Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041

Competence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

190.86.109.35 doesn't understand the material they're editing (changing a moderate earthquake to a very large earthquake). Materialscientist attempted to block this person several weeks ago, but I was blocked inadvertently for a month. Dawnseeker2000 18:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing of Empire AS

Empire AS has been frequently violating WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO on articles such as Atif Aslam, Pachtaoge and probably others.

Empire AS has competence issues for starters. He had enough warnings about copyvio[1][2][3] but he hasn't learned a thing. Having made 4 reverts in 24 hours (see WP:3RR) on Pachtaoge, he first edit warred to restore a blatant WP:LINKVIO[4][5][6] and now he is resorting to youtube and twitter trends for sourcing his WP:RGW-based statements.[7] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I added content to Atif Aslam, but you removed that due to unsourced. I reverted your edit and added references to that section. Similarly, Pachtaoge had a reliable source. Someone removed that and I reverted that edit. But again, you reverted my edit. I didn't want any edit-war. Therefore, I didn't revert your edit and added true informations again with reliable sources. But you reverted that again and even not saw the references. Everytime, you reverted my edits containing right informations from reliable citations. You have also been involved in edit-wars.[8] You have been warned from removing major content of articles.[9]. You have made 3 reverts on Pachtaoge in just 15 hours.[10][11][12]. You also made 2 reverts in Atif Aslam[13][14][15] and removed the entire portion of "Singing style, impact and recognition" from Atif Aslam that included reliable sources, which reveals that you don't use neutral point of view.[16] Same as, you removed a major content from Sonu Nigam.[17] Empire AS (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

disruptive editing from Single Purpose Editor: Julie Passas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Julie Passas (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account and her only edits are continually removing content from Nick Adams (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). She has been blocked twice (once for edit warring, another for sockpuppetry). She has received 2 warnings today [18]. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have filed a report at AIV so we probably can close this as mooted, seeing as the user is now partially blocked. Jusdafax (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Partial block. Per this report. If she promise to stop edit warring and to start explaining herself on the article talk page, she may be unblocked. El_C 01:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

প্রসেনজিৎ পাল

প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar there was a bit of edit warring over including labels in the lede and info box (to be precise "philosopher", " composer", and "author").

The problem is the user is insisting they are right, and has resorted to some shabby sources (some of which do not even seem to back up the text). In addition (not a violation of policy to be sure) their English is not that good, and I think they may be saying things that do not mean what they think they mean (or they do mean it and are making some very odd whataboutsm arguments). They also seem to be (almost) an SPA and not here (as well as not listening (or maybe they just do not understand what is being said).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever this editor may be doing at Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar this is certainly not an SPA or someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. The editor started many articles on the works of Rabindranath Tagore, one of the world's foremost literary figures, which were shamefully nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected there, but it has taken up a huge amount of his time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Amen, Phil Bridger. Anyway, I see that jps has volunteered a third opinion, so let's follow their lead. This incident may have been reported prematurely (WP:3O always an option). Someone who has earned good will elsewhere should be entitled to at least that, even if they're not entirely coherent (unless that incoherence forms a pattern leading to an intractable problem). El_C 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In the last few days, perhaps. But over the course of their history they've changed focus many times, and spent some days on a given article. This article hasn't really taken up so much of his time in comparison. Certainly not a SPA, and certainly looks like they are here to build an encyclopedia. I think this is a content dispute and that the dispute resolution process should be followed first. They are responsive and engaging in talk with you. Some of their arguments, in relation to policy, may not be great but that's something that can be improved. I think there's half a dozen other things that should be done about this before bringing it to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

JPS has been there only a few hours less then me, both brought there by a notice board notice (so we are both third eyes, this is the result of someone else trying the 3O route). But close this by all means.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes patrolling by BeamAlexander25

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BeamAlexander25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in Recent Changes patrolling, but is unfortunately making regular mistakes which are likely putting new/IP users off editing (two examples from today: [19] & [20]). They've been told by several users on their Talk page that they need to slow down and make sure edits they report as vandalism actually are disruptive to the project, rather than good faith edits which are perhaps just missing sourcing, but they continue to do this regardless (and have actively said today[21] that they'll continue to do so, which was the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of bringing the issue up here). I suspect they're young and/or have English as a second language, but at this point, where they've had lots of feedback about their disruptive patrolling behaviour and continue to do it, it's probably worth bringing up for discussion here for wider community review. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I happened to see the discussion on BA25's page, and told him I'll block him if he keeps reverting in the same manner. Not sure he understood, as he merely replied by asking why I have declined his rollback request. I'm afraid this is a complete CIR case, possibly because of language difficulties. Signing off for the night now. He may actually need a CIR block before I wake up. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

I wrote mostly everything I have to say on this matter at their talk page, but I'll summarize it here for everyone. I was watching recent changes myself earlier today, and found that BeamAlexander25 reverted the edits of 109.87.48.66 at European School (history). 109.87.48.66 removed a substantial amount of content without an edit summary, prompting a revert by BeamAlexander25 (starting with [22], but 109.87.48.66 later clarified [23][24] that it was part of splitting content into a new article on both the article's talk page and their user talk page. Despite my attempt to clear this misunderstanding, and that this is obviously not vandalism (also note that 109.87.48.66 has been previously working on the article), BeamAlexander25 both ignored my response on 109.87.48.66's talk page [25] and my edit summary (I reinstated their edits since their purpose and good faith was unambiguous) [26], and reverted my edit as if it were vandalism and left a template warning on my talk page [27][28]. Though they self-reverted on the article a minute later (apparently realizing this mistake), they did not respond to a personal note I subsequently left on their talk page [29] explaining exactly this misunderstanding. I did what I could to explain that these edits were not vandalism, other users raised similar concerns (hence this ANI discussion), and offered to discuss the matter with them, but like the attempts of previous users, was met with failure. Luckily this IP was not scared away, but not before they were reported at AIV [30] before reaching a level 4 warning for edits that were never vandalism to begin with.

My bigger concern is that BeamAlexander25 has not been responsive to messages on their talk page, and continues the same questionable behavior thereafter. Hasty reverting (that is, not examining edits closely and thus incorrectly classifying them), while also a problem, is not uncommon for newer editors, but one should not dabble into recent changes patrol if they are unable or unwilling to communicate effectively with users (this also means not templating regulars) whose edits they revert or users who highlight mistakes. It's possible to learn the ins and outs of recent changes patrol over time, but not without open and effective communication. ComplexRational (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Given their apparently poor English, I'm not sure they should convinced they should not be doing Recent Changes patrolling at all. (But I'm off to bed now, and I'll look back here tomorrow.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• This looks like a bad case of the law of the instrument. BA has WP:Twinkle & WP:RedWarn which can be used even without a firm mastery of English, and without revealing that deficiency. So long as BA has these tools enabled and uses them without a comprehension of what they're doing or why, they're a WP:CIR-on-steroids. Cabayi (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• WP:Communication is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• I not happened again this incident, i am reading every policies in wikipedia, i promise that i could patroll carefully and i follow WP:CIR, WP:COMMUNICATE and more, but some reverts are being mistake. -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 16:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• WP:CIR is always a one that makes me feel bad, although probably a necessary evil sometimes. I think there are good intentions here, but likely a lack of knowledge and policy, combined with language barriers, may cause problems, despite their best intentions and statement above. My view is that blocks/bans shouldn't be punitive, and although they may be necessary, if we can avoid them and still resolve the issue I think it'd be a nice outcome. I think perhaps if BeamAlexander25 is willing to stick to obvious vandalism only (unexplained blanking of large sections, addition of derogatory content, and absolute nonsense) it's an area where there'd be less room to make mistakes and is a suitable resolution in the interim. In other words, the suggestion to take it slow may be helpful. I think the reason for his lack of response to some comments is not necessarily poor behaviour, but perhaps poor understanding (due to language barriers) of what was being said, though this doesn't change the fact that WP:communication is required. Failing that, I'd say a ban from anti-vandalism patrolling may be applicable, in case they wish to contribute in other areas. I don't think a site block should be contemplated unless such a ban wasn't followed. Finally, given BeamAlexander25 states on their profile that they are from Luzon, https://tl.wikipedia.org may be of interest to them as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I broadly very much agree with this ProcrastinatingReader, though at this stage (bearing in mind a few have raised concerns on their Talk page about their patrolling previously with seemingly little impact) I'd personally suggest a ban on the use of semi-automated reversion tools such as Twinkle and Redwarn at a minimum (and I could see the logic behind those who'd prefer a total ban on anti-vandalism patrolling, be it semi-automated or otherwise). OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

OcarinaOfTime, admittedly my judgement is somewhat weak when it comes to CIR. I find it difficult to support excluding someone (acting in good faith) from the community or from the area that they like, sometimes even if I know in my gut that this will happen again.

Nevertheless, I see your view and the need for a ban at this stage, as this is going to turn away new editors. Anti-vandalism is clearly something that they're passionate about, though, so perhaps an acceptable option may be that limited anti-vandalism work / usage of tools is allowed should they join WP:CVUA and find a suitable trainer, and the ban ends should they graduate. I think that's a way for them to learn more about anti-vandalism and related policies, and hopefully in the future they can return to the area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

May I say thank you for a careful, measured response, but a response, after all, which is needed. Having been a victim of overeager editors who have few or any contributions and give the appearance to be in Wikipedia merely for the thrill of deleting, I know too well how something like that hurts, especially the noob. I'm glad y'all following up, while not getting all bunched up. Thank you! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I'd support a topic-ban from recent changes and or from Twinkle and Redwarn too given the language issues here, Whilst everyone makes mistakes given the user's mother tongue isn't English I fear this would happen again IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yet again we see a brand new editor using semi-automated tools badly. Is there no way to stop this happening? We control user rights such as rollback, but seem to allow anyone to use more powerful tools. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  We do stop use of powerful and fast-paced tools, such as Huggle, by requiring rollback perms. RedWarn is like Twinkle, from my understanding, so it isn't particularly more fast paced or in need of rollback perms. There's definitely a big barrier to the level of mayhem possible between Huggle and RedWarn. Requiring someone to apply for rollback to use any sort of anti-vandalism tool, even if not advanced, is problematic, because this just results in either less anti-vandalism patrollers, or more inexperienced users gaining access to the actual powerful tools. Perhaps the developer of RedWarn could implement a RW block-list, though, and similar for Twinkle, but that's probably a slightly tangential discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  You can do just as much damage, at the same speed, with the normal undo button. Twinkle and RedWarn help with warning users, but for just reverting the undo button is pretty fast.--Chuka Chief (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I will enroll Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy to improve my anti-vandalism counter and when i graduated my session, i will use recent changes, twinkle and redwarn again -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 17:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Update, i am going to bed now - BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly suggest you voluntarily withdraw from reviewing or any other semi-admin type tasks. Right now, your grasp of the English language isn't bad, but it isn't sufficient to do these things. I'm afraid you will end up getting topic banned if you continue using automated tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I released my statement in my userpage, please visit to BA25's Userpage, thanks -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 03:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, and I feel compelled to remind you that "vandalism", as defined by policy, is ONLY those edits which are are designed to damage the encyclopedia and it's accuracy. Well intentioned but wrong edits, sloppy edits, unsourced but plausible edits, none of that is "vandalism". Calling those unhelpful but well intentioned edits "vandalism" is itself disruptive. If you aren't 100% sure about an edit, it is better to do nothing. You've been warned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Dennis Brown:, this sounds like a strategy that might keep BeamAlexander25 active, if he wants to, but avoid overstepping! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'd agree with this, and in addition it looks like they've uninstalled Redwarn and haven't done any anti-vandalism edits since this ANI section was created, so I'm personally happy this is resolved for now without needing any formal administrator intervention, so long as they don't start again until/unless they graduate from WP:CVUA. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:SYNTH at River Vale, New Jersey

A series of edits to the article for River Vale, New Jersey by User:201blm make a series of claims about the township's mayor. Previous versions were missing sources, but even with sources, the edits constitute clear violation of WP:SYNTH policy as an effort to claim that mayor Glen Jasionowski should have issued a statement about Black Lives Matter. The sourcing is predicated on the facts that 1) the community is largely white, 2) that he has taken a stance on a mascot issue at the local high school; and 3) that there were racist incidents at the high school several years ago, which are meant to show that the mayor should have made a statement about Black Lives Matter, but has not. All of these things may well be (and are) true and they all may have sources, but as I see it, the conclusion does not follow from the predicates and this makes all of this a rather blatant WP:SYNTH violation. See this edit, this second reinsertion and the latest version with some minor tweaks. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, but I removed it. Someone not doing something isn't encyclopaedic. Plus the stuff about the schools should be on the school's article, of which there is one. Lastly it fails WP:LEAD. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like pretty clear WP:SYNTH to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Marsha P Johnson vandalism

Marsha P. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Escalating since this page is featured in a Google doodle today. Marsha P Johnson’s page is being repeatedly vandalised with NSFL images. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/965314802 Already semi protected. Sleeper vandal blocked. Do we want ECP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, where's the fun in that? I love a game of whack-a-mole! Imagine, though, blowing an autoconfirmed sleeper on something that lame. Guy (help!) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Two blown and now ECP by General Notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It set a personal best by no fewer than four individuals contacting me in RL to ask for its removal, and I still didn't get there in time Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Attacks and aggression

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report issues with User:Indrian. I initially planned on creating this page after our Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebecca_Heineman DRN case had finished; however, I've decided to post it now so that it doesn't appear to be retaliation in the event the DRN doesn't turn out in my favor.

Indrian has been reverting edits regarding Rebecca Heineman's deadname for approximately six years now. While googling around, I noticed what I considered an excessive amount of deadnaming on her article, and decided to remove it. While looking at the article's history, I noticed several people had attempted to do the same over the years, with all of them quickly reverted by Indrian. Fearing an edit war, I left this message on the talk page, pinging Indrian, and attempting to explain my edit in a way they might understand. After posting, I reached out to several people in real life and online to get their thoughts, and ended up making this edit, in an attempt to avoid an "us vs. them" mentality, as advised by a fediverse user. Several hours later, Indrian left this response, and reverted my changes. This message by Indrian accuses me of censorship, and suggests Rebecca edit her page if she wishes, despite her being unable to do so because of a lack of NPOV. Additionally, Indrian references the book 1984 at the end of the response. These are running themes with this page and Indrian, as they have accused another user on the talk page of pushing personal agendas and censorship. In a somewhat blunt response to Indrian, I opened the previously-mentioned DRN, as it seemed clear to me we could not come to a resolution on our own.

Throughout the rest of the posts on the talk page, Indrian has continued to claim I am pushing a personal agenda of censorship, and has ridiculed me for opening a DRN request, which I believe is in violation of WP:AGF. Later in the thread, I somewhat-jokingly refer to Indrian as "Mr. Ministry of Truth", calling back to their previous reference to 1984. Indrian's most recent response (as of right now) claims this is a personal attack, which I find quite ridiculous.

I believe this behavior of aggression, accusations, ridicule, and attacks is awful, and should not be allowed on Wikipedia, especially as Indrian has been doing this for at least six years now, beginning with their response to User:Girlsimulation on Talk:Rebecca_Heineman. This is no longer about the deadnaming of Rebecca, but Indrian's behavior and aggression. I am tired, and I am frustrated. I attempted to enter this discussion with an open mind and assumption of good faith, and in return I have been bullied and attacked by someone who sees everything as a grand Orwellian conspiracy by trans people. 3nk1namshub (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, what a mean-spirited personal attack! We are having a productive discussion at DRN regarding the current situation. I stand my my talk page response to User:Girlsimulation, which merely lays out policy as I interpret it. I also stand by my assertion that attempting to erase historical context is Orwellian. I see no grand conspiracy therein. I do see individual members of a community with no grand design or larger intent being overzealous in stamping out a practice that they rightly see as hateful when applied to judgement on self-identification choices but on Wikipedia is merely reporting biographical data necessary for historical context in accordance with current Wikipedia policy on alternate names and pronoun usage. To assert a privilege to erase history is, sadly, an invitation to practice an ugly form of bigotry just as insidious as trying to deny a person the right to self-identify on the gender spectrum. I have been on Wikipedia since 2004 and been involved in dozens of heated discussions on articles in that time. This is the first time I have been dragged in here. How very interesting. Bullying and attempting to silence dissent indeed! Indrian (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is not about our disagreement, but about your aggression and attacks. Please do not attempt to spin this as anything else, thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh there is really no need to spin anything. You have done perfectly fine laying out the obvious connections here without my help! Indrian (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Indrian, you acknowledge that the birth name/deadname is mentioned excessively in the article and yet you revert every effort by any editor to reduce this excessive use of that name. I see that an IP tried in January to eliminate only two of the excessive mentions, and you reverted. So, due to your zeal, the article has had an ugly problem for six years. I recommend that you back down. If you won't, perhaps we ought to consider a topic ban for you from transgender people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right. The January edit was actually quite appropriate and I knee-jerked it due to years of frustration putting up with far more militant attempts. I am all for going back to that version of the article. Indrian (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Indrian, I do not think that you can be trusted to exercise good judgment on that article since you haven't for six years, and are being extremely aggressive when criticized legitimately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have returned the naming situation to the state it was in as of Janaury 2020. It appears to me that it now has a good balance between providing proper historical context and respecting the right of self-identification. Indrian (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It was still excessive so I have reduced it further. You should have waited until this discussion ended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There was a DRN related to the content dispute. It was closed without resolution. The ANI was about my alleged aggression, not the content. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Indrian, do not keep trying to ram those excessive mentions back into the article without consensus. In my opinion, you are skating on thin ice. Let's hear what other editors think. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am okay with hearing what other editors think. I think it would be a good idea, however, if I stop talking about the Ministry of Truth and you and others stop with the equally charged deadnaming accusations. Providing proper attribution for her early work is not the same thing as trying to call out a prior name in an attempt to dredge up painful memories or question the legitimacy of a self-identification choice. Indrian (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This case has been closed at DRN. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war about Lawrence Kasdan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Original section title was: "Comprehensive additions to the Lawrence Kasdan article keep being undone, resulting in an undesired edit war")

• Lawrence Kasdan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added a substantial amount of new material to the article for Lawrence Kasdan in February 2020 (all of it meticulously sourced), and one particular user, Revan646, has now three times deleted all of my work to revert back to the old (and very sparse) version of the article. The only reason given was that I "ruined it" by making it too long and "filling this page up with unnecessary information." (The user has also insulted me personally, calling me "stupid" and "a troll.") I've communicated with Revan646 directly on their Talk page (politely), but we appear to be at a standstill. The back and forth prompted another user, Timaaa, to warn both of us about the consequences of engaging in an edit war, which I certainly have no desire to do. I posted this dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and user Xavexgoem closed it—advising me to instead post it here, since "Conduct issues abound." I would like to see this dispute resolved peacefully, and see the hours of hard work to improve Kasdan's article re-implemented while adhering to all of Wikipedia's standards and protocols. Tgreiving (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are the diffs wrt to this dispute (note edit summaries): [31][32][33][34]. Also see [35]; it would be their 8th contrib. Content DR usually has conduct issues associated with it, but I don't think my rejecting this case was unreasonable. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Tgreiving, I notice that you and Reyan656 both only have a handful of edits, as in 17 and 25 when I looked. I'm lost as to how you can get in an edit war when you have less than 10 total edits to mainspace between the both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also have closed that thread at DRN as primarily conduct. In some cases the length of the insult in the edit summary was as long as the disputed content. I don't like Uncivil Edit Summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding, but my contribution (edits) to the article amounted to nearly 10,000 words of new content. Revan646 deleted the entirety of it out of hand for no reason other than that it was now "too long." It's true I haven't contributed much to Wikipedia outside of this article, but I'm not sure why that would be relevant in this dispute. Tgreiving (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Tgreiving and User:Revan646 are both edit warring. Each of them is risking a block if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How would I get a consensus? I feel stuck in a stalemate with a user who fails to engage in a meaningful or substantive way. My contributions to the article have all been additive and constructive, and the "war" has simply been the other user deleting everything I added without explanation. Tgreiving (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The general way to go about getting a consensus is to have a discussion on the talk page. Right now, there are three comments from two editors about your edit. Reyan656 said the career section was too long (referring, I believe to your additions) and was going to restore it to what it was, and the other editor commente) that the longer version (your version) was better. On the de facto side, in the edit history of the article, you have two editors removing your edit (Reyan646 and one other) and you have Calton restoring it. Although I restored part of the article that you had removed -- the filmography -- I also accepted your edit as an improvement.

