working, most experienced, and active editors on the project. In my opinion, it would be very problematic to indefinitely block him solely because he is sometimes intemperate and often long winded. I understand that many people find interacting with him to be annoying but no one can question his commitment to the project and the sheer breadth and depth of his contributions, including his yeoman's work at AFD, DYK, and other areas that are critical to the project. None of that makes him immune to rules, of course, but he should not be hounded off the project either. Michepman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, instead we should allow him to hound everyone else off the project? How many good editors have to wander off not wanting to deal with his crap before his "good contributions" become a net negative? I'm not saying we should block him, but the "cut him some slack, he's produced a lot of good content" argument is a non-starter. Other editors produce good content too, and they should not be bullied out of the project by this kind of intractable rudeness. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand where you are coming from. To be clear, I am not saying that nothing should be done to address the issues you laid out, I am just encouraging caution before going to the extreme step of an indefinite block. While I agree with you that the block policy should be reformed, from what i have seen indefinite blocks are not really better than time blocks; they just appear to. Before taking that heavy step I think more effort should be made to resolve the issue using less restrictive means than either time limited or indefinite blocks. Michepman (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you have in mind that hasn't been tried before? To reiterate, we're not talking about a generally-good editor who's having a bad day; we're talking about a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else). If you think you can persuade him that "rules are only for the little people and don't apply to me" isn't actually true, feel free to give it a go, but this is the adminstrators' noticeboard not a general chatroom, and since the administrators are the ones who've spent the past decade+ trying to clean up after Doncram you'll I hope forgive us for not sharing your optimism. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given his last PA block was in 2011 IMHO a stern warning should given although others above know his behaviour better than I do, I'm lost on the dickish reply on the AFD considering it was closed in his favour..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) He's had 5 blocks since 2011. His last block was two months ago for disruptive editing. (post EC comment). Since you've clarified, how is a warning useful? Are we presuming he was never informed of the civility policy? That he somehow had no way of knowing that he shouldn't behave this way?--Jayron32 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As he's not been blocked for anything PA related for 9 years I feel blocking would be overkill ..... if this was a repeated issue over and over again then I'd agree with blocking but I can't support blocking someone for a dickish comment or 2 when no blocks have been issued for 9 years, (When I say over and over again I mean on a weekly/montly/yearly basis). –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Davey2010, you may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Doncram and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Doncram before you go any further. It may technically be true that he hasn't been blocked for PAs for nine years, but that's because he was hauled off to Arbcom instead and restricted from editing in any of the areas in which he'd been attacking people, not because he'd turned over a new leaf and stopped launching random attacks on anyone who happened to disagree with him. ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Iridescent for that, Interesting read, Given those I have to agree blocking would indeed be appropriate here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • @Iridescent: thanks for the reply above also. So it seems that Arbcom is the way forward for Doncram; it seesm to have helped them in the past. ——SN54129 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd just like to point out that from the long winded comment below, Domcram clearly doesn't see how this behavior is uncollegial (and obnoxious). Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hey, this is a surprise and seems to me unwarranted as an ANI issue. This is about my making a silly comment at a Talk page, after a couple editors had completely dismissed me in an AFD. In my silly comment, i even self-identified it as being silly. In this AFD, it happens I was the first in the AFD to argue for "Keep", based at first on my instinct and sense of the matter as developed in the AFD, informed by my particular life experience. In many other AFDs that way, I have gone on to do heavy work and find sources and otherwise make a convincing argument that carried the day. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Bagh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland are two that I find in my history. In this AFD, it was others who did the work, but it happened my sense of the matter arguably was borne out, and the article was Kept. In many other AFDs my early or late arguments for Keep or otherwise have carried the day, and in many others they have not. Many times I have been convinced by others arguments and eventually reversed my !vote. I don't see anything wrong with any of this so far. I could confess that I don't like to be completely dismissed, either, whether in AFDs or in an ANI proceeding. In this AFD i was written off as having "bad reasoning" in a series of comments by the two editors; it wasn't especially insulting, either, but a bit randomly I happened to choose to say "nyah" this time, pushing back a wee bit that maybe my reasoning/judgment was not so bad. It is not usual for me to do anything like this; I don't recall ever commenting at an AFD talk page this way before. But I think most people probably don't like to be dismissed completely, or criticized as has gone on here.