Right now that puts things even-steven, with no consensus one way or the other, so go to the talk page and make an argument as to why you believe your edits improve the article, and see what kind of response you get to that. "Too long" is not a very valid reason to delete an entire edit, so Reyan646 will need to come up with a better argument to counter yours. Who knows, you may agree that your addition is fundamentally an improvement, but needs to be slimmed down a little. You'll never know until you start the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is minor edit warring arising from a content dispute and should probably be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spshu undoing my edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So Spshu has been reverting my edits on WLAJ, WILX-TV and WLNS-TV without explaining everything; they are disruptive, and even edit warred on other articles. Basically they should be blocked indefinitely for being not here to clear an encyclopedia. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say the reversions generally did have justifications provided (where an identical reversion occurs to a prior one, and there was an initial reason provided, it can usually be assumed to have the same explanation). Their participation on WLAJ (and yours) appears to be a slow-speed edit war. In all three cases both of you should have taken it to the Talk Page to hash things out. They're inactive on WILX-TV in most of a month. I don't find either editors' behaviour formally sanctionable from the above but would normally suggest a trout to both (I see that has caused issue on Spshu's TP, however). Instead please both consider this a requirement to discuss each instance rather than recommence a slow-speed insert/revert. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it curious that the reporting IP had knowledge of conversations on the talk page of an indefinitely-blocked user (diff). A boomerang may be more useful here than a trout. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• This feels a little bit like blocked user CentralTime301, who was active in the same areas and clashed with Spshu on more than one occasion. I tried to reach out to them back in January, to no avail. I'll be really dissapointed if they're still at this, six months on. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

CT301 is globally locked from editing. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

IP addresses are editing user talk pages, giving false warnings, and edit warring

IP addresses 107.77.189.13 and 107.77.189.39 has been removing "nonsense" from user talk pages that they are not allowed to edit – 107.77.189.39 even falsely warned me on my talk page for "deleting or editing legitimate comments". I also think that they may be related IPs as they share a similar editing pattern.

107.77.189.39 was also engaged in an edit war with User:Spshu, which the IP address then reported Spshu for, as can be seen in these diffs. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• A range block appears to be in order. Block and be done with them. BD2412 T 19:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin though. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AboriginsDude

Any admins from meta or incubator here? I would like to report User:AboriginsDude for vandalizing my user talk page on incubator. We have reported this on meta and incubator community portals but we have not received any response from the admins there. Also, what I know is that this user is already blocked here in en.wiki. Seems like this user is a sock of User:My Royal Young based from the vandal's behavior. -WayKurat (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@WayKurat: you may want to try stewards.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: User:Þjarkur already posted a report there but there still no action. The vandal keeps on posting a picture of Osama Bin Laden on our user page and trolls us whenever we revert them. -WayKurat (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Official Varun Dhiman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Official Varun Dhiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE; they've now recreated a personal page for themselves for the third time after being speedily deleted twice already (I have since re-tagged it). Their only other non-deleted edits was to replace an existing article with the same copy of their desired user page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I just indeffed them. Page hijacking for self promotion, using pages to promote themselves. Not here. And gone. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Theknightswhosay

As their recent edits on Stefan Molyneux show, despite warnings, User:Theknightswhosay is WP:NOTHERE and merits a quick block for repeatedly vandalizing a protected article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandals are the people who describe someone with no white nationalist content as a white nationalist and who think the Independent is an unbiased factual news sourceTheknightswhosay (talk)

I am not sure about NOTHERE, but if the user continues reverting reliably sourced material, a block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: They are continuing to edit war with Greyfell and just wrote this uncivil comment on their talk page: I know most editors on this page are partisan hacks who want to smear anyone with whom they disagree. If they were ever here in the past to build an encyclopedia, they clearly no longer are. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 72h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Per "took out lies" and Vandals are the people who describe someone with no white nationalist content as a white nationalist and who think the Independent is an unbiased factual news source, this user repudiates WP:RS and is WP:NOTHERE other than to WP:RGW. changing "In June 2020, Molyneux was banned from YouTube for hate speech" to "for being to the right of Chairman Mao" is unacceptable. Guy (help!) 09:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit from Safehaven86 (talk · contribs)looks interesting as well, might be worth a CU's time to check that edit! Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette by User:Beyond_My_Ken

This incident began with an editor boldly inserting a line into the QAnon conspiracy theory page. I had concerns about the relevance of the line on the page, and a possible violation of WP:SYNTH, so I reverted it. Instead of discussing the issue per BRD guidelines, user Beyond_My_Ken started an edit war with me. He then, ironically, posted an edit warring template warning on my talk page. In response I posted the same template on his talk page (I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure - please correct me if it's not, I am new to editing regularly) and ultimately ended up making a section on the talk page for the article as user Beyond_My_Ken should have done in the first place.

This would have been the end of it, but on the talk page for the QAnon article, user Beyond_My_Ken then proceeded to disparage me and my motivations for editing, implying that I was purposefully "stripping" the article of "information that I don't wish to be seen by the reader of the article." This is pretty clearly an assumption of bad faith, and a nasty accusation to boot. I am on this site because I am interested in building a good encyclopedia, and I shouldn't have to defend these motivations against brazen and incorrect accusations. I don't want to get into the content dispute here since (afaik) this is not the purpose of ANI, but I do want to state categorically that my only goal was to improve the quality of the page and make it more consistent with other similar pages and with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's worth stating that the consensus on the talk page, it would seem, is that I was correct.

I invited him to reword his unnecessarily insulting statement in a more civil way, or to strike it out, and waited several days. He has not done this. In the future I'd like to not be disparaged in this way, or have my motivations impugned without good reason. Thank you.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The top of this page - "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." All of the edit-warring happened five days ago, and there was a small discussion on the talk page which hasn't been posted to for three days. I don't see an issue that needs urgent admin attention? Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I was trying to be charitable by giving him a few days to fix his error by apologizing and/or striking through the offending text, since the article on Civility suggested this as a solution. That same article suggested I go here if that didn't work. What's the proper procedure for something like this? Is there a board for less "urgent" incidents? Sorry if I did something incorrectly - I just don't like that there's borderline slander against me sitting around on a talk page with no apology or retraction, and thought this was the correct procedure.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• You sure know a lot of wikibuzz words and buttons for someone with only 45 edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm not actually sure what you mean by "buttons," but regarding "buzzwords" I have done a lot of reading on policy, since I'm trying to do things correctly. Were you by any chance implying something here?CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Dennis Brown, asking loaded questions of this editor with their odd editing pattern, and their immediate escalation to ANI trying to get old BMK censured and even adopting some of BMK's editing habits? Dear me! Drmies (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
      • My escalation to ANI wasn't immediate - I asked for a retraction or apology on the talk page where the discussion was happening, then I waited three days for a response which did not come. He participated in that discussion with other editors during that time, having ample opportunity to see the request. If I did something wrong, please tell me what the actual process is so I can follow it next time. Is ANI an over-escalation in this case? What should I have do instead if I honestly believe someone is behaving uncivilly and insultingly towards me? For reference, I was doing my best to follow the list laid out in "Dealing with incivility" section of [36], which I took the time to read after this incident occurred. Should I have sought "dispute resolution" per step 7? My reading of the line seemed to indicate that I should go straight to step 8, ANI, since there was a very unpleasant accusation still sitting on the talk page. I want to be a good editor here, please tell me if I overstepped my bounds and, if so, what I should do next time.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

        This was a #7/walk-away, not a #8/emergency situation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

        • Okay. Thank you - I will try to have a better gauge for this kind of thing in the future. Still learning the ropes here!CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remember, it takes two to tango. If someone is edit warring with you, you are both edit warring. But here, nobody broke the WP:3RR, and it was peacefully talked out. I don't see BMK's comment as particularly uncivil. Could he have assumed more good faith? Probably. But considering that you are a new editor in a super contentious area, please understand that people have some suspicions. Instead of reverting BMK, you should have immediately taken it to the talk page, which would have gotten a much more positive response. All in all, I see this as a general learning experience, and see no likely sanctions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • RE: two to tango - you're right. I suppose I was taking the stuff in the BRD page as more of a mandate than a guideline. In the future I'll do my best to seek consensus on the talk page first. Thank you. Regarding suspicions, it's certainly understandable, but I do feel like people ought to keep this sort of thing to themselves if they don't want to unnecessarily drive newer users away. From my perspective, I was just trying to improve the article (and consensus agreed it was an improvement) and in return I was insulted.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMary_Tyler_Moore&type=revision&diff=965390062&oldid=965389259 which was just posted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• The OP did what they were supposed to do: reverted a bold (and IMO questionable) edit. They got attacked for doing so. BMK does have a history of being fairly abrasive. A quiet note from an admin asking for somewhat more civil behavior wouldn't be badly placed. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

to be clear, the above comment refers to the QAnon issue, not the MTM one.Hobit (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

2601:8B:C300:4A70:5D09:1427:2C4C:4D51

IP (possibly range too, as the range is currently blocked...) seems to need a TPA revoke. See their recent edit history on User talk:2601:8B:C300:4A70:5D09:1427:2C4C:4D51. Also, with all of this vandalism/disruptive editing, I think a longer block than just 2 weeks may be necessary... Magitroopa (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Much easier to req page protection yourself. Try WP:DENY Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Their vandalism on their own talk page while blocked is quite extensive, and vandalism on other articles prior to block (and on previous IPs in the range) are extensive as well. I'd definitely say a longer block (possibly indef) and TPA revoke is needed. Magitroopa (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, you still didn't answer why a simple WP:RPP wouldn't solve this? No admin in their right mind is going to indef an IP. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This IP vandalised my talk page (if this is any relevent to this discussion) [37] P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There is almost no problem with indefing an IPv6. The chances are better that the vandal gets hit by lightning three times in the same year that that of their IPv6 being allocated to another user. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Slight nuance there that those chances are better for now. There's no guarantee that they will be ad infinitum; indeed, it's likely that in the coming years-to-decades the IPv6 available address range will narrow fairly significantly, as potentially billions more connected devices get IPv6 addresses. Not that I'm suggesting that indefs of IPv6 addresses are a bad idea as a whole, just I think we should be wary about putting ourselves in a position of having lots of IPv6 indefs, because sooner or later, they will start to be reused more frequently. "Not as wary as IPv4" isn't necessarily the same as "block the same way as a user account", I guess is the gist. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: If you do the maths, you'll find that the IPv6 range won't narrow significantly before the heat death of the universe. A few billion more devices won't make the slightest dent in the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 blocks of /64 ranges available. I could indef one /64 range per second for the next hundred years without blocking even 0.00000002% of the available /64 ranges. In other words, there are a lot more IPv6s that you might think. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I could indef one /64 range per second for the next hundred years without blocking even 0.00000002% of the available /64 ranges - is that a threat? That notwithstanding, I agree that it seems unlikely, but we probably would have said the same thing about IPv4 (more than 4 billion addresses! how will we ever run out?) - I'm not saying it's a certainty by any means, but it's something to bear in mind Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS and Naypta: That is emphatically not correct. It is only correct when IPv6 privacy extensions are enabled; often, however, the last 64 bits are deterministic based on the MAC address. The first 64 bits are in fact often statically assigned. Also, Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses very clearly states that IP addresses, categorically, should never be indefinitely blocked. I ask that you respect that consensus-supported version, and if you disagree, open an RfC to change this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jasper Deng's word of caution above. IPv6 addresses are not necessarily assigned randomly—external factors, depending on the ISP, may still result in collateral damage. It remains against common practice to block IP addresses indefinitely, even when it is a /64 IPv6 address range, and I would strongly advise administrators not to deviate from this practice without prior consensus. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jasper Deng: it definitely is correct. First, IPv6s are normally allocated in blocks of /64 to the same connection. Secondly, it is demonstrably true that the last 64 bits are not determined by the MAC address, since you can now see the contributions of any /64 block and observe how they change over time, while the same user is obviously editing; whereas MAC addresses are fixed. Third, it doesn't matter whether the first 64 bits are static or dynamic as there are so many of them, the chances of reuse are close to zero. Finally, I know what WP:IPBLENGTH says and I know how out-of-date it is, and I'm sure you do too. I have no desire to block any IPv6s indefinitely, so I find no need to waste time on arguing about changing the policy. I guess somebody who gives a damn will do that sooner or later. Or not. I'm only having a bit of fun pointing out the silliness of treating IPv6s as if they were IPv4s. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: No. IPv6_address#Stateless_address_autoconfiguration clearly states otherwise. The only reason why it might seem that they are random in practice is privacy extensions but we have no way of telling for any given case. None. And the chances of reuse depend on the address assignment method; it is very conceivable that some DHCPv6 servers assign /64 prefixes sequentially. In any case, this "random" behavior is not observed for addresses assigned directly by DHCPv6 or static addresses. A clear example is furnished by Special:Contribs/2600:387:5:800:0:0:0:0/60, where the addresses are clearly allocated either sequentially or otherwise in such a way that only the last byte of the address really gets varied.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of a CheckUser, I have certainly checked IPv6 ranges as narrow as a /64 on which there were a multitude of unrelated users sharing the range—there are some Internet service providers out there that simply allocate their address space in this way, especially in countries with highly dynamic addressing like the UK. While I am willing to concede that there are some situations where what you are saying may be true, we should be cautious about forming generalizations, and I don't fault Jasper for advising caution. Mz7 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be very unusual for /64 to hold multiple users, but I concede it could happen. Indeed, if an IP had an IPv6 /64 block allocation comparable to the number of their customers, then the randomness would disappear. Given the cheapness of IPv6s, I find that a very unlikely scenario in the current circumstances, but I concede it's not impossible. It's also true that the bundling of groups of addresses to simplify routing reduces the randomness, but again there really are so many possible /64 blocks, that the chances of reuse of an IPv6 remain minute. I agree fully that we should always err on the side of caution, but I maintain that the degree of caution required to minimise issues when blocking IPv6s is nothing like that needed when blocking IPv4s. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues: discretionary sanctions, COVID, other

Articles

Hydroxychloroquine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hinokitiol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ionophore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chloroquine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zinc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iron deficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adding Zinc oxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors

Georgedouglas123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mandem123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mr.MAGC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Notices

COI query from HaeB: [38]

Response (concerning) from Georgedouglas123: [39]

Notice from me pointing towards discretionary sanctions [40] and personal attacks in edit summaries: [41] [42]

And, reverts continue: [43] [44] [45] [46], those are samples only, there are more.

Looks like commercial interests and potential coordinated editing, and breach of COVID discretionary sanctions after notification. NOTHERE. I will next notify the three editors linked above, and @DePiep: who is reverted multiple times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I indeffed the first two per WP:NOTHERE (and being likely socks of each other) and protected Zinc. The third one mainly edited in their sandbox, and I do not see them participating in the edit-warring together with the other two. Probably somebody understanding what they are trying to say should have a look at their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I posted to WT:MED, so hopefully the pharm people will be on it soon. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO these edits are particularly concerning [47] [48]. It's one thing to add promotional nonsense about the wonders hinokitiol to the hinokitiol article [49] [50], it's another to add it it to other broad articles. Both also seem to be a clear attempt to promote the specific "patented" or patent pending DrZinx by Advanced Nanotek and AstiVita, similar to this [51] from the blocked editor. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• (ec, saw the blocks) To me, the insertion of the very same textblock (i.e., c/p) having multiple sections in the articles looks troublesome. In most of these places, I objected for WP:UNDUE and such reasons. Also, all fresh new editor Mandem123456's contributions contributions show the same editing, and might qualify for a WP:SOCK check. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Remedies by Ymblanter look fine. I consider done, but for new info turning up (WP:MED?). -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If a pharm person can get to this, they might also examine these edits; not my field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I pending changes protected Iron deficiency in response to an unsourced and dubious claim. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edits

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

Despite multiple warnings, reversion edit summaries (examples 1, 2 & 3) as well as personal pleas, Jeremykuhl refuses to acknowledge these issues on their talk page nor have they made any attempt at verifying their edits. Here, here and here are some examples of their most recent unsourced edits and I can happily provide more if needed. I'd greatly appreciate some admin intervention please. Robvanvee 08:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a bump in the hope that an admin takes a look. Robvanvee 13:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

They've not responded or edited since before you ANI noticed them. I'm watching their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Deepfriedokra. Quite right, other than to remove my personal request from their talk page asking kindly for them to source their edits. I chose not to remove any of their unsourced additions until an admin had taken a look at the case so we shall see if they intentionally reinstate their unreferenced edits again. Thanks again! Robvanvee 07:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: We equate removal with acknowledgement, though it may only indicate annoyed incomprehension. I think they have been sufficiently warned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Many thanks again Deepfriedokra! Robvanvee 08:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Retaliatory AFD nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After arguing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul that my "interpretation" of WP:NPOL is incorrect, an editor tried to retaliate against my position by pointedly nominating several completely unrelated articles that I recently created about the annual iterations of a notable film award ceremony whose articles have actually been long overdue. Obviously film awards and political candidates have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and nominating stuff for deletion solely because you disagree with the creator of it on a completely unrelated matter is at the very least a WP:POINT violation and potentially even approaches harassment, but as a directly involved party it would be obviously inappropriate for me to either close the revenge nominations or sanction the editor myself.

The discussions in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Jutra Awards and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th Jutra Awards — and both our article about the overall Prix Iris (name changed in 2016, so don't get confused by the Jutra-vs-Iris distinction) and the fact that every year's ceremony has an article on the French Wikipedia as well, plainly demonstrate their notability.

Accordingly, I just wanted to ask if somebody could take a look at this situation, and potentially at least speedy close the revenge nominations if you consider that appropriate. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my comments and I will not recant them. Bearcat has been bludgeoning the AfD process on politician articles for years now, insisting that his interpretation of that guideline is the only correct one and that GNG is completely irrelevant, and filibustering anyone who disagrees. I apologize for the pointy nominations - that was petty and wrong. I accept the inevitable block - I recognize that I deserve it for my comments and pointy nominations. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

And I stand by everything I've said. I do not have any "personal interpretation" of NPOL that differs one iota from standing sitewide consensus about how NPOL works.

As I've said before, every candidate in every election everywhere always gets some campaign coverage — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all anymore. Politicians are one of those groups of people who are highly prone to attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform to try to promote their candidacies by posting campaign brochures here — but that's not our mandate or our role, so we have an established consensus that the key to getting a politician into Wikipedia on political grounds per se normally requires holding office and not just running for it. So political candidates don't just need to show the existence of some campaign coverage to exempt themselves from NPOL, precisely because every candidate would always be NPOL-exempt if NPOL worked that way — rather, candidates need to show that they escape WP:BLP1E by having coverage in more than just that context alone, and/or a reason why their candidacy would somehow pass the ten year test for enduring significance, before they get exempted from NPOL.

And none of this is just my own personal opinion: all of it is established Wikipedia consensus, supported and upheld by literally thousands of past AFDs on politicians, many of which I did not even participate in at all. And, in fact, I used to also disagree with the established consensus, and supported articles about unelected candidates — I came around to agreeing with the consensus only after witnessing, with my own eyes, the effects that my former position actually had on the quality and reliability of Wikipedia, because articles about unelected candidates almost always devolve into advertorialized junk.

But regardless of whether you agree with me on a politician or not, retaliatory nominations against topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with the notability standards for politicians is simply inappropriate. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the AfDs were inappropriate - I was wrong to do that, and I've attempted to speedy close them. However, since you're insisting on relitigating NPOL here, I'm going to post the same thing I just posted in the Madison Cawthorn AfD:

Madison Cawthorn AfD comment

Comment - this is the full text of the WP:NPOL guideline: The following are presumed to be notable: * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Nowhere in here does it say that political candidates are required to meet NPOL. Nowhere in here does it say there is some extra special notability requirement above and beyond the GNG when determining whether coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Nowhere in here does it say that "sustained international" coverage is required. Nowhere in here does it say that the subject must still be of sustained public interest in 10 years. And certainly nowhere does it say that the candidates must achieve Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage. NPOL is about categories of politicians presumed to be notable even if they don't meet GNG. It's not some extra hurdle that's required; it's an extra route to notability for politicians who fail GNG. If an editor repeatedly insists that their position on NPOL is the "community consensus", even when the actual text of the SNG contradicts them repeatedly, the onus is on them to prove it, not just repeat it over and over and over again. Notes

You don't get to just insist that your interpretation is the "correct one" when the text of the guideline flatly contradicts it. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest that you quickly withdraw those nominations? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the procedure to do that, but I'll give it a try. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just strike out your argument for deletion and leave a note saying ‘nomination withdrawn’. Beaten to it. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• O.k., CactusJack has withdrawn and closed those nominations, and I think they have acknowledged that that was the wrong way to handle this dispute. May I suggest discussion of the interpretation of WP:NPOL continue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Rethinking_notability_standards_for_political_candidates? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank goodness that we have editors like Bearcat who help defend our longstanding consensus that unelected political candidates who have never held high office are rarely notable. This editor has done outstanding work helping keep campaign brochures masquerading as encyclopedia articles off of Wikipedia. Of course, if the candidate was previously a general or a professional athlete or a movie star, they are notable for those reasons. But the vast majority of local lawyers or business people running for Congress or Parliament are not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, because their coverage is routine, local, run of the mill, and predictable . Such candidates should be described briefly and neutrally in an article about the election campaign, with all candidates given comparable coverage. But the POV pushers and SPAs who try to write these articles do not want neutral coverage. They see a Wikipedia article focused on their candidate to be just another component of their campaign's social media portfolio. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 is right about SPAs not wanting neutral coverage. This concern applies both to political candidates and to corporations. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't want to jump too deeply into this, but I should probably report CactusJack levied an incorrect accusation of a pointy nomination against Bearcat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and then rage-quit when I requested (retrospectively it was pretty firm, but I respect the editor) that the accusation be retracted. A block might be needed. (The edit summary was what brought me here more than anything, please note.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Perceval-Maxwell WAS a pointy nomination, given that both Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and Annamie Paul have significant detailed in-depth sources going back decades, on issues relating to their candidacies. Both are clear keeps ... and while CactusJack shouldn't be making retaliatory nominations - neither should Bearcat should make pointy ones. I'm also very concerned about Bearcat's insistence during and AFD debate that the SNG (in particular NPOL) trumps GNG, which seems to be consistent in some of their recent AFD nominations. Nfitz (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC) (more pointy than retaliatory) Nfitz (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, Nfitz, is everything okay? I've respected your work at NFOOTY AfDs but I've noticed some odd conduct recently and given your conduct on these two nominations, your request to have a clear copyvio restored at DRV, and your request of an AfD closer to reopen a clearly unanimous deletion discussion, I'm a bit worried about you - is everything okay? SportingFlyer T·C 08:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

These two nominations both clearly and easily meet GNG. Here's the TLDR ... but thanks for the concern, I'm fine ...

Extended content

I wasn't aware of the extent of the copyvio when I first entered that DRV ... it wasn't mentioned in the AFD, and when I entered that debate, only part of it had been identified as a copyvio in the preceding comment; there was a clear lack of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satheesh Menon as surely if only JLP (who is still topic banned from AFD creation) endorsed deletion, then any deletion is surely subject to WP:REFUND - I didn't push the issue after the copyvio's were reported in detail ... but that doesn't mean the close was good. I've been concerned about a couple of Fenix's closes ... in the case of Foysal, I think it could be improved. In the case of Ishan Pandita, there was procedural error in closing given the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishan Pandita (2nd nomination) which was no where near unanimous, and itself somewhat questionable ... when I looked at the amount of material published about him after the 2nd AFD it just seems to me that the 3rd AFD didn't do justice to the issue. Is there an issue with me ... well ... after 3.5 months at home in lockdown perhaps I'm getting a little stir crazy ... aren't we all? ... but I suspect that I just have a lot more time on my hands to dig deeper than I usually do :). Coincidentally, I was starting to have similar concerns about Bearcat, who I've seen generally being rational in the past at AFD - particularly on Canadian articles.

Nfitz (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Two Concerns

Speedy Keep !Votes

There have recently been a lot of Speedy Keep !votes in AFDs that are neither SK2 or SK3 and simply mean "I don't like this AFD". There was at least one AFD that was recently closed with a very confused bad non-admin close of Speedy Keep, but that was reversed at DRV. Saying Speedy Keep when you mean Keep does not help. It confuses. Maybe we need a species of trout to eat the Speedy Keep arguments that are insect-like. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOL Restated

User:CactusJack states that User:Bearcat's interpretation of political notability prevents improving the encyclopedia and should be ignored. That statement misunderstands the political notability criterion. Political notability is an ipso facto special notability for certain officeholders, and has been understood and agreed on for years. Individuals who do not meet it, including candidates, must be assessed by general notability. If you mean that a deletionist interpretation of general notability is harmful, say so. The issue isn't political notability, which is clear. It is general notability. There should be no disagreement about political notability. There are questions about general notability for candidates. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that @CactusJack:'s issue is that User:Bearcat has the following interpretation: Any candidate is going to have coverage and would easily meet general notability. To prevent Wikipedia from being filled up, we have to apply the `additional` criteria of political notability, and it is only when they would meet WP:NPOL that their article could be accepted.

That is the opposite of what User:Robert McClenon is saying, ie that political notability and general notability act as 2 ways to reach notability. If one is met, then the person is notable. TimeEngineer (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Something that should remembered, is that even with significant coverage, a candidate (especially a failed candidate) would only notable only for one event, as per WP:BLP1E - so there should be no concerns with either the NPOL or GNG policies. In the two AFDs that Bearcat created recently, this is all moot, as both candidates have GNG coverage going back decades - and it's here that Bearcat is erroneously claiming that NPOL trumps GNG. While the candidates political career may otherwise not be notable, it's not surprising that the leadership election of a significant federal party attracts candidates with notable histories. Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOL isn't the relevant policy. We frequently clean up non-notable politicians who fail NPOL, not because NPOL is exclusionary, but because they fail WP:NOT in some way - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, maybe WP:BLP1E, I think there may be one I'm forgetting. Almost every politician, even very local politicians, will pass GNG, meaning we hold them to a higher standard at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, indeed, and we normally fudge this by having minor candidates in a collected list of candidates for election X, and only having standalone articles for winning candidates for major office, or people who are independently notable. Guy (help!) 10:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a wider discussion on GNGs and SNGs at WT:N. ANI isn't really the place to hash out what is 'erroneous'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Original concern

• I did not expect this thread to get hijacked, but I would still like an admin to review this edit. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that CactusJack scrambled his password and quit Wikipedia? Maybe he needs a proper break this time. P-K3 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• With 3 years since their rehabilitation and no blocks, I don't see an imminent concern with CJ ... the pointy AFDs have been withdrawn, and the foul language remains the issue. Let's not chase away an editor when perhaps they are at their most vulnerable. If we go that direction there'd also be boomerang potential, given Bearcat's pointy AFD, incivility, and unusual insistence that SNG trumps decades of GNG coverage. Everyone just needs to calm down. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• The foul language isn't the issue, it's the personal attack they levied on the way out. Bearcat's AfD was NOT pointy, and it would benefit ALL of us if you would retract those statements as well. I also do not appreciate you hijacking this request. Please refrain from interacting with me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bearcat brought here a complaint about a user not being civil and creating pointy AFDs, You then raised the situation escalating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul. As I'd already separately complained to Bearcat about their civility and pointy AFDs, when I saw this ANI discussion, I don't see how I had any option other than raising the issue, as a potential boomerang. The AFD was most certainly pointy ... as there was not time in 16 minutes after a different user highlighted it as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for Bearcat to read the post, do a proper BEFORE, and complete the AFD nomination. Not surprisingly when one fails to BEFORE, there is 20-years of GNG coverage, not just the recent leadership run. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Again, please refrain from interacting with me. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Interaction Ban?

Proposal for an interaction ban between User:Nfitz and User:SportingFlyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How about we try playing nice first ... after almost 15 years of editing in similar AFDs, we've seldom ever disagreed much, never-mind approached the level of needing an intervention! The only User page interaction I can find ever was all very civil at User talk:Nfitz#Foysal Ahmed Fahim. The current disagreement is very minor, very specific, and I didn't even think very serious. I don't think we need interaction bans for every little thing. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• If I wanted an interaction ban, I would have specifically requested one. This section only further serves to take away my request for administrator to look into the diff I asked for review and I suggest it be closed immediately. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Seems a bit premature? Guy (help!) 10:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the watchlist

Per this report, Stefan Molyneux, Richard B. Spencer and David Duke have been banned from YouTube, and that typically leads to a flurry of non-neutral edits to a BLP. Guy (help!) 09:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I know this is WP:NOTFORUM, but I can't restrain myself. I must say, it's about time. Twitter, you're on notice when even YouTube bans someone. Get your act together. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

All those articles are already sprotected (the first two by yours truly), so there's that. But I am prepared to temporarily upgrade to ECP, if the need arises. El_C 12:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, yup. And I just sprotected the talk page of Stefan Molyneux for a couple of days due to egregious trolling. Guy (help!) 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought I had already indef sprotected Stefan Molyneux like I did with Richard B. Spencer. I suppose I can't invoke AP2 with him, though — his Canadian-ness compels me! El_C 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

On closer look, it is under AP2 — Canadian-ness notwithstanding. I doubt that would fly if he was British, though. El_C 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not Canadian-ness, I assure you, this wretched soul is Irish and precisely the American Internet's problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, he's appeared on InfoWars and AmRen, so this is in scope I think. Guy (help!) 09:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Americanada, then! El_C 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Close enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, indeed - certainly within the realm of WP:BROADLY. Guy (help!) 10:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:WOMANLY would be a less sexist way to put it. EEng 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV problem over at Core Issues Trust and WP:3RR Violation by User:92.2.40.111

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm currently enrolled in the CUVA program and am now in the Tools part of the program to learn more about recent changes patrolling. I came across 92.2.40.111 (talk · contribs)'s edits on Core Trust Issues and saw that it violated WP:NPOV. I had asked the user to change the phrasing of the term to a neutral one instead of forcing a phrase that goes against WP:NPOV. Instead of complying, the user has accused me of defending whatever Core stands for, the user is likewise stubborn as seen by the user saying that it will keep editing the page over and over again. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Tarheel95: as the user has also discussed the matter with the IP User.

IP User here. The problem I had in the first place has now been resolved. The term 'issue' should not be used in sensitive topics such as this. Therefore, I have changed it to topic now and consider this problem closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.40.111 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@92.2.40.111: I'm glad that you came around, I would consider the matter closed too because you've resolved the WP:NPOV issue. But there's still the matter of the 3RR. You were actively engaged in edit-warring, I didn't revert you the last time around precisely because that was a violation of edit warring. The 3RR matter you still have to face though, very sorry to say. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't came around. Ban me from editing, I don't care. This has just proven there are much more reliable sources of information than WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.40.111 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I can speak to the validity of both issues regarding repeated ignorance of the policy at WP:NPOV as well as violation of the Three revert rule. User does not seem to acknowledge the NPOV conflict and has engaged in repeated reversions to biased content even when alerted to the policy violations dicussed above and on user's talkpage. Tarheel95 (Talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I also issued an 'only warning' to this editor, over a personal attack towards another editor shown here. It looks like other editors have subsequently issued a significant amount of warnings for violating NPOV. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in my view. Best, Darren-M talk 17:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

IP editor is NOTHERE as far as I'm concerned. Page protected, IP blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

37.130.126.241

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone revoke this IP's TPA? Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done and extended a month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPG violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have an IP 107.77.213.157 here with a penchant, somewhat, for violating talk page guidelines and treating them as a forum. Examples include this, blanking their talk page, or here. A review of their recent history would indicate they appear to have a history of trolling, refer to this and this. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over-zealous vandal fighter: need eyes on their edits

We have a new vandal fighter, Imgoodcop (talk · contribs), who has been extremely prolific, extremely inaccurate, and extremely scattershot in his vandal-fighting. False reverts of vandalism and incomplete reverts abound, as I have found by going through quite a few of their edits. Examples are this, this, and this. Could people keep an eye on their contributions and intervene if necessary? I can't really do this myself because the user seems to be in an incompatible time zone (I've barely been able to keep up with their edits as it is). Graham87 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging Incagnito and AviationFreak, who have dealt with this user. I think I've recently noticed another user behaving similarly ... however, I can't find their username by searching my contribs and I have no idea what became of them. Graham87 14:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this user has made some significant mistakes, not adhering to WP:AGF and often being "scattershot" in their edits & reverts. I think some significant notice and warning would be of use here. This user often reverts edits that needn't be reverted and are done in good faith with the intention of making Wikipedia a more informative and accurate source. I think a good example of this behavior is here. AviationFreak💬 14:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just done a few spot checks on their reverting, and it did not take long to find numerous examples of problematic reverting. This is made worse by the fact that they almost never use edit summaries. I see that you have already approach them about this - I'll warn them to slow down. They don't appear to have edited in about 12 hours, so presumably have been offline since you raised this, but if they persist with this please let me know. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Graham87, well I gave my 2 cents of their talk page. Let's see. If it proceeds I think we can assume that they either don't comprehend or don't care. Either way further action will be required. We'll find out soon enough! Glen 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• <250 edits and many false positives. I suggest a 0RR restriction for 6 months. Guy (help!) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:111.125.119.6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I would like to seek assistance for any administrator to block the user talk page edit rights of this IP address. This IP was blocked last Monday for three months but the vandal keeps on editing their user talk page and even posting Filipino profanities there (see here). I have posted this to AIV before but my request is being automatically removed by the cleanup bot. Thanks in advance. -WayKurat (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rt0103

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Personal attacks. User name calling "stupid and moron" on edit summary - see here-1 and I placed a warning on editor talk page for personal atack - see here-2. He wrote a message to me on my talk age and I replied their message on my talk page and informed them to stop personal attacks and adhere to WP:5P4 " as treating other editor with civility is one of the five pillar of Wikipedia principal" - see here -3. Rt0103 continued personal attach again on my talk page - see here 4. Editor had received a block in February 2020 - see here 5 for descriptive editing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 04:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-reporting

otherwise I am sure someone will do it today. {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} has been taken to TfD two years ago and deleted (converted to a wrapper), against my objections Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 3#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality. A month ago I discovered that the new version imports unsourced and presumably wrong data from Wikidata (presumably because {{Infobox Settlement}} does it) and this data is shown on the English Wikipedia unless overwritten per article. I have opened a topic at WP:VP/P (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 158#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality, Wikidata, and verifiability) and the suggestion which came out was to go to Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. I did that, Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality and import of bad data, and as a result RexSS opened a topic at the talk page of a template. There was very little participation, with two users plus me stating this is a problem and nobody opposed. The topic has been open for 3 weeks, with no new reactions for 2 weeks, and today I reverted the template back to pre-TfD state. Whereas this clearly goes against the TfD consensus, and whereas I am clearly involved, I do not see how these two factors could be above WP:V, which is one of the cornerstones of our project. I do not quite see what else I could have done to have WP:V enforced. In principle, this (import of unsourced or sourced to Wikipedia fields of the template from Wikidata) is the general problem of {{Infobox Settlement}} and probably needs to be fixed (after which my edits can be rolled back), but I do not see how I can have it fixed without risking my mental and physical health.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, annoying: technical purity versus factual accuracy. I think factual accuracy should win. Guy (help!) 09:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, the consensus at this 2020 discussion overrides the consensus at this 2018 discussion. Nothing unusual about that, it happens all the time (WP:CCC). Thank you for implementing the 2020 consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The sad thing is that it's perfectly possible to create an infobox that only pulls sourced information from Wikidata, but the editors converting the infobox chose not to do so, leaving it liable to breach WP:V and clearly contradicting the consensus found at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC #Discussion: "if Wikipedia wants to use data from Wikidata, there needs to be clear assurances on the reliability of this data.". --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What happedned is exactly and precisely what I said at the TfD. My argument was that I was (and still am) user working with these templates, other users retired or went inactive. I knew what the old template was doing, and I know it was working fine. And I do not now how the new template works. A bunch of users voted citing uniformity (which is not even a Wikipedia policy) and converted the template to something I have no idea about. Then they went to some other business, and I was left with a non-working template in about five thousands articles which nobody but me is maintaining. The first version of a converted template was showing wrong maps for about half a year, and I stopped adding it to new articles. And now we finally see that it was not a good idea, but I am sure at some point it will be taken to TfD again, and I will be again left with a bunch technical issues imposed on me in the name of uniformity.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gaming the system, adding unreliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There appears to be an IP editor 2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 who is repeatedly using unreliable sources on an article. The IP editor is also gaming the system by using another policy, WP:NPOV, to flout WP:UNRELIABLE. Just plain ol' disruptive editing. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Did I also forget to mention the editor has also added original research? Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor is now using another policy, WP:BLP, to flout both the WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:NOR policies. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

How is her own Twitter account not a primary source? You're opening up wikipedia to a defamation lawsuit by including this since the candidate has denied being a supporter. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and this article clearly isn't. I included a primary source for my edits I don't know what you're on about.2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Her own Twitter account is a primary source, and using primary sources in articles constitutes original research. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia because this type of content isn't considered to be verifiable. If you want to include claims that she denies being associated with QAnon, find a reliable secondary source - or don't include the claim at all. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already warned you for making legal threats to other editors, including myself. If you continue with this disruptive editing, you WILL be blocked. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So the fact that NYT published made up allegations means that another article has to be written that denies them for her claim to be accepted even though she denies it through her own words. I mean that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever head of2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also her Twitter is verified so : As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages. so according to this it should be considered as a reliable source.2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Twitter can be cited per WP:TWITTER. This sounds like a content dispute? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich is right, though in this case there still may be problems with reporting the post because it's hard to interpret. We may still need a secondary source to comment on what it may mean. And this is a content dispute. Remember: At ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 04:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is this ok?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm really not gonna bother much with markup here. Sorry, I'm too tired to care. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour&diff=885668498&oldid=885667368

This is over a year old, but it still has unanswered relevant questions.

Why was this ever published in the first place?

Why was it blanked, but not nuked?

Why were there no punishments for the editors who published it, or the editor of The Signpost who allowed it? Surely it constitutes a personal attack on every single trans editor here. If I were to go onto any cis person's page here and start talking about how I hate cis people and think they're subhuman """SJWs""", I would get a block.

What is Wikipedia doing to ensure that content like this never makes it to The Signpost again?

What is Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Foundation) doing to challenge the environment they created, that clearly encourages and condones transphobia? An environment where "don't treat trans people like subhumans" is seen as censorship?

Apologies if this isn't the right place, but I have no idea where else to post this.

Wikipedia clearly has a problem with transphobia, and nothing is being done about it. Why? Is everything okay if I call it "comedy"? Hurt is hurt, abuse is abuse. It doesn't matter if you find it funny, being a shithead is still being a shithead.

3nk1namshub (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, apologies for not being more "well-spoken". I have no energy and I just can't bring myself to care anymore. I've only been paying attention here for about a week and it's clear the transphobia issue here is terrible. Y'all claim you want a more diverse editing population, but do nothing to foster an environment that allows that.

You have created the world's biggest repository of information. It is your responsibility to make sure people are safe here. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the deletion debate: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour Fences&Windows 23:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't care. As I said, you have fostered an environment of transphobia. Of course it isn't gonna get deleted if you take a vote, the people here are biased whether they admit it or not. It should never have been published, and that alone should be enough of a case for a nuking. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding on in another edit because my brain isn't functioning well today. The entire "don't delete" argument is "muh censorship". If you think it's censorship to treat people with basic human dignity, boy howdy do I have news for you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question has been answered, and this is well over a year old, so it isn't a discussion for ANI, which is for urgent (timely) matters. Someone should probably close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you took the time to read anything I said. If you could at least point me to where I should have posted it, that would be appreciated. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unhinged transphobic rants are not funny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Why_is_this_ok%3F

The comment left by Squared.Circle.Boxing is disgusting. If someone is clearly upset about being marginalized, laughing is abhorrent.

I just want an admin to say "transphobia is bad" for once. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Would an admin kindly review contribs and then apply a NOTHERE block to this RGW SPA? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What is an RGW, and how am I a SPA? If you actually read my contribs you'd see that I've made several contributions in many different places. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Transphobia is bad. I think you need to step away for a day or two and let yourself calm down and think more clearly. The Moose 04:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you want trans people to contribute, or do you want us to just be good little transes and not get upset when people attack us here? 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, thank you for saying transphobia is bad. Now, will you follow through, or is this just cosmetic? 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Levivich; NOTHERE block as this will only detract from writing the encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You're the one who called me a fascist for not liking transphobia, and you're trying to silence me? That sounds like {fascism,stalinism,hitlerism,what ever other buzzword you would like} 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:3nk1namshub, you were already told on the thread you started above that the matter was discussed and settled by the community over a year ago. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by opening two simultaneous new threads on it now, but that coupled with your edit history makes it appear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to pick arguments and chastise anyone who disagrees with you. If you'd like to avoid the boomerang, I suggest you drop the stick and move on (unless you'd like to open up a new thread complaining about Wikipedia's callous disregard for stick-related horse violence). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And I explained why that was a laughable "argument". I opened a new thread, and was advised to open one on Jimbo's talk page. Just doing what people tell me to do. I'm not picking arguments, I'm upset people are being openly transphobic. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• This may help: Talk:Autism#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_15_June_2020. EEng 04:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That is an old issue. I was blocked for 24 hours, and apologized to everyone involved. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fifteen days isn't so old, and it's informative nonetheless. People who appear out of nowhere to do nothing but demand that everyone attend instantly to their urgent concerns never end well. Cool your jets. You're not the only constituency that's suffered. EEng 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you search the internet for "fallacy of relative privation". 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you better look it up (and while you're at it, ask around about the likely outcome of a battle of wits with me). For those playing along at home, the fallacy of relative privation is (as applied here) the dismissal of an issue because "it could be worse" or "your complaint isn't as serious as this other person's". I didn't say your concern is obviated by others' concerns; I pointed out that others' concerns are valid and deserve attention as well, so your may not be attended to as promptly and intensely as you'd like, or with the outcome you personally desire. EEng 05:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @3nk1namshub: transphobia is unacceptable and that page and its contents are fucked up. But this is not the hill you should choose. Let the signpost garbage be a badge of shame to its creators and proponents. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• 3nk1namshub's user page has basically turned into a rant against Wikipedia's refusal of nuking the offending diff, and calls the editor who made it a "moron". I tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:G10 for now. I support a WP:BOOMERANG block for this user. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 04:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Since they are attacking everyone, including people trying to help them, I'm inclined to think that they are likely a deliberate troll, or at least lack the competence to be editing here. The Moose 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Moose: Sorry. I'll go now. 3nk1namshub (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

One last thing, sorry. I'm upset. I'm angry at a systemic issue that is very alive here. Is this the right place to vent? Definitely not. However, it's upsetting that you cannot see another option other than "troll or [insert insult]". There's a reason I'm upset, it's just not a good one. Have a good night. 3nk1namshub (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Some sleuthing shows to me that the user here is definitely not a troll (and I think Guy Macon was being not super helpful by calling them one, or using kidnapping as a metaphor. Guy: maybe...don't do that.). I think they are a legit user that is angry with the system, but doesn't understand how we work on Wikipedia. Hardly the first user to barge in demanding grand institutional change without realizing how we operate. They have expressed a desire to cool down. I think if they are receptive to positive contribution upon their return, we should keep them around. 3nk1namshub, I imagine you will read this. If so, I hope that you think about how to be a positive contributor. Outrage fixes nothing. But working with others and being a positive voice does. We need more diverse users, and the more diverse we are, the more welcoming we can be. If you really do wish to improve Wikipedia, and fix our many issues, we'd be glad to have you. But please realize that change is a slow process, and that we are much like a library. We ask that our patrons be polite and don't shout. If you can't follow those rules, we kick you out. But if you are WP:CIVIL and engage with other users meaningfully, there is so much you can do. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

I'm afraid @3nk1namshub: is now edit warring at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost. @Jasper Deng: and I have reverted his removal of comments. I have warned him but he reverted it and put this in its place. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

They. And you'll notice, I've stopped editing and brought up a new section on the talk page to discuss the issue after your final warning.

If I'm not mistaken, I can edit my talk page however I wish, including blanking. 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with you blanking your own talk page, it's more of the message you left in its place that concerned me because it seems to imply you're not willing to recognise you are going against Wikipedia rules, guidelines and common practice. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, and will remove it. I simply put it there because I was being spammed with messages for the same issue. 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that comment on your talk page now is much better than that confrontational one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. In the future I will try to be better about being confrontational. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @3nk1namshub: You can do that on your own talk page, but not the talk page of the Signpost. Please, some honest advice–it's past time to drop the WP:STICK on this issue entirely and move on to somewhere else.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue has only just started? I'm not okay with another editor using my autism to attempt to remove agency. It's horrifying. I attempted to gain consensus on the issue, but you closed it. What would you prefer? 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

How does it "remove" your "agency"? @3nk1namshub: My advice about dropping the stick still applies whether you consider this a "new" issue or not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Attributing someone's actions to their autism is a real problem for autistic people. It removes our agency because it attributes our actions to our autism, not our current emotions or intellect. I think I made it clear on Jonesey95's talk page, I was angry about a very real issue, my autism has nothing to do with it. Regardless, I apologize for undoing any of the comments. I should have waited for Jonesey95 to respond and gone to DRN or ANI if necessary. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@3nk1namshub: To be quite honest, I fundamentally agree with this in general; see my comment on the commenter's talk page. However, this falls far short of the standard for immediate removal. In general, it is better to have someone other than yourself remove comments when you are deeply involved in a heated dispute like this; your judgement will be unlikely to be objective.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You're completely correct, and again I apologize. I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia when this is over so I can calm down and make sure I don't make rash edits like that again. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As a message to any administrators who decide to take action on this. I would at the very least prefer a several day block to make sure I can calm down. I've had a very rough day, both on and off Wikipedia. That's of course not an excuse, just an explanation. I think some time away from the internet will be helpful, and a block will force me to do that. Thank you. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly suspect that we are dealing with a sockpuppet here. See User talk:Guy Macon#Stay away. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? First I'm a troll, now a sock? Alright, do me a favor and summon a checkuser (not sure how to do that myself). I've only ever edited from one IP and one account. I would appreciate if you stopped making unsubstantiated claims. If you have an issue with me, please back it up with evidence. Summoning @CaptainEek: as the user who lightly chastised you. Perhaps "warn" was not the right word. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • With due respect, @Guy Macon:, I think your continued involvement here is unlikely to be helpful. I do not think they are a sock; it was more likely a heat-of-the-moment comment. I deal with many sockpuppets and they do not seem to be one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not inclined to think that the editor is either a sock, or a troll. I do think there are NOTHERE concerns, but not the former two. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the recommendation of Jasper Deng, this will be my last comment here. but I think the evidence of sockpuppetry is compelling:[52]

• "I have asked you to stay away from me." At the time 3nk1namshub had never asked me to stay away from them. Perhaps a previous identity asked me?
• "You have been warned multiple times." At the time I had received zero warnings about or from 3nk1namshub. Perhaps I was warned about a previous identity?
• "Do not spam my talk page." One warning is not spam. Perhaps I warned a a previous identity?
• "Stop wishing bodily harm on me". I cannot find anything in the interaction analyzer that could have possibly triggered this reaction, nor do I believe that if 3nk1namshub had actually received anything even slightly resembling wishing bodily harm they would have failed to comment on it.

These are not the words of an editor who has never interacted with me in any way until seven hours ago. They are the words of someone who had a prior conflict with me, is now using a new identity, and forgot what got said using each account.

But, as I said, this will be my last post on this topic. To make it official, I now ask 3nk1namshub to leave me alone. I will do the same concerning 3nk1namshub. Don't post on my talk page. Don't reply to my comments to other editors. Don't mention me by name. Don't ping me. If 3nk1namshub fails to leave me alone, I ask that an admin warn them -- I won't respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

3nk1namshub asked you to stay away here . Mysticdan (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like 3nk1namshub has been indeffed by JzG as WP:NOTHERE Mysticdan (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Have a good wank

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Have a good wank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is making personal attacks towards me and User:Luk3 on their talk page. Can an admin revoke their TPA? SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 21:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joseph Benti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are recent BLP violations in the histories at this article, its talk page and my talk page. I wrote most of the article. I am now late for work. Can another administrator please revdel as needed? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Lilipo25 repeated and sustained conduct issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am opening this ANI subsequent to a previous one about this user here. Unfortunately, their conduct has not improved since then, and has recently been especially bad. The main complaint from myself around conduct is repeated false accusations and needless antagonism, which can be seen for example here, here and here. Many other editors have also experienced this behaviour, but my personal experience has been one of repeated, sustained abuse while I have tried as best I can to respond with infinite civility and patience, as I think is demonstrated in the examples given above. The previous ANI was generally viewed as being a content dispute, though I maintained it was not - I think it is now clear that this is very much not an issue of content but of conduct, as it spans articles and editors. As before, I do not want Lilipo to be banned or similar, but I absolutely want this behaviour to stop, as I think we all should. It is unacceptable that anyone should be free to abuse others in this manner. I welcome any way we can maintain Lilipo's contributions to wikipedia while losing the immense and needless distress caused by their conduct.Wikiditm (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Two positive points which I think are worth mentioning. Firstly, following the last ANI, there was an initial period of calm in which no abusive behaviour was directed at me. Secondly, on one occasion of a false accusation being made, this was retracted after I said it was untrue. These two examples I think give us something to work with, and sufficiently prove that the user is a good faith editor.Wikiditm (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm threatened me with another ANI (after the one they opened on me in May failed and they were told that there would be no sanctions against me) and I told them to go ahead because I refuse to be bullied into submission by threats of ANIs every time Wikiditm and another editor tag-team me or hound me and I object. The same three editors (Newimpartial, Bastun and Wikiditm) continued tag-teaming me on the Graham Linehan page, so I left and two of them - Wikiditm and Newimpartial - followed me to yet another page, Fred Sargeant, where I was editing (and where neither had ever edited before) and continued the edit warring. I left a message on the talk page of Girth Summit about the WP:HOUNDING and it got worse. Girth Summit has been trying to mediate the dispute on the Sargeant page, and told us to concentrate on that, but Wikiditm threatened to open an ANI on me if I don't toe the line, so I said to go ahead. I'm tired of being bullied and threatened.

I am sure this will go as swimmingly as the last one, which literally ended in the other tag-teamer, Newimpartial, suggesting that I (a Jew) am just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis murder Jews and that I want transgender people to be murdered (the evidence for this was that I had said nothing about crimes against transgender people in a discussion that had nothing to do with that). Apparently, Wikiditm is just going to keep opening these ANIs until some admin gives them a result they like better. So here we go again. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, literally not everything is about you. I gave you plenty of opportunities in that last ANI to recognize that violence and abuse against Trans people - especially sexual violence - is real, and you stubbornly refused to take any of those opportunities, which is where I pointed to how you were, in fact, just standing by while violence is perpetrated on others. What this has to do with your Jewish identity is not clear to me. Anyway, I am just placing this here for those who don't want to go back to the last ANI to reconstruct the context. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you were warned very clearly by Girth Summit in the last ANI not to state again that because I had not mentioned violence against trans people - which we were NOT discussing at all - that meant I wanted trans people to be "raped and murdered", as you stated then. And you also made an ugly remark in that ANI in which you suggested that because I had not talked about trans ppl being raped and murdered: (Quote: "Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me.") Lilipo25 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this has ended up here. We were, I think, making progress at the Fred Sargeant talk page, and had just about managed to thrash out a version of the disputed content through discussion, with all parties accepting some compromise and focussing on content. I'd hoped that by encouraging the parties to engage there, rather than commenting on each other on the gargantuan thread on my talk page, I might be able to help them edit together productively. I'm sorry to see a thread raised here when it seemed we were making progress; if it has been in any way prompted by a typo I made in this post, explained in this one, then I apologise again for that. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I also thought we had made good progress on the Sargeant page and appreciate your efforts there, but here we are. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Statement by Newimpartial - Lilipo stated above that I "followed them" to the page Fred Sargeant "and began edit warring". This is not a balanced summary of events. While I had been watching this page for some time, I did not become involved until Lilipo reverted the addition of sourced content on the subject's anti-transgender activism; when challenged, Lilipo removed the content again and again, without participating in the Talk page. When Wikiditm added another source to replace one of Lilipo's, the latter reverted twice, again without meaningful participation on Talk as this new material was added. (Lilipo did participate in meaningful discussion between the first and second cluster of reverts, and after the second cluster). It is typical of Lilipo's approach to dialogue that they describe this sequence of events as "following them to yet another page" and "continuing edit warring", seemingly without seeing the role of their conduct (POV edits and reverting) in creating the situation on multiple pages. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how long you had been following that Sargeant page without editing it, Newimpartial? You appeared there right after our disagreement on the Linehan RFC, when I gave up and left because I couldn't take being tag-teamed by you and Wikiditm any more. And you appeared on the Linehan article, where I was editing and you had never edited before, right after we disagreed on another article on the Vancouver Rape Crisis Center. Each time, you claim it's merely coincidence that you have taken an interest in whatever page I am editing after I disagreed with you on another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)

Newimpartial, indeed. Lilipo25 does make some compelling arguments. El_C 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As previously stated, anti-trans activists are one of the areas where I follow a large number of pages. Yes, Lilipo has created or alerted me to some of these, but my editing interest in this area is longstanding. I have never interacted with Lilipo outside of edits related to these anti-trans activists and organizations, their talk pages, editors' talk pages, and ANI. I have never shown any interest in Lilipo's edits outside of this area where their POV is problematic (as I have demonstrated elsewhere in this discussion, with diffs). Therefore I have done no HOUNDING (or "bullying" or "gaslighting" or "DARVO", among the many accusations Lilupo has thrown at me during the last year). Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I can partially accept that explanation. But both of you should remain matter-of-fact and professional by focusing on content. That is absolutely key. El_C 23:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As you well know, the material was removed because it was taken from a blog on Medium, which is listed as an unreliable source on Wikipedia. In addition, the blog made no attempt at NPOV. You reverted my edit repeatedly without improving the source, and when I gave in to most of your changes and got you to use better sources, the section was left up. You agreed to that. Then Wikiditm, who had also never edited the Sargeant page, immediately swooped in and deleted the small amount of my editing that was still left in the section and inserted biased language again that set off another editing war there. Even after Girth Summit became involved and told us to stop reverting and discuss, you continued changing the section without discussing first. Now I have compromised again and we have agreed on edits for that section.

I want to be clear that I will not be insulted and bullied with suggestions from you like you made in the last ANI, about me being like the people who let the Nazis murder the Jews (some of whom were my family members), or with grotesque descriptions of "bathroom pogroms" comparing the 150-year-long genocide of Jews to women wanting single-sex bathrooms, or with false claims that I want trans people killed because I said nothing about crime against trans people. You went far beyond anything resembling civility last time, and it should absolutely never have been allowed. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, you have repeatedly engaged in POV edits to whitewash the BLPs of anti-trans activists and articles on related groups, such as Fred Sargeant, Graham Linehan and the Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter. In this context, I think it is reasonable to ask whether you condone violence against trans people, since those whose pages you edit with such POV have been accused in reliable sources of contributing to violence against trans people. If you say you don't condone it, then I will accept that and that particular issue will be put to rest. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet again, you make the same outrageous accusation that you made in the last ANI, that Girth Summit specifically told you in that ANI was "unsavory" and not to do again. To accuse me of wanting violence against trans people is vile and libelous. This is the exact bullying that you subject me to nonstop while following me from page to page on Wikipedia. I cannot understand how you continue to get away with it with no repercussions. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, people who find a potential characterization "vile" condemn the course of action that characterization involves. Lilipo, do you condemn violence against trans people? Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I have been trying quite hard to avoid taking sides on this, to mediate and to encourage positive contributions. I still want to do that, but I have to say that this is unreasonable of you. Lilipo25 has done nothing to suggest that she would in any way support violence against trans people. Your repeatedly asking her to make a statement to that effect is very hard to understand. You have never made a statement to the effect that you condemn violence and death threats against people who are labelled as TERFs - I think that it would be completely unnecessary - and downright rude - of me to demand that you do so. I don't understand why you are going down this line. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I categorically condemn violence against TERFs. That isn't hard for me to do in good conscience. And what is more, I have not and will not edit articles in such a way as to condone or whitewash violence against TERFs. This seems to be to be straightforward.

On the other hand - and I am happy to supply with diffs upon request - Lilipo has repeatedly whitewashed articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people. Lilipo's edits have removed reliable sources, made accusations of bias where none exists, and written language into articles that defers unduly to the views of the article's subject in violation of NPOV and BLP policies. So in this context, and given the degree of outrage Lilipo displays when violence against trans people is implicitly compared to violence against other groups with which they have more sympathy, I don't think it is "hard to understand" why I find Lilipo's position on anti-trans violence relevant to this (and the previous) ANI discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not ever edited any Wikipedia article to promote violence against trans people or to 'whitewash' anyone promoting violence against trans people, nor have I in any way ever advocated that anyone should "stand idly by" by while violence against trans people is promoted. None of that is true. Newimpartial is making a disgusting claim to distract from the fact that they have made comments suggesting that I am just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill my family, and that they have followed me from article to article on Wikipedia where they have never edited before just to continue the harassment. I cannot believe they continue to get away with this, month after month, with no consequence. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, you have certainly whitewashed articles about people described in reliable sources as "anti-transgender activists": notably here, here, here, here, here, and

here, as well as here. You have also insisted on the insertion of the non-neutral POV term "womanfemale-born" (corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)), which has been used historically to exclude and promote violence against trans women, here, here, and here. On the other hand, I have never said that you have promoted violence against trans people or even that you are "just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill your family" -which is an absurd statement. I have, however, invited you to condemn violence against trans people, or at least state that you do not condone such violence, but you have declined to clarify the matter (as I have for example by condemning Anti-Semitic violence and violence against TERFs). Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You have literally JUST been told by TWO admins, Girth Summit and El_C to stop demanding that I "condemn violence against trans people" because I have never suggested that I in any way support it, ,and of course you go and do it again. Unbelievable.You just won't stop bullying, as usual.

Nowhere in any of those diffs does it show me "whitewash[ing] articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people" as you stated above. Nowhere. The use of "anti-transgender" to describe those people and organizations has been in great dispute by many editors, resulting in an RFC just in the past few weeks on the Linehan Talk page that ended with no consensus. But none of them have advocated violence against trans people at any time and that claim is simply false.

I have never insisted on or even suggested the use of the term "woman-born", which just sounds ridiculous outside of Shakespeare's Macbeth, in any article. In the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre article, the quoted source referred to "female-born women" and so I argued that we should use their terminology. I also asked you and another editor repeatedly to stop calling ME 'cis' as you knew nothing about me or how I identified. My request was refused.

And finally, the suggestion you made about me being like the people who stood by while Nazis killed Jews is in the previous ANI. I don't know how to do a diff for it, but it's near the bottom of ANI Archive 1036 and I have already quoted your exact words in this thread. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

To start at the end, Lilipo, what I actually said, Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me." cannot reasonably be translated as suggesting that [you are] just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill [your] family. Anyone who cannot operate with sympathy for others at the level of abstraction required to read my statement as it is intended should not, in my view, be editing sensitive topics on Wikipedia.

And once again you make a bald misstatement when you say I also asked you and another editor repeatedly to stop calling ME 'cis' as you knew nothing about me or how I identified. My request was refused. I never once, in that entire discussion, referred to you as "cis", and I can't imagine why you are repeating this demonstrably false accusation.

I am sorry for my mistake, and have corrected "woman-born" to "female-born" above, but this is still a non-neutral term used to promote violence against trans people, and the source you were taking it from was not using it in its own editorial voice but as part of the terminology used by the subject of the article, which you have been warned against relying on unduly.

As far as violence against Trans people is concerned, the first of your two BLP subjects "has been permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation" according to Twitter spokespeople. Your second subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man. Your claim that neither of these activists has condoned or encouraged violence against trans people is, ahem, unproven, and contradicts the available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you both need to step off the ledge. These implications about violence toward trans by attributing that sentiment to Lilipo25, is a bit much, though, Newimpartial. I am starting to lean on closing this report without action, but with some warnings attached. This is not a productive discourse at this time. El_C 23:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me here? First, Linehan was suspended by Twitter for saying "men can't be women", which is NOT "advocating violence against trans people". I can cite a bunch of sources that have called Twitter's decision wrong, including an Op-Ed by trans woman Dr. Debbie Hayton in the Spectator, if you'd like. And you are actually going to make us try the case of Tony McDade here, on an ANI page, by posting that kind of slander about Sargeant? FINE. This is a ridiculous attempt at further distraction, but you leave me no choice but to present facts.

McDade stabbed to death a 21-year-old young black man, Malik Jackson, minutes after filming an hour-long video and posting it on his Facebook page, in which he declared his intention to commit the murder and then commit suicide by cop by pulling a gun on police officers because, in his words: ""Just know before I kill myself through a shootout because that's what's going to happen. Cause I'm [going to] pull it out and you know these officers nowadays they see a gun they just [going to] shoot...I will not be going back to prison. Me and the law will have a standoff after I end you bitches' lives...I am killing and going to be killed, because I will not go back into federal prison". Sargeant has worked with the family of the victim, Malik Jackson, and stated that he had no sympathy for Jackson's murderer. Pink News, angry with Sargeant for calling out their incorrect reporting on the Stonewall riots (which Sargeant was at) then ran a hit piece on him claiming he was celebrating the murder of a black trans man by police. They never mentioned that McDade had just committed the murder of Malik Jackson, or that he had posted a video stating that he was about to commit suicide by cop.

NONE of that is even relevant to this discussion. You are, as usual, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at me in the hope that something will stick. It's just more bullying and I am beyond weary of it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Will no admin do anything about this, again? No one? Newimpartial can just keep taunting me and bullying me with disgusting accusations like this about things that I have never implied or suggested, much less said, and do it again and again even after an admin tells them to stop, and there are never any consequences for them for it so it just keeps getting worse? The most they get is a mild rebuke about it being wrong that they just shrug off and ignore in order to continue the harassment. They follow me from article to article around Wikipedia to continue this bullying. How is this okay? Lilipo25 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't harassment, Lilipo. It was a fairly simple, yes or no question, which you have chosen not to answer. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And lest any Admin wonder where this interaction started, I would point to the discussion recorded here. I will not pretend that I was infinitely patient or perfectly well-mannered in that discussion, but the series of personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations which Lilipo laid on me on that Talk page are beyond anything I have encountered on Wikipedia, and I have been editing "Culture wars" topics here for quite some time. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I have to agree with Girth Summit. You are skirting toward the realm of provocations. El_C 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there something "provocative" about my posting the link to that Talk page discussion? I'm not sure what you're reacting to, here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm making a general point about you seeking disclosure of allegiances from other contributors. That can come across as a bit much. El_C 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, fair. But as far as "allegiances" go, Lilipo believes it is fine to ask interlocutors about COI so long as the question is are "logical". Do you agree? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

First, El_C, let me point out that my asking Wikiditm if they had a COI in an article was the subject of the LAST ANI Wikiditm took out against me (where Newimpartial engaged in these same bullying tactics toward me, and where it was decided that no sanctions against me were warranted). So Newimpartial is now shopping that decision to a new admin in hopes of a different decision. Secondly, I believe Wikipedia policy states that asking if another editor has a COI is permissible. Thirdly, Newimpartial themself just asked me today in the Fred Sargeant article if I have a COI, and I was happy to answer. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking a user to disclose whether they have a conflict of interests (I recommend uw-coi on the respective user talk page), is a totally legitimate query to make when one is in doubt. El_C 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor lies and removes my edit on talk-page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I asked Kurdiyate352 to explain why they removed census information on Tuz Khormato and the explanation was that the info could not be found. That is a blatant lie and they also mischaracterize the content of the book which makes it clear that they have not read it. Moreover, when I asked for clarification on the talkpage, the editor removed my edit.[53]. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly merit to this. The source is subtitled "Politics, Travel and Research in North-Eastern Iraq, 1919-1925" but it nevertheless does reference the 1947 census multiple times, which Kurdiyate352 keeps removing. I also noticed that Kurdiyate352 linked to offsite attacks of Semsûrî and immediately afterwards left a Kurdish tea WikiLove message at their Talk page which comes across as very passive aggressive. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Kurdiyate352's linking to offsite twitter personal attacks is a disturbing practice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As you have stated, the 1947 census is referenced in the book. Kurdiyate352 first claimed that there was no census done in 1947[54] and after proving them wrong, claimed that the census was not mentioned in the book. I frankly don't have time to argue with someone who blatantly lies to push for their POV and their removal of info on Tuz Khurmatu should be readded. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the sourced statement, but I added it to the History section where it seems more appropriate. Woodroar (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruption continues on both the main page and the talkpage[55][56]. Also, they seem to have breached the 3RR rule which should also be taken into consideration. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This seals the deal for me. Wikipedia:NOTHERE.[57] --Semsûrî (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor vandalises pages with ethnic propaganda

Semsûrî has been vandalising pages about Assyrian history, removing thousands of characters and pages of history, replacing it with Kurdish propaganda. I have asked to stop and tried to revert the edits but they do not listen. Ahmedo Semsuri adds fake statistics and propaganda to claim Assyrian-majority areas and Turkmen-majority areas in Iraq as Kurdish (which they are not). --Kurdiyate352 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A cursory look through Semsûrî's contributions don't show any of that. You should supply DIFFs of any wrongdoing, otherwise this is a groundless personal attack. Woodroar (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have combined these sections as it is the same issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. El_C 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dyll222

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting administrator assistance regarding edits on articles such as Ovation Brands. The editor in question persistently adds unsourced information and is not engaging in talk page discussion, and refuses to reach a consensus, instead adding comments through edit summaries such as the ones here and here that lean towards WP:PA.

Edits involving the unsourced additions include the following: (1 2 3 4)

I've tried to follow guidelines per WP:DDE so I'd appreciate admin assistance to resolve this as best as possible. Rosalina2427 ^(talk) 23:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. El_C 23:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bahati

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

Bahati registered in March 2006 and has accumulated 226 edits at time of writing. His history is one of inactivity punctuated by disputes. I encountered him at Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he is employing a variety of creative arguments for not following sources in stating, as fact, that Molyneux is a white supremacist. Going back to his previous actiove period, which involved Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I found edits like [58] and [59], which promote Islamophobic comments by Richard Dawkins but demand that criticism of those comments be excluded.

On the one hand, past history indicates that he will probably go back into hibernation soon. On the other, it also suggests that he will be back again, probably at another racially charged article.

Does this rise to the level of a possible editing restriction? Guy (help!) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to post a warning about WP:TENDENTIOUS editing over at Stefan Molyneux for not dropping the stick as it is just the same arguments over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I support you using the DS to impose a topic ban from the topic area of race and ethnicity. El_C 10:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, I can't, per WP:INVOLVED, but also it doesn't fall clearly into any specific sanction area. Guy (help!) 11:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected. I guess the Committee's ruling on various race facets over the years have not resulted in a topic area under restriction. I mistakenly thought that this was the case, but upon closer examination, you're right, it doesn't. Has the user edited productively any other topic area, though? If so, a community topic ban might be due. If not, perhaps a normal WP:DE/WP:NOTHERE indef would be preferred, instead. El_C 11:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an indefinite block till they address these problems? Whatever restrictions we impose, they could pop up afresh with the same problems somewhere else at a later time. Then we'd need to start all over.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I'm willing to go ahead. El_C 12:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The allegedly islamophobic comments by Richard Dawkins: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-accuses-ahmed-mohamed-of-committing-fraud_n_55fed260e4b08820d918fe9b?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&guccounter=1 (the source used in the article at the time). They don't mention or refer to Islam in any way. IIRC there was no criticism of his comments included in the WP article, but of him in general. I maintain neither would be appropriate for inclusion in the article. I have made no edits to the Stefan Molyneux article nor intend to. The prolonged discussion on the talk page of said article is, in my estimation, a product of apparent lack of consensus about important properties, facts and policy interpretations surrounding issues raised, not issues themselves, which keep prompting correction and some repetition to provide context to the correction. Guy is correct to refer to my hibernation, due to which I'm not familiar with this process. If I am supposed to defend myself against an accusation I must admit I'm not sure what the accusation is. If hibernation itself, my interest in racially charged articles or my arguments on the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and Stefan Molyneux talk pages are actually the issue I am, in the absence of details as to what I did wrong, unrepentant. Bahati (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, the "Richard Dawkins is not an Islamophobe" card has been played before, without success. Guy (help!) 12:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I'm not playing that card. I'm playing the "Guy is incorrectly claiming that a particular set of Dawkins' comments are Islamophobic" card. Though I'm not really sure why. Would inclusion of islamophobic comments in WP articles be against policy? EDIT: to clarify, I didn't include comments in question, since removed, into the article. I'd still like to know if that would be against policy, but also if the same goes for arguing for their inclusion. Bahati (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

On Stefan Molyneux there is consensus, one VS many.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I conceded that multiple times fairly early on. However, people are still talking and so am I where appropriate. If that's a bannable offence all I can do is apologize and ask to be pointed to the relevant policy article describing what I did wrong. Bahati (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So why then still argue if you accept you do not have consensus? JzG time to just let him have the last word.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

To make sure that there is common understanding of the various aspects of the issue and that my points are understood in the way I want them to be. It would be silly to declare lack of consensus before that. BTW, barring more suitably annoying additions to the Molyneux discussion I'm done talking about it. A tip: if you don't want me to have the last word, for some reason I won't pretend to understand, definitely don't ask me a question. Bahati (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, you are risking sanctions with these responses, also. Which may get imposed, regardless. El_C 14:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

El_CThat's okay, if I'm doing something wrong I deserve sanctions. I can only hope someone in the present company, at least three of which seem to be administrators, will find it prudent to inform me what that is. Although one of them making blatantly false claims and misrepresenting my response to them doesn't warrant much hope. Bahati (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jmgwilson

User:Jmgwilson is convinced that calling the black Marvel Comics character Brother Voodoo a "character" instead of a "superhero" is evidence of racism. Through edit summaries, an IP first let him know there's consensus preferring the neutral term [60], then later gave examples of white characters not described as "superhero" [61] to counter the OTHERSTUFF arguement.

The IP alerted the Comics Project, which is how I got involved. I confirmed the IP was correct per WP:PROTAGONIST. Jmgwilson is aware of that discussion, and he reiterated that not using "superhero" is racist. I corrected the pages he pointed to as OTHERSTUFF here and here. I informed Jmgwilson of these changes and invited him to do the same.

In response, Jmgwilson (editing as an IP and manually citing his user name) made it clear he planned to continue violating WP:PROTAGONIST until someone else removed "superhero" from all other articles. I advised against doing that, but I was ignored.

While I typed this, User:Izno reverted and gave Jmgwilson a warning for edit warring. I'm not certain what level of restriction would be best here, but I'd like some admin action to stop the disruption while he realizes why his behavior is disruptive. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:FILM does not mandate how comic book articles are written. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

But consensus does, and the Comic project has long relied on that bluelink without adding it to the Comics MOS. I tried to find some links in the archive, but "character", "neutral", and "superhero" aren't very effective search terms. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. The only reason it is removed from Brother Voodoo is racists moderators is obviously not great for an edit summary, but that aspect of the dispute and the edit-warring seem too brief for WP:ANI. As far as the rest goes, even putting aside the fact that WP:PROTAGONIST is in MOS:FILM, the manual of style for film is a guideline and not a policy document. You could perhaps bring someone to ANI for egregiously disregarding longstanding MOS guidelines to the point where it's disruptive or raises WP:COMPETENCE issues, but I don't think you can do so just for going against a relatively obscure part of one guideline; in fact, plenty of MOS the more obscure or specific guidelines are treated as advisory rather than being rigorously followed. As it says in WP:ENFORCEMENT, enforcement normally relies on community norms and discussion first; admin intervention is for cases where it is clear a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy) (emphasis mine.) In other words, if you want to bring someone to ANI for a MOS violation, you have to show that it's egregious enough that their action violates policy as well, or that the guideline serves to implement some policy (ie. WP:RS is technically a guideline, but serves to implement WP:V, so most violations of it are also policy violations; I'm not seeing how "don't call people superheroes" has the same force or importance to it, so disputes over it are still just content disputes.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

My concern was this edit, where he said he planned to continue editing against consensus. The intent to edit war with a RGW mentality is why I brought it here. Everything else was background. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this ANI request is premature at this time. Let's see if he stops edit warring first. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41

Probable block evasion: 103.60.175.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making hundreds of edits (semi-automated) making color changes to tables in articles & templates, & leaving no edit summaries. This has made edits that appear to be identical to 103.60.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has been blocked for two years. Yesterday, another attempt at block evasion, 103.60.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked. Peaceray (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Disruptive edits past 4th & then two final warnings. Peaceray (talk)

Discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51

 Please see the discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51. Peaceray (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked and edits rolled back. A rangeblock might be possible. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Thanks! EdJohnston & I have brought this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests/Archives/37#103.60.175.51. Mdaniels5757 has declined this request with this reasoning: "The range seems to belong to a normal ISP, so I wouldn't block for being a colo/webhost or similar. If there was no collateral, I'd recommend blocking the /24 anyways, but it looks like there would be some collateral (see Special:Contributions/103.60.175.51/24 pre-July), so playing whack-a-mole is probably the best option." Peaceray (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Nah, per my update there (which I think I pinged you on) "Yeah, notwithstanding the collateral (see the edits from May), a block of the /24 may still be warranted (just not a proxy block)." --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: Thank you for the clarification. I think that I must have misunderstood. I think that if this editor resurfaces on another IP in the same range, we should proceed. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This behaviour has been ongoing for, I think, nearly two years and has been voluminous. Yes, if it happens once more, a rangeblock would be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage in Islam/Slavery in Islam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know anything about the subject and I'm not interested in it. The revision history was a shit show of reverts (edit warring) and moves until CambridgeBayWeather WP:MOVP'd the page. I hope that interested administrators and editors could take a look at the page and see if they can resolve the dispute. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An uninvolved admin's eyes, please

On User talk:Pasword wiki there is a Discretionary sanctions alert notice, placed at 19:23, 28 June 2020‎ by NitinMlk. Since that date and time my perception is that Pasword wiki has made edits in potential contravention of that notice. I would appreciate the eyes of an admin to be run over the contributions history and individual edits made with a view to deciding if my perception is correct.

I am about to notify both the editors of this discussion on their talk pages Fiddle Faddle 09:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Dif's please. Too old, too tired, and too dyslexic for WordSearch. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I guess I can supply a load of diffs. But it is genuinely simplest to look at their contributions record, and to note that they are editing in highly contentious BLP areas and effectively adding caste (a truly contentious issue) to the names of living people. Perhaps we might just look at this one? Fiddle Faddle 09:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't need a lot of diffs, just a few of the most egregious ones or ones which are otherwise noteworthy. El_C 09:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, * try this one with no refs or faux refs Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a low quality edit, but I'm not sure that that, in itself, is actionable. El_C 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, I see Sitush has been pinged. His opinion carries far more weight than mine in matters of caste. I will defer to him Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, always happy to defer to Sitush. El_C 09:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, yeah, please cite the relevant diffs directly to this report. El_C 09:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Caste issues? @Sitush:, can you sift this? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking now. I think I have had some dealings with them. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

See below. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, a bitter description of how the DS conditions are not being met. Or how they are offending? Gah. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, educating the user as to how they are editing incivily or disruptively before filing here is best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, apologies. I've been on an extended wiki-break for several years. I forgot more than I ever knew Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Been there. Done that. Welcome back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

LOoks like more unsourced editing. Which can be blockable w/o going through the DS stuff'09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if there is a pattern of unsourced edits, then the user may be sanctioned on that ground. El_C 09:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've only looked at stuff since they got the DS alert on 28 June but note that there are plenty of templated warnings on their talk page prior to that date, including ones relating to sourcing.

• This is no worse than what was there (the sources mention both a Gujarati use and that they were herdsmen, so both should be mentioned - I'll assume using "farmer" is just a language issue)
• This has a decent source and one that is a mirror - they may not be aware of mirroring
• There are a lot of sourcing issues at this caste list. Have they been made aware of the info at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists?
• No idea where they got the info for this edit - unsourced and not mentioned in the article body as far as I can see. May be right, may not be.
• Similarly, not sure where they got the Hinduism from for this edit, although it is likely that historically they were Hindus simply because Sikhism is a much later development. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've issued an escalated warning to the user: further unsourced edits are likely to be met by sanctions. El_C 10:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush. I gave them the link. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you one and all for picking this up. Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

IP repeatedly leaving unwanted message on my talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I asked 90.226.9.16 to stop leaving messages on my talk page after it became clear that a discussion we were having was going in circles. I first asked the user to stop on June 16th. The user left me two more messages on the 17th. I asked again, and the user left another message on the 20th. I cleared out my user talk page the same day following the advice from help desk, but on July 1st the user left yet another message. Furthermore it seems like the user was trying to pit me against another user by vandalising chopsticks. I asked for my talk page to be semi-protected, but apparently that is not allowed for my case. I just want to stop receiving any further useless notification from the user. How hard does it have to be???? --Yel D'ohan (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That IP address used to belong to the blocked user, BjörnBergman. Frankly, it seems there's a good chance it's still that same person, evading their block. I base this on the continued focus on longevity articles, such as this (and other) edits to Jiroemon Kimura, made in June, and this edit to List of the oldest people by country made in March. The account is probably too old for an SPI, though, and I'll note that the IP isn't focusing exclusively on longevity articles. Nevertheless, I suggest a block for the behaviour raised above, and making it an extended block given the likelihood that this is a blocked user returning to cause trouble. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As the IP repeatedly posted after being asked not to, I've blocked them for a week for WP:Harassment. If the behaviour recurs after that, I'll make a longer block on notification. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's a delight to realize how long since there's been any real longevity-related trouble. Remember what things used to be like? EEng 09:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• EEng—why are you adding/restoring images to the Brooks criminal history section here here and here? Why are you doing that? Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why are you hassling EEng about an unrelated matter at an ANI thread about IP disruption at longevity articles? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

103.60.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making hundreds of edits (semi-automated?) making color changes to tables in articles & templates, & leaving no edit summaries. This has made edits that appear to be identical to 103.60.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who recently has been blocked for two years. I am in the process of rolling back the disruptive edits. Peaceray (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 2 weeks. They made about 400 edits on July 2, and only a handful before that. I'll also make a report at WP:OP to see if this IP is an open proxy. WHOIS says that this IP is part of a /24 range hosted by Mazeda Networks in Bangladesh. mw:ORES is flagging some of these IP edits as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41

 Please see the discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41. Peaceray (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steve Dabliz spam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Starting in June, various users have created or significantly contributed to spam articles about Steve Dabliz, a non-notable Australian actor. These editors are:

• Ishita1119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Arnobrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected sockpuppet)
• Zahir1959 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected sockpuppet)

• Dodolzk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amr gamal eldin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected sockpuppet or meatpuppet)
• AnastassiaDL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ahmed.ali ibragem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see, most of these editors have already been blocked, but that's not stopping more from coming in and recreating the article (under different names, such as Steve Dabilz, Steve ‘Stuzz’ Dabliz, and Steve dabliz stuzz). There appears to be some sort of elaborate meatpuppetry going on here. Almost all of the accounts have disclosed that they are being paid to create the article and are contesting its deletion with "This person is famous and notable enough." or something very similar ([62], [2], [63]). I think the only was to deter the creation of this spam article is to block all users that are not already blocked and WP:SALT all article and draft titles that were created about Dabliz. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have salted those pages. El_C 23:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A job for the title blacklist, I think - we have no other articles on people with that surname and it appears very rare. I will sort it. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is plagiarizing another editor wrong?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to ask whether editors should be allowed to plagiarize another editors work almost verbatim without giving credit?

For example I have have recently in my user space at User:Mabuska/Normans being doing a rewrite of the Norman invasion of Ireland article. I notified that articles talk page I was doing a rewrite in my user space.

As of today I have just realised that one editor @Asarlaí: has been copying bits and pieces from my user space and claiming as his own work by not attributing it in his edit summaries.

The prime example is this edit [64] on the 30th June. Not only does he add the exact same sub-section header as in my user space "Role of the church" subsection , he even copies an entire block of text minus the year that I have written in my user space on the 28th June. Other additions in that edit of his are also direct lifts from my work such as Bernard of Clairveux and his Life of Malachy etc.

Surely this is wrong and bad faith behaviour? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This would seem to fall under WP:CWW: Wikipedia's page history functionality lists all edits made to a page and all users who made these changes, but it cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. Such attribution should be in the edit summary. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me like you should have waited more than 20 minutes for them to respond to you before coming here. --JBL (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Mabuska, I added more detail after doing my own research and looking back at my notes from 2015, when I tripled the article's size. Most of what I added isn't covered in your draft, and that sentence is only a small part of my new additions. The sentence is similar to yours because we both took it from the same source, pages 56-57 of A New History of Ireland, Volume II, and because there are only a few ways to re-word that. I went with what I felt was the best way of wording that phrase. If it helps, I can remove that line so you can re-add it yourself?
The heading is "Role of the church" because what else would I name a section about the role of the church in those events?

Your tone on the article talkpage has been rude and aggressive from the outset. After downgrading the article, you said I am "to blame" for making it "an absolute mess", accused me of "promoting a highly biased narrative" and suggested my references don't support what's written – without evidence. I asked for specific examples, suggested we work together, and welcomed any well-sourced additions. Instead, you became unusually defensive and said "I have not forgotten your issues with sourcing when you went by a different name", which is presumably raking up some incident when I was a new editor. This behaviour is surely incivil and needs to stop. ~Asarlaí 04:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical role is one way. Influence of the church is another. It is simpler for me to spend my time doing a rewrite, which I was going to put up for scrutiny before any of it is put in the article, than to go through all of the specific issues. The reason why I'm sandboxing a rewrite is to prevent article disruption from constant changes to style and format. The fact you have now felt the need to go and make so many new edits to the article shows it had deficiencies.

Could I have handled it better? Yes. My initial response was spur of the moment and I decided to be WP:Bold in doing a rewrite in my user space. Did I blame you for the state of the article? Yes, but not solely you, though I only named you as you were the main contributor. Other editors have a lesser role to play in it. But I apologise for that and my tone.

Regardless of how many ways can you word something and copying stuff directly from another editor, you could of asked. Mabuska ^(talk) 05:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no comment on how this was handled, or anything except the copying stuff. Regardless of whether other editor's contributors are "small", if they are subject to copyright you still need to comply with their licence terms, or you are responsible for WP:Copyright violations. If it continues you should be blocked. Editors should not expect their copyrights will be less respected than anyone posting content outside wikipedia. So unless you are sufficiently an expert on copyright law to be certain nothing you have copied is subject to copyright, what you should do is comply with the advice at WP:Copying within wikipedia. There is no need to let an editor remake any edits. Instead you should ensure that sufficient attribution is provided when you copy content from elsewhere, as that page suggests. Expanding the text even significantly is no excuse for failing to provide the necessary attribution for any copyrighted content. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Reading more carefully, I may have misunderstood. It sounds like you are not saying that you only copied a small amount of content from the OP but instead that only a small portion of the content is similar and it's not because you copied from the OP but because you use the same source and even with attempts to avoid WP:Close paraphrasing you both came up with similar wording. If my new interpretation is correct, I apologise for my initial comment. If you didn't copy any content from any other Wikipedia page, then there's of course no need to provide any attribution to that Wikipedia page. However I'd urge strong caution if you read that draft even if you don't think you copied from it. Just like there's a risk of close paraphrasing an external source you read even if you are not directly reading it when writing, there's a risk of inevitably copy another page even if you don't think you are. Given the complexities, it may be better to attribute the draft, even if you don't think you copied anything from it if you read it before or while making your changes. That would reduce the risk of an unintentional copyvio. Of course if you never read or didn't read it until after your changes, then it's obviously not possible you were influenced by it so there's no need to attribute but it's unclear to me from your response if you are claiming this is what happened. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to confirm that the edits are copying (it looks likely). If they are, it is very bad behavior and admin action should occur. Appropriating text from a user's sandbox is extremely discouraging and irritating and this noticeboard should stamp it out. If it's not too messy, it might be best to warn the user adding the text that they must stop, and then delete recent revisions of the article to remove the copyvios from history. After that, Mabuska should add the text ASAP. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Stamp nothing out, when we publish changes to our sandboxes, we agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. It is discouraging and irritating, though. Those who do it here will naturally be despised somewhat by those it irks, that's punishment enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeking sanctions against Asarlai, just whether this is plagiarism. I think they probably will gather from the response that they should attribute such contributions in future. Having said that their reasoning of only so many ways to word something is not exactly true when one looks at the source which has far more information than I used for that specific example, some of which could have been added. I also feel there was more than enough scope for something original even if similar to mine to be written. Mabuska ^(talk) 05:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's crazy tricky, and copyright infringement cases often last years or more, using trained professionals. Even reading up on how copyright judgements tend to lean is hard intellectual work. I recuse myself, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The simple answer to the question posed in the title of this section is "yes". Plagiarism is by definition wrong. The real question is whether this was plagiarism. And plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright violation. This discussion really needs better focus, starting with a better title, before anyone can comment productively. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to say this could well be a case of two people saying the same thing in a very similar way. wp:agf.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If one looks at my text on the 28th and Asarlai's on the 30th as linked too at the start of this discussion and compare the source which Asarlai provided above with page numbers, you will see it is not a case of two editors simply coming up with the exact same phrasing considering what I left out. It is a case of copying. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to request this discussion be closed. The question was answered and a relevant policy noted: WP:CWW. No further action is sought or needed. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BRM Aero Bristell Malicious Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BRM Aero Bristell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users are maliciously deleting information from the BRM Aero Bristell wiki page. Information had previously been omitted and was then added. Information was sourced and then users deleted the information I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandak2020 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shandak2020: Actually, your canard is unfounded in that reasons have been explained in the edit summaries. This is a WP:content dispute and you have been wp:edit warring. Please discuss on the article talk page why your preferred version is better. Please discuss content without insulting those with whom you disagree. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Shandak2020, you're headed straight for an indefinite block if you keep this up. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shandak2020: The content you added violates the manual of style and is promotional in nature. The sourcing has been called into question. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly we have a WP:COI issue here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We have engagement now at Talk:BRM Aero Bristell, so this thread can probably be closed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What to do about talk page stalkers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When someone is going about things and minding their own business cleaning up their own talk page which they have the right to do, and another editor, unprovoked, feels the need to come and chime in with their two cents for no reason, what can one do about that? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Notify the other user of this thread and invite them to discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like the logical thing to do, but supposing that they are not the rational type and don't care? Especially when their offenses include a false allegation, and a threat? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

And learn what wp:stalker means.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

And wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), , they messaged you about WP:CRYSTAL. You then reverted that message with the edit summary (false accusations, no apology either, too many *ssholes in wikipedia). They re messaged you with a further explanation. You are certainly OK to revert messages, but the edit summary "(These pieces of sh!t don't listen, continue to falsely accuse, Scumbags are everywhere)" is incivil. They asked you to discuss content, politely. (That's all back in April. There followed some mediawiki messages.) They then asked you to provide citations on 2 July. You removed that message with the edit summary "(Too many **sholes in this life) ". They responded with a NPA warning. You removed that warning with the same edit summary, more or less, as before. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I never mentioned anyone's name in that. If someone wanted to interpret it a certain way, I have no control over that. And we're getting away from the point here. I have the right to edit my talk page as I see fit. I'm not the one harassing anyone. I have five figures' worth of edits in Wikipedia and have had little trouble over time. But recently one editor came out of the blue and started giving people a hard time and making false accusations, and watched people's talk pages for whatever reason. A number of editors are complaining about that person privately because that is the only way they feel safe to do so. I don't need the aggravation, I have too many responsibilities and others I have to look after without having to deal with all this. This should be a place people can come to and relax. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to mention names, we can all read your talk page history and edit summaries. You have provided evidence that you have been rude, uncivil, and unhelpful. The other editor, the one you revert and blank, has been helpful and constructive towards your editing. You are very close to breaking many of the rules of conduct here and should maintain civility. If you don't want to be sanctioned, take a deep breath and move on. doktorb _words^deeds 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I said the filer needs to read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between harassment and talk page watchers. Sometimes if you have the answer to a question, it's harmless to answer that question. It sounds as though you have a problem which is not directly related to talk page stalkers, though.doktorb _words^deeds 14:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Also sounds as if Johnsmith2116 might not, actually, want to draw further attention to their talk page and how they respond to (relatively) reasonable messages... ——Serial ^# 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

e/c Hey User:Johnsmith2116 you need to learn the difference between being abusive to an areshole on your talk page, and somebody trying to help you. At the moment, you are the one being the arsehole. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just noticed the thinly veiled threat Johnsmith2116 has left on a user's talkpage ("you should hear what people are saying behind your back...This is the only warning.") I think we may need to look into making this a formal investigation into John's conduct, language and behaviour, re WP:CIVIL. doktorb _words^deeds 14:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That is taken the wrong way. I was trying to get across to them that other editors are fed up with him and have been discussing their frustration behind the scenes. There is no threat there. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This [[65]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Special:Log/block&page=User:Johnsmith2116 FWIW, OP has been blocked in the distant past for NPA, so maybe reread WP:NPA  ;) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(multiple EC) It's generally accepted that if you specifically ask someone to stay away from your talk page they should do so. So if someone keeps messaging you on your talk page there is an obvious solution. However you should be aware that if you cause problems and an editor cannot speak to you about it because you banned them, people at ANI may understand them bringing you to ANI even though the normal suggestion would be to speak to you first. And regardless, if you continue to violate our policies or guidelines when lots of people have tried to speak to you about it, you're likely to be blocked. You removing messages means you are supposed to have read them and taken on board any key advice, for example as self people have said, cutting out personal attacks. Continuing to call your fellow editors "assholes" or saying they are "not rational" suggests you failed to do so. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out it's fairly unlikely there were 265k of "false accusations" Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I considered messaging them, but their email option has not been enabled. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not email people over conflict on Wikipedia. Except in exceptional circumstances where privacy is involved, all communication surrounding what's going on on Wikipedia should occur in public on Wikipedia. You are obviously aware of user talk pages, so I have no idea why email even came in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(EC) If I may add 2 additional points. One we are not idiots, crouching things in hypotheticals doesn't mean we are going to ignore you clearly referring to another editor as "not rational". Two, in case it's unclear, the way to ask someone to stay off your talk page is to use something simple and polite but direct like "Hey, can you please not post on my talk page anymore (excepting compulsory notifications)?" It's not to go around calling editors assholes and expecting them to understand this means you want them to stay off your talk page. P.S. In case it's unclear, such a request should be posted either to your talk page, or to the other editor's talk page. While edit summaries have their uses, they shouldn't be used for things like this. And as I said email is a definite no-no. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnsmith2116: While we're here, you don't appear to have acknowledged or understood my warning on your talk page. Please start using edit summaries. They are a vital means of communication on this project and "(.)" is not an edit summary, it's a tit. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Boomerang requested. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Johnsmith2116: Oh come on. It's obvious from the above link readded here who you mean. Care to elaborate about this little post? @Wjemather: When a user responds with the hostility of this user, stay off their talk page and just report to an admin or here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Deepfriedokra for the notification. Yes, the biggest problem here (for me) is abusive edit summaries in response to being advised that certain contributions are problematic (violations of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NPA, WP:ES, missing references, etc.). For what it's worth, I thought the messages I left were fair and appropriate but always happy to be corrected. Not sure what else I can add here, but in future I'll certainly consider seeking an admin rather than responding myself in such situations. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• People's lack of self-awareness continues to astonish me. I mean, what possible outcome other than a boomerang could possibly result from this post? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Draft:Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are? By the way, the boomerang has hit it appears.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Boomerang dispatched. Blocked for 48 hours for egregious personal attacks in edit summaries, directed at a user who approached them civilly. Bishonen | tålk 15:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk Page of DreddHK is Pure Hit Piece

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was involved in discussion of an article for deletion. This person authored the article, I went to Talk Page and saw this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreddhk

Where do I begin on how many rules this breaks. Page he authored is deleted, looks like s/he has not been on Wikipedia for years, looks like someone wrote a note, deleted it and User put it back up and then we go into the Twilight Zone. I noted others have complained too but this seems to be nothing but unfounded, unsourced and potentially defamatory material that has just been left. Spelling is bad, also rambles on about seemingly being fired by subject of article s/he wrote. S/he also acted as if did not know subject and subject's brother (also left up attack on him).

Seems this person either has no knowledge that talk page guidelines apply to personal pages or just doesn't care. Been almost 7 years since they have been on so if they come here now then we know they have watched things!

I'm not going to blank the page as last person who blanked what they wrote got barked at and user then posted what was blanked back up (as if s/he wanted to keep up the note). I'm not trying to be lawyer here, but I understand defamation is crime in many nations and also each day something is up is another republication. 6 years, s/he may have made their point? ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC) ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the potentially offending content from the user talk page pending the outcome of this discussion. It can still be seen in the history. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to you Phil Bridger. The article nominated for deletion has been deleted, I wonder if the whole page should be blanked? I leave that with those of you who have more knowledge than me. ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits have been revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Four rangeblocks for Austin music vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request four rangeblocks for someone who is actively putting wrong facts into music articles. The IPs are all from Austin, Texas.

• Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:0/64
• Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:0/64
• Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:0/64
• Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:0/64

The location and area of focus, especially the interest in music by the Wombles (band), remind me of Verone66 who was indeffed in September 2018, but who continued to use Texas IPs such as Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93. This guy is a persistent pain. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months (all). El_C 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Awesome. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6 July 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User talk:Muboshgu was attacked by User:2600:1012:B160:FD21:0:4A:97A:8C01. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request lift of TBAN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting a lifting of my August 30, 2019 TBAN on dogs. In the decision was written "They may reapply here after a period of 3 months for the community to reconsider the same."

After having taken a several months hiatus from Wikipedia, I came back tentatively in December 2019, then strongly this March, and have been editing heavily since then. I haven't been accused of PAs or tendentious editing or advocacy or any of the other things that I was accused of in the ANI last year. Though I was told I could reapply after 3 months, I have allowed myself 10 months to pass before deciding to request it, both to be confident in my ability to work well with other editors (or walk away from hot spots) and to show others through my edit history (now 2,000 edits later) that I am here to build an encyclopedia and do so collaboratively. I have done a lot of observation and learning during this time, and can recognize what is acceptable and unacceptable within Wikipedia.

In the meantime, I have worked on cat articles, tiger articles, snake articles, state forests, parks, enhanced several articles on various topics that were PRODed or AfD'd, voted on AfDs, cleaned up articles after translations from French, joined some WikiProjects, worked on a bunch of list articles (I love lists), a bunch of history articles, articles on NRHP places, added my first images in Wikimedia, learned all about roses, historic African-Americans, and am currently working on a set of list articles related to the George Floyd protests and the taking down of Confederate monuments.

Please consider lifting my TBAN on dog topics. I am not particularly interested in working on dog breed articles, but occasionally I'm working on something that I'm editing across all articles (like the day I was hotlinking to an author using the author-link parameter, went through all of the cat articles but had to stop short because I couldn't do likewise for the dog articles he was cited in). Dogs are ubiquitous and very much a part of human life. I would also like to be able to just edit without worrying about whether or not someone is going to call me out on it because dogs might be involved, like the day I was editing animal sanctuary articles (tigers). I would like the freedom to be a Wikipedia editor without restrictions. I feel like whatever behaviors were present or were manifesting last year are not currently present, and my edit history will prove that I have the ability to edit in Wikipedia without getting caught up in similar problems.

— Normal Op (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: You sound unsure of what behaviors needed to change/have changed. Can you be more specific about what you did before and what you will do different now? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: For what happened, please see last year's ANI. It was messy and I couldn't even begin to summarize it except to say "butting heads". What I have learned since then is a lot of how to deal with people online that you don't know, cannot see, and cannot directly interact with. With regards to Wikipedia, that would include recognizing that few things need fixing right now, not directly engaging those who hold strongly opposing viewpoints as yours, that I can let things slide and don't have to fix everything, don't take it all too seriously, and that arguing against the viewpoints of others won't win support from other editors but more likely will alienate observers from yourself. I have even learned some de-escalation techniques, both for self and for online situations. If I sound unsure, it's because I don't like eating crow (who does) and wasn't even sure if this was the right venue to ask to lift a TBAN. My request above was framed more about my current contributions and less about my old dirty laundry. Normal Op (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm mostly OK with this as long as you steer clear of pitbulls. Guy (help!) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  ... and of course be very careful not to engage in any hounding or bitey behavior. EEng 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Note: Recycled joke, so no charge.

• EEng, I am responding while sitting on my sofa fully dressed, so I am also a joke recycler. Joking aside, I support lifting this topic ban, because the editor seems to understand how they went astray, and how to avoid that behavior. However, I must caution Normal Op that any disruptive editing in the area of dog bites or pit bulls or dog breeds or breed variants sometimes accused of being prone to bite will be met with a re-imposition of sanctions against you. You also need to be careful to use only the highest quality reliable sources. You were putting forward some exceptionally poor sources a year ago. Do not propose any sources unless you believe those sources to be reliable. It is disruptive to expect other editors to waste their time evaluating unreliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Normal Op must realise that there will be increased scrutiny of their editing in that topic editor, at least to begin with. It needs to be understood that the TB can be reimposed if necessary, and if reimposed will be much harder to get lifted again. That said, the appeal shows that the editor has matured and learnt from past mistakes, so let's give them a chance. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Non-admin. Seems like they've figured out the issue. Note: on topics you are really passionate about, it is really easy to get drawn in again. Might be best to avoid your hot-topic issues. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I very much appreciate the votes of confidence. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Question: Is there an admin or something that is supposed to make a decision and close this out? Normal Op (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I just thought I'd file an observation. I just found this user's TBAN situation here because he posted an unsolicited negative opinion as idle chat, about the world's most explosively controversial subject of an article. He opined to nobody or everybody, how sad it is that people are bullying the Confederacy here. I reverted that nuclear beehive, citing WP:NOTFORUM. Ignoring WP:NOTFORUM, he reverted that, citing WP:TALKO (as if I had somehow edited his comment), which actually also admonishes him not to engage in chat and opinions. Then he abused the archival function to pretend to hide his chat in the archive—but only his one new comment, added to an existing archive, as if archival will bless it with immortality. Then he further hounded me on my Talk page, abusing a warning template to yet again presume to instruct me on WP:TALKNO while ..... welcoming me to Wikipedia after lo my eleven short years. Then he came here to tell you guys how he doesn't do anything like all that. So I guess he's not touching dogs anymore, in favor of progressing to opening up some real talk about some sadness regarding the post-Floydian Confederacy and cemeteries. Just FYI or whatever. — Smuckola(talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MilesSmilesNow WP:NOTNOTHERE and possible sock

User deletes large stuff of information, he could replace the source but he instead deletes large stuff. WP:NOTNOTHERE and possible sock of User:ÖmerKocaTürk [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] Shadow4dark (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Based on his edit summaries, it seems he is only removing Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, which is a good thing. I will admit, it is odd for a new user to do so on the first edits, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• btw, the sockmaster you are thinking of is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drankcarat and if you have diffs that link the two and that is the only problem (the editing itself doesn't appear to be) then WP:SPI is the place to file. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

He is blocked. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

IP User Evading Block Thru Sock Puppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

84.203.69.48 has been blocked for a month due to disruptive edits. However, it seems the user is evading the block with a sock puppet as 84.203.70.13. 84.203.70.13's disruptive edit edits, shown here, here, and here are exactly the same as 84.203.69.48's edits, shown here, here, and here. I tried taking the issue to SPI but there has been no attention given to it so far. While I've been waiting, 84.203.70.13 continues to make disruptive edits, I reverted this one today. Armegon (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a month again. I'm not really familiar with this ISP, so I'm reluctant to do a range block. Anyway, these IP addresses seem to stick for a long time before changing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another rangeblock against Ottawa music vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone using IPs in the area in and around Ottawa has been vandalizing music articles, adding hoax material and wrong dates. Materialscientist blocked the previous range twice, the second time for a month. The top range on the list below is active now. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jul 2020 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:898:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Apr–Jun 2020 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:1F90:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked twice)
• Aug 2019 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:655:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Oct 2018 – Jul 2019 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:6E0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

These IP ranges seem to stay allocated for a few months. I blocked the latest for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Superb! Many thanks. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

vandal-only account

User account Real phil rudd was created on 2020-07-04 and since that time 100% of their edits have been unconstructive. Multiple warnings over a period of several days have done nothing to stop this behaviour. Sanctions might get the message across. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, The3Kittens has on the Chutti TV article made this threat, They're also edit warring over the content but figured the threat was far more important, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for that edit. Not to mention they were heading that way for the constant edit warring, however the legal threat was enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Many thanks RickinBaltimore for your swift actions here, I don't think I've ever seen someone be blocked that quick before! :), Anyway thanks again for your help it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-warring over canvassing notifications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can somebody please help impart some clue to Leemsj2075 (talk · contribs)? He's fresh off a 72-hour block for edit-warring and has been edit-warring again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea to reinstate a rather blatantly inappropriate canvassing "come and help" note for an RfC at Talk:Liancourt Rocks. I normally act as an uninvolved admin on those pages and would have blocked, but in the particular RfC in question I registered an opinion, so I won't do it on this occasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't want to make edit warring. Because I have been blocked by this reason. But the things that need to fix, must be fix. I want to solve this problem by discussion not edit warring. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 12:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And also I say I never meant to cause an edit warring. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It is actually quite easy to avoid edit warring: You just don't do it! And certainly not by repeatedly reinserting an inappropriate canvassing note against the advice of other editors (plural). --T*U (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse by IPs

• 93.138.138.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.138.124.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.136.87.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.138.73.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A group of similar IPs has posted messages in talk-pages of articles in which I have contributed or discussed (possible WP:HOUNDING), which included derogatory content and private information about me. Part of the messages have therefore been oversighted.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop lying nothing is written derogatory and private information. Just read it. Why are you lying to the administrators? They should ban you for lying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.73.127 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: There are oversighted revisions, though there's no way now to tell why they were oversighted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Tezwoo (talk · contribs) has also made edits at Talk:Croatia that have been oversighted. Any chance he could be operating the IPs? User:GeneralNotability did the block of Tezwoo and they might have some advice on this situation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I've actually unblocked Tezwoo per discussion with them - further investigation gave reasonable doubt about whether or not that IP was actually theirs. I can't see the oversighted material so no comment on what they may or may not have done. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits are oversighted due to some internal error because all those edits seem visible on the talk pages, on Talk:Croatia and Talk:Novak Djokovic [69], where I first noticed that. I would assume it's because the IP's did not sign their posts which created some strange bug after users tried to sign them. Tezwoo (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Tezwoo has nothing to do with it, I'm sure that he is certainly not connected with the disturbing behavior of these IPs. I requested oversight because of derogatory content and private information about me. I have e-mails as proof of those requests and the oversight team's approval. This behavior continued after that, which can be seen in this section as well.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, there were stranger accusations recently. Regarding the oversight, then there might have been an error during that action because all of the edits are still there on the talk page [70], even though the diffs can't be checked. Even a bot's edit was oversighted. Tezwoo (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tezwoo: Your edits are not oversighted, but it can't be checked because the oversighted text would also be visible.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying this. Tezwoo (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Chaipau at Bhawaiya

User:Chaipau keeps on edit-warring ([71], [72], [73]) at Bhawaiya without adhering to the sources and policies. In this edit, he changed the lead sentence against what the sources state, bordering on source falsification. Here, he removed the Bengali-language equivalent name which was added per MOS:LEADLANG. He keeps on referring WP:MOSIS to impose on this trans-boundary topic but MOSIS states, "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries". All these issues were already explained at the talkpage two days before, but the user seems to have no intention of fruitfully engaging to reach a consensus. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

user:Kmzayeem is displaying WP:OWN issues in that article. In this revert [74] they claim that the article is not "predominantly" Indian and that the primary language is Bengali, and therefore WP:MOSIS does not apply. The form of music is associated with the erstwhile Koch kingdom which is in India and the historical/cultural footprint of which spans India, Bangladesh and two Indian states-West Bengal and Assam. Chaipau (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bhawaiya spans multiple countries and linguistic regions, and WP:MOSIS applies. Nothing is lost by not having Bhawaiya not listed in the Indic script. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: 'Predominantly' in this context means articles that are solely related to India while Bhawaia is a music which relates to both Bangladesh and India which you have accepted yourself, how does WP:MOSIS apply here? --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kmzayeem: that predominantly means solely is new to me. Chaipau (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: What is 'predominantly' in this context then? And why do you think this article is 'predominantly Indian' when you said it yourself that it "spans multiple countries"? I think you are just gaming the system here. The stable version of the article had always carried the name in local script per MOS:LEADLANG before you started edit-warring. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kmzayeem: Why are you hung up on predominantly? WP:MOSIS was instated to handle precisely this type of conflicts that touch on "multi-cultural" issues. In the discussion Talk:Bhawaiya#Bhawaiya also belongs to India and even Nepal. your position has been that this is about Bangladesh alone. You have even taken the position that Bhawaiya is not an indigenous form in Undivided Goalpara district in Assam and when you were given references with quotes, you have pushed it down claiming Bhawaiya originated in North Bengal alone [75]. Here is yet another reference, this time from Bangladesh itself, which states unambiguously that Bhawaiya is native to Goalpara too [76]. Clearly you are displaying WP:OWN. Chaipau (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly an issue with your conduct as you are patently lying and giving false accusations. I have clearly stated this topic is a trans-boundary one and relates to both Bangladesh and India multiple times, both at ANI and at the talk page. Earlier I assumed you might be having problems with comprehension but now it appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead. As for my edit, it was also explained here at the talkpage, the quotation you added didn't say it anywhere that Bhawaiya originated in Goalpara. And the emphasize on the word "predominantly" is because it defines the scope of WP:MOSIS, why should we follow WP:MOSIS over MOS:LEADLANG which is the general guideline for all articles in Wikipedia? --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kmzayeem: The accusation of lying is a WP:PA, and you have to give a example where this happened. You have resisted the inclusion of Goalpara as region where Bhawaiya is native and your edit I have reported above is evidence of it. The reference I gave you earlier specifically says that Bhawaiya is from Cooch Behar and that it is also found in Rangpur and Goalpara. I have given additional reference here (above) that Bhawaiya is native to all these regions, including Goalpara.