Here in this ANI there are a lot of personal attacks ("Unhinged", "mental health", assertions that I was attacking other editors, "Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished", and more) which I rather completely disagree with. It is absolutely not true that I think I am infallible; I often have made mistakes and I do not deny that, and I often make apologies. I do things like setting up notes sheets at wp:NRHPHELP and other places explicitly to help me and others remember how to do various things purely because I know that I am fallible, that I often don't remember how to do lots of things. I don't see how others who actually know me could think that I think that I am superior, or anything like that. There are perhaps a few technical things that I do know about, but I certainly did not and do not assert that I actually know more about 1800s Australian history (the subject of this AFD) than others.

I don't read my own recent comment as representing a personal attack (it would be a stretch to call it even a mild rebuke, certainly not containing anything amounting to a personal attack, certainly not on the level of comments against me here). Certainly it didn't count as an insult, or abusive, or in any way a legal threat, or derogatory, or comparing anyone to terrorists, or using "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view", or any of the other kinds of things listed as types of personal attacks at wp:NPA. The bottom line at wp:NPA is saying that even if something is not included in the list of examples there, that if it is nonetheless "insulting or disparaging an editor" it is a personal attack. I don't see how my comment was either insulting or disparaging, do you? About my mental health or 'hingedness', well, thank you for your concern? I don't know where the policy statement is, but aren't suggestions/accusations about mental health specifically regarded as horrible personal attacks or otherwise verboten?

Overall, what is the point here, do Bacondrum and Drovers' Wife seriously feel injured, or unable to personally handle a mild silly comment, which could hardly be construed as a serious rebuke or even a criticism at all? It was just a silly statement "Nyah nyah", which in expanded form would be a comment that "Gee, it turns out that my early sense of the merits of this AFD happened to be borne out", which I think would be a fair comment to make. It was on an obscure Talk page. If the two editors feel seriously injured by what was said there, surely they and others are making it far worse for themselves by raising this to a very public level. To those editors, if you do feel seriously hurt by me, or insulted or disparaged, please do let me know, perhaps by private emails, and if I can come to understand how or why you feel injured I surely would want to apologize or make amends privately or publicly (though I don't currently think that is happening, I rather do not believe they are feeling hurt at all). And sure, if others can explain better, perhaps privately, what I might have done that has rubbed some people the wrong way, I think I would like hear/learn about that. But this forum is probably not the right place for that, and I probably will not want to reply further here. If there is some big policy reason why the Talk page of an AFD cannot be used after the AFD is closed, or anything similar, please do let me know. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with sanctions that will go toward better collaborative behavior from Doncram. I ran into my own issues with Doncram and their walls of texts and constant redirects of legitimate articles. A small sample would be the Bachelor Lake AfD and Doncram's subsequent redirects of every lake in Brown County Minnesota. The above wall of text is an example of how they respond to every entry from !voters at AfDs. I found their behavior maddening and tendentious. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Your comment can reasonably be understood as taunting and was improper. If you ever do anything like this again, I will block you for a substantial length of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Nyoman Gede Anila reported by Migsmigss

I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – On Ayu Maulida: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account; account is being used only for promotional purposes.

Persistent inclusion of erroneous/false information using sources that do no include such information, such as the subject attending a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is checked, there is no mention of such event or related information. Removing references and editing/changing subject's height details without valid explanation or accompanying new RS. Edits are leaning on non-neutral POV, seemingly describing the subject in promotional manner, "bloated" or unnecessarily "elevated" way beyond facts and references Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references and editing/changing subject's height details without valid explanation or accompanying new RS >> about this one I'm just uploading the 4 legitimate sources (prior mentioned on National newspaper such as Jawa Pos on March 9, 2020), supporting the information of ayu Maulida height Here's the proof, don't make this as an unreasonable case. Second one, about this >>> the subject attending a Harvard-organized event in Singapore it's been mentioned on the bahasa indonesia article that has been found and mentioned that she has a model-exchange as a university of airlangga student to Korea for doing charity fund. The other things that based on my investigation about your account, You don't have to act selfishly by reverting and deleting all of the edits by wikipedian users on Ayu Maulida page (not only happened to my edits, but you also deleted and reverted other users edits and marking them as the vandalism perpetrators, as if you were "the only person" who could "only contribute" to the Ayu Maulida biopgraphy page, then the other users cannot contribute to Ayu Maulida page). You also need to know the policy on wikipedia that each user must contribute to one another instead of edit war as like you do, by deleting and reverting all user edits just because you DO NOT AGREE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate sourced mentioned. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ya the other things beside your "edit war habit", You look like you "ONLY JUST" left a mark [Please need help for more reliable sources (RS) on article] without giving any contribution such as completing the references. Then as you can check, I'm the one that contributing by providing legitimate sources on Ayu Maulida page, rather than you just only marking and left the page without any contributing meaningfully at all, Which is "Zero contribution" to the in the wikipedia encyclopedia. And your barbaric "edit war" habit.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just being wise, in wikipedia policy has been mentioned that "You should not accuse people of vandalism, when this is just simply a content dispute", thats very unwise of you Migsmigss.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ~ ToBeFree. I take what user I Nyoman Gede Anila said of me as personal attacks:

Calling me:

1. Selfish - "You don't have to act selfishly"
2. Barbaric - "your barbaric 'edit war' habit"

As I've shown previously, the said account did not include a valid source when it added that the subject attended a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is inspected, there is no mention of such event or related information.

The account also removed references and edited/changed the subject's height details, without new references. It's only now that this has been brought up that the account supplemented needed references.

Since this account has attacked me personally, by saying those things above, please help me proceed: Should I make another report on this account engaging on personal attacks, or could we resolve it here? I am not taking these personal attacks lightly, and no editor should. I'm asking for admins' attention on this matter. CC ST47 and Materialscientist, hope you could help me on this. Thanks.

Thanks.

11:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Migsmigss (talk)

I have a feeling this discussion may have unnecessarily escalated. Regarding personal attacks, "vandal" isn't a nice one either. I'm really unsure what to do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ~ ToBeFree. First of all, I wont give any longer explaination above, if that user won't attack me first. He/She's being very rude and personal attacks me on my talkpage even more than once and acussing me doing something that I didnt. Then I should take what user Migsmigss said of me as personal attacks on the "FIRST HAND":

Calling me:

1. "calling my account is vandalism-only account; account is being used only for promotional purposes" --- While the "ACTUAL FACT" is I'm the one that giving my hand to help Ayu Maulida page that appear with the [Request for Help mark], by providing the legitimate references, fixing wrong-linking page, dead link and wrong sentences.
2. "attacked my talk page account with SPAM warning, threatened to block me from editing and accuse me of vandalism with very "UNREASONABLE" things"] --- while she/he is the one that begging for help by giving Request for Help mark on Ayu Maulida, so I give a hand to help, but she/he's ATTACKING me on barbaric way like NO GRATITUTE at all on [My Talkpage], just because she/he DOESN'T LIKE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate references mentioned.