WP:MOSIS overrides MOS:LEADLANG because WP:MOSIS is a special case made specifically for Indic scripts over the general MOS:LEADLANG. Moreover, Bhawaiya is also related to the Assamese language not just Bengali language. Since Bhawaiya is associated with multiple languages and regions, WP:MOSIS is applicable and not MOS:LEADLANG. The applicable part of the WP:MOSIS is: One reason why Indian scripts are avoided is because often there are too many different languages with their own native script, which can be original names for a topic. Additionally, there are too often problems with verifiability of the accuracy of the non-English spelling. A third reason is frequent disagreements over which native scripts to include; this led to a resolution to avoid all of them. Chaipau (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just a comment. The MOS stuff is guidance rather than policy. However, the rationale for excluding Indic scripts in the lead has a lot of sense attached to it that applies equally to articles relating to Pakistani and Bangladeshi subjects. In particular, we get a lot of back-and-forth going on with slight adjustments to the characters in those scripts or even wholesale replacement. This being the English-language Wikipedia, such changes are mystifying to most readers and occasionally even result in disparaging terms/pejoratives/insults etc being added by vandals and left lying there for weeks, months or even years. The ongoing nationalist issues affecting those articles (not to mention caste/tribe and religious disputes) make this a minefield. So, unless there is a compelling reason to include a native script, there really isn't much point and there is the potential for unwanted and hard-to-discern vandalism. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sitush: Yes, precisely. In many cases readers of English Wikipedia might not have the correct fonts in their systems and it makes no sense to have these scripts in the body either. In these cases, all the reader will see are empty boxes (e.g. Bhawaiya#Example). It makes no sense to have this only in an Indic script without romanization, and even then this has no meaning without a translation. So if these lyrics are associated with many scripts, should we give them in all of them? We may not need these scripts because we have the links to the different language articles on the left panel under "Languages". Chaipau (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: you have multiple times ([77], [78]) stated I'm suggesting this article is solely related to Bangladesh (which is an indirect accusation of nationalist edits) and after being shown instances where I have already explained I'm not, now you are asking for evidence of your lying. That's another form of harassment to be honest. @Sitush: thanks for your input, if it does apply to articles beyond the borders of India, shouldn't it reflect on the page? As currently WP:MOSIS suggests it only applies to "articles that are predominantly India-related" and not to articles about any of India's neighbouring countries. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just telling you (a) it is guidance, not policy; and (b) how things actually play out with these scripts. The row going on between the pair of you is perhaps in part a manifestation of that because it sure looks a bit like a nationality-based bust-up to me. But it is a content dispute and we have WP:DR for that, so I suggest maybe you both stop reverting each other and use the process. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sitush, excellent points. Guy (help!) 21:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

White supremacist activism in edit history of Allama123

Allama123 registered his username in 2012, performed a few chemistry topic edits, then disappeared for eight years. Returning in 2020, Allama123's flurry of activity has a very different flavor, with nearly every edit an attempt to skew Wikipedia into the direction of white supremacism:

1. At the Tucker Carlson (Fox News, etc.) biography, he changed "white supremacist" to "white identitarian" and diminished the respect for Vox, GQ and Media Matters.
2. Allama123 added a sympathetic interpretation to Ku Klux Klansmen fighting a Black man in a parking garage.[79]
3. At the biography of alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, Allama123 sympathetically reworded things to remove the idea of conspiracy from white genocide, turning it from a conspiracy theory into an actual white genocide. This was done using primary source tweets, deleting secondary source analysis from mainstream papers.
4. Allama123 removed conspiracy from the biography of hate speech fomenter Gemma O'Doherty.
5. Allama123 added another reference to the article on lynching, to help support the idea that Black men are not the only ones lynched in the US. The cited source from 1910 was reporting satisfying peace in Tampa following a lynching of two Italians (thus normalizing lynching.)
6. At the biography of Black activist and rapper Raz Simone, Allama123 added one nationalfile.com right-wing batshit crazy source calling Simone a warlord.
7. At the biography of Black Lives Matter founder Patrice Cullors, Allama123 added the label "Marxist" without context, to be used as leverage for political attacks. Marxism has three meanings, making it a very loaded word in a biography. Note that the cited source is a Cullors quote taken out of context, and that no third party observers have analyzed Cullors' political stance to determine which of the three Marxism meanings is at play.

Given this pattern showing the defense of white supremacist racists, and the attack on anti-racist Black activists, I propose that Allama123 be topic banned from American politics. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• The marxist label is entirely appropriate. She self-described and it was published in a reputable source. But the rest is block worthy. I'll take care of it.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• I gotta say this is not super compelling. The Gemma O'Doherty edit is probably correct actually, no idea why you reverted that one. The Raz Simone still has the warlord stuff, not a great source they added but seems like a content issue. Finally for the marxism stuff, they are self identified. If you feel more context is needed you are free to add it but it does not seem contriversial. A lot of this seems like a content dispute and you calling another editor racist. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Are you joking? Gemma O'Doherty is the very definition of a conspiracy theorist. In fact she's even described as those exact words in reliable media, which is unusual. Meanwhile, here's reliable sources (or her own social media) for COVID nonsense 5G COVID 5G Anti-Vax and this is a blog but it's the famous (and hilarious) Drawing unicorns is making our kids transgender!. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: They may well be a conspiracy theorist, that is not the problem. The problem is that a single opinion article was the source used to make that statement. I could not care less if they are one or not. I do care that we follow proper sourcing and BLP policy to do so. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: Yes, but it wasn't making the statement in Wikipedia's voice. It was, quite correctly, framed as an opinion by that journalist - who is incidentally a high-profile author who has written about scandals in Irish life, not just some random staffer - see Michael Clifford (journalist). And there are many other reliable sources in the article for her conspiracy theorism. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Then those can be used. A singular opinion article even from someone noted in the field is rarely good enough to apply a contentious label. You know that. Now if they reverted and added some of the sources you suggest that would be fine. As it sits, it is clearly not fine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin closure) - Jack Frost (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC) --Withdrawn. See below. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the NAC here. The user is disputing the block, and an editor here (PackMecEng) has also questioned the block. I agree; this seems like WP:CRYRACIST more than anything. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The user was warned in Feb 2020 and again recently about the AP2 topic area and DS in that per the talk page. The edit warring behavior today, and only taking to the talk page for the first time in their editing history after doing 2 back-and-forths is a bit troubling in terms of having been warned about this. I do worry about the CRYRACIST aspect but the block is good without taking any other factors into account. --Masem (t) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that I left the edit window open for a time period, and did not notice the subsequent edit by PackMecEng. Given it appears the issue / discussion may not be resolved, I have reversed the closure. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to me we can go with one of three approaches here: WP:ROPE, a topic ban, or a block because this looks like a sleeper. For me, the choice would be governed by whether there are overtly racist edits. Guy (help!) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Looks to me that #4 was a good edit per WP:RSOPINION and #7 was a good edit per the self-identification (I forget what shortcut that is). The rest are not meeting sourcing policy (e.g. WP:BLPRS) and have POV issues. However, I'm not seeing where this was discussed with the user, or where the user was warned, prior to being blocked. Seems like those are two important steps that were skipped here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to try to save every racist account with 38 edits. Registering accounts is cheap and easy to do and this project would spend all it's energy trying to rehabilitate racists and trolls if we did that. WP:DFTT.--v/r - TP 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Nobody's asking you to save or rehabilitate. Maybe template, because WP:AGF. Let's say an admin faces this exact situation 10 times. Option A: admin blocks. Option B: admin templates first, then blocks on the next offending edit (if any). And let's say the admin's "gut" is right 90% of the time, and 9 out of 10 of those times, the editor is a troll, and 1 out of 10, it's a good faith editor who made a mistake. Under option A, we lose the good faith editor. Under option B, we gain a good faith editor at the cost of 9 bad edits. I'll take one editor for 9 bad edits any day of the week. Let's say this happens not 10 times but 100 times, and the admin is right not 90% but 99% of the time. I'll still take one good editor for 99 bad edits. It's very cheap to warn first, and it pays huge dividends if we gain a whole, entire new good-faith editor, at the cost of a few bad edits. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Bad edits do have a cost, of course—someone has to deal with them. And over time, we lose good editors because they get burnt out by large volumes of unchecked tendentious editing, POV-pushing, and nth chances provided because someone on AN/I wanted to look magnanimous at no cost to themselves. A high tolerance for trolling/bad editing is cheap only if you attach little or no value to the time and goodwill of our constructive contributor base. No comment on what should happen to this particular editor; I just dispute the framing that giving "rope" to trolls is "cheap". MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    I don't believe that any established editor has ever been driven off the project because of an edit made by an account with 38 edits in between being warned and being blocked. When established editors are driven off the project, it's because of the actions of other established editors. I think if this editor had been warned before being blocked, the risk that this editor would have driven off any other editor is 0%. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    If you ever become an admin it will be a misfortune for the project, and if you get on Arbcom it will be a catastrophe. Insight and expressiveness like yours should roam free and unfettered. EEng 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  On that note, I'm driving off into the sunset and hopefully through the invisible fence that binds us. There may be a cacophony, some carnage, a coyote. EEng, this is not your fault. You hear me?!? Levi, don't you cry-ee-eye tonight! MastCell, you're alright. Alamma123, "white identitarian" is the worst phrase I've ever seen put to paper, even online. Just on a word level, nothing racist, but the worst I've seen regardless. Either you be sentenced to adminship, or I keep on driving! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed glad to hear that something's not my fault (for once) but I have no idea what you're talking about. EEng 09:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  As an established editor seeking freedom from unpaid writing work, I thought I'd see if the outrage provided by a single edit from a fresh account could power my crazy train on through to the other side. But Levi was right, there was nothing, 0%. So yeah, he's wise enough to rule us all, but undeserving of such a tedious responsibility. We could make Alamma123 an admin instead, and let someone else choose his fate. Admins get enough grief for deciding matters around here, not exactly cool, to the admins or the people who already vouched for their competency in RfAs. But enough of this sidetrack, I yield the floor back to the racial debate. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, agreed, but I am not sure this is a troll, necessarily. Most of the edits seem decent, if perhaps lacking robust sourcing. Guy (help!) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The pattern is there to see plainly. Example number 1 is a terrible start to the mess. "White identitarian" indeed. And the writers at GQ are not collectively activists. Most of Alamma123's edits are attempts to soften the criticism of white supremacism, or to uphold its conspiracy beliefs, or to throw shade on those who oppose white supremacism. That's why I took the serious step of bringing my observations here. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, yup, that's a shit edit alreight. Guy (help!) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at all 38 edits and I disagree with "most". I think a few are bad, about 5-10, the worst listed above, but the rest are fine. Look, if an article says that the article subject "is a Fooian", and I think that violates NPOV based on the sources, and I change it to "is considered by some to be a Fooian", then I am, in fact, "attempting to soften" the statement, but that doesn't mean that I am "upholding Fooianism" or "throwing shade on those who oppose Fooianism". It just might mean I don't think the sources support "is a Fooian" in wikivoice. It doesn't mean I believe in Fooianism or that Fooianism is OK. So, same for white supremacy. an editor who "softens" an accusation of white supremacy in an article is not necessarily supporting white supremacism or minimizing it or anything like that. NPOV applies to white supremacists, too. I still think #1 was a bad edit, I just don't think the editor who made that edit is supporting white supremacy or anything like that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As a comparison case: Fielding L. Wright was a famous American racist. Our article on him went through GA and DYK before anybody noticed that it really didn't cover his racist views in accordance with WP:DUE. This was because the primary contributor to the article was working off a set of sources that, themselves, provided incomplete coverage. The issue was raised, discussed, more sources brought forward, edits made, and the problem fixed. Nobody at any point accused anyone of supporting racism or segregation or white supremacy; nobody was blocked or warned; nobody "cried racist"; we didn't lose any editors; it just didn't come up. It doesn't have to come up. It doesn't have to be the case that everyone who makes a "bad edit" is a bad editor. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have had to deal with racist trolls, or trolls of any flavor, you'd know that they often do just enough good to get some unsuspecting editor to insist that we offer them good faith. Just enough. All it is, is an effort to hide their racist (or sexist/transphobic/homophobic/etc) real interests.--v/r - TP 01:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Aaaannnnddd, I just received a transphobic death threat from a brand new account that likely has a 95% chance of being Allama123. The account probably doesn't realize that I likely own far more guns and have more experienced gun owners in my house than they do.--v/r - TP 13:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you got a death threat. My arguments will not overcome confirmation bias. Next time, maybe as a lark, see if a different approach brings a different result. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A parable—Lester Maddox, before being chosen governor of Georgia in 1966, operated in Atlanta a segregated restaurant which sold axe handles for beating any Black who entered as a customer. As governor, Maddox acted to appoint Black members in proportional numbers to draft boards and integrated the Georgia State Patrol. On balance, however, the axe handles characterized his ideology.

When editing Wikipedia, we hardly know each other, and can only judge on the basis of edits to articles and talk pages. WP:AGF cuts both ways! The edits of allama123, taken at face value, lead me as a non-admin to agree with TP's block. — Neonorange (Phil) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Beese84

• Beese84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beese84 made this edit, listing "the administration of President Donald Trump" as neo-fascist. I reverted this as non-neutral. Beese84 then made the following posts: [80][81], stating: "I would like this matter escalated. I am logging every part of this conversation and will be releasing it on major media outlets unless...". This media release is way out of my pay grade, and I request that someone else take this up.--Mvqr (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've replied on his talk page trying to explain why his post was WP:OR and asked him not to make threats of that manner. Hopefully he'll take it on board. — Czello 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mvqr (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

User:2603:6000:8D40:77F:BD12:50AD:7448:D01

Anonymous user repeatedly making unexplained and unconstructive edits to Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=965985360&oldid=965980919
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966014547&oldid=966011122
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966036430&oldid=966022389
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966038048&oldid=966036673
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966038762&oldid=966038141

And also posting unconstructive gibberish in the talk pages for Roman numerals and 20th Century Studios:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_numerals&diff=965989081&oldid=963318173
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:20th_Century_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=965990616

Three warnings from three different users (myself included) have clearly had no effect.

It's not for me to comment on this individual's state of mind. I will say, however, that I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not supposed to be treated as if it's a toy. Klondike53226 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Klondike53226, likely a WP:CIR issue here, although the disruptive editing seems to have stopped for now. Maybe something to keep an eye on. Ed6767 talk! 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, they haven't edited in over 24 hours, either at the stated address or at another address in the range. I will keep an eye out, however, since Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin is on my watchlist. Thanks, Ed6767. Klondike53226 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Paid editor

I suspect editor Androlucus of being paid to promote various Chinese film schools, as he/she consistently adds red link pages to the pages of schools like Beijing Film Academy and Central Academy of Drama. 24.232.123.199 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There are also 38 (thirty-eight) non-notable people in the BFA's "notable" alumni list, any one of whom could've personally ponied up the promoter's fee, see? And 49 (!!!) for CAD. Why would a school want to water down its famous students with 87 relative nobodies? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Could be that the school considers them notable even if we don't. Or it could be that @Androlucus: considers them notable; at a glance, they haven't really added anything that I would consider promotional, either to those pages or regarding any of the people listed. Usually I'd expect a paid editor to do more than just list names. Also, OP, don't forget to inform people when you bring them up here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are probably millions of people with those names. Without something for context, hardly a worthy endorsement. Suppose the only mystery left is just plain "Why Androlucus, why?" InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Androlucus, you're continuing to clutter the BFA article with people like Ma He (actor), without apparent reason. Please explain here. Or just stop. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by Kami2018

The User Kami2018 [[82]] is back at removing or adding information to Pashtun and Afghan pages without inserting credible and verifiable source/reference for his edits. For example he removed information from Kharoti without any reason or adding any reference for the changes: [[83]]. Similarly, he made this edit [[84]] to the article Bala Hissar. He removed the word 'Afghan', please be mindful of the fact that same editor was reported twice before, in late 2018 and then early 2020, for removing "afghan' word from articles or changing content of the articles relating to Afghanistan or Afghans in away to leave out the word 'Afghan' and this user repeatedly gets reverted. In yet another an example of his Pakistani-Punjabi nationalist driven agenda here [[85]], he omitted information and the attached sources/references so that he could remove the word 'Pashtunized' from the article. This edit was reverted [[86]] by another user who has been editing the page Delhi Sultanate for a longtime. However, Kami2018 again inserted the same information by removing the references/sources attached. Please view the history of the page for further clarification. He has done the same to other articles, and he has been repeatedly warned for his edits to Pashtun pages. I would expect that the action to be taken against this specific individual. Here are examples of this user removing the word 'Pashtunized' which had been inserted after the agreement came from other users, from the articles

• [[87]]
• [[88]]
• [[89]]

I strongly recommend a ban on this user for a certain period from editing articles related to Pashtuns and Afghans.101.50.92.206 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User Megacheez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Kind of new to Wikipedia, so not entirely sure whether discussion here is need or not, but aforementioned user Megacheez has been making numerous edits in various baseball-related articles to change single/double-word spelled-out numbers to numerals, in possible violation of manual of style. Megacheez