For ~ ToBeFree, isn't it sounds funny that she/he are the one who attacked me first hand on my talkpage and also here with very unreasonable fact, but here come she/he is acting like a victim now, and planning to reporting me again and again. I come with a very good intention to help Ayu Maulida page, to be calm and behave politely here, but how If she/he's keep on attacking me like that? Which I take this as a very rude action and very disturbing the peace between every Wikipedia contributor here. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 1:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry not sorry Migsmigss, in Wikipedia we learn and grow how to cooperate and discuss in a "GOOD WAY" between every user that contributing for such an important information, to give as the best encyclopedia pages as we can. "NOT by reporting and accuse someone with unreasonable proof and doing a edit war as you always do". As I mention above, in Wikipedia policy has been mentioned that "You should not accuse people of vandalism, when this is just simply a content dispute". I'm the one here that help providing a good legitimate references for the article, while you are attacking me on my talkpage with unreasonable. You shouldn't deleting and reverting all wikipedian users edits just because you DO NOT AGREE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate references mentioned.

So I have a question back, if not because of the "contributor like me", then Who give a hand to help provides a legitimate references??? then Who cares with your [Request for Help, Please need help for more reliable sources (RS) on article]????? Please next time be wise before you clicked, coorporate in a good way, Stop reporting with nonsense reason and please calm-down your emotion, all want to give the best for Wikipedia but don't go around on your own, Wikipedia has their own regulation and policies. Once again "Be Wise with your account❣" discuss first behavely, instead of being a "Complaint Queen" by reporting and reporting with nonsense issues. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 1:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, please read above.

I reported said account for vandalism, simply because it did vandalize: Again, As I've shown previously, the said account did not include a valid source when it added that the subject attended a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is inspected, there is no mention of such event or related information. There were false information included, under the pretense that it came with a source, yet when checked, source did not contain any of the information included in content. Please check source and edit history. (You may use online translator, as I did, since the source is in Indonesian.)

I also stand by everything I have previously stated.

I rest my case.

Hope you guys could attend to this. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed resolution:

• Migsmigss is reminded that even insistent introduction of incorrect information is not "vandalism", as long as the person who does so actually believes in its accuracy. Vandalism is intentional damage to the encyclopedia; there is no evidence of malice here.
• I Nyoman Gede Anila is warned that further personal attacks like "Complaint Queen" will lead to a block, likely without further warning.
• I Nyoman Gede Anila is warned that edit warring is prohibited, and that edit warring about the height of a person is completely unnecessary. If such irrelevant information in a biography of a living person is disputed, it should be removed. It should only be re-introduced if there is consensus for doing so. A discussion about this topic needs to be held on the talk page of the article, not at WP:AIV, not at WP:ANI, and not on user talk pages.
• This section is closed by an uninvolved reader, as an unnecessary escalation of a content dispute. Ideas for dealing with content disputes properly, including disengaging from the topic, are described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ToBeFree. Everything is noted. :)

Migsmigss (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree. Finally it's all clear, main mistake revealed above. Thanks❣

I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 3:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content by New York based IP

An editor with access to various NYC-based IP's persistently edit wars and abuses other editors over people's ethnicity on various biographical articles. When pressed they mention the user-generated source ethnicelebs which freely admits on its own page that it is unreliable. Editor appears to be obsessed with whether or not people are Jewish (or "jewish" as he types it). Main IP used by this editor is 72.226.21.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but has also used 100.38.129.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 172.58.228.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 172.58.231.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and probably others. Multiple warnings have been left on main IP's talk page, all of which have been blanked. Editor is recognizable by abusive pattern of behaviour, refusal to capitalise the word "Jewish" and failure to sign talk page edits with tildes. I could give individual diffs but entire editing history really speaks for itself. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To give just one example, this alone is clearly blockable, especially coming as it does after previous warnings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some notes:
  • 72.226.21.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems pretty static, so I've blocked it for a year.
  • 172.58.224.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has some collateral, but none that wouldn't be blocked in its own right. Anonblocked for 2 weeks.
  • 100.38.129.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks like a one-off, I'm leaving it alone for now.
• The target users on all three IP ranges are technically Likely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out the 172.58 range was blocked before and recently, so I made it a month instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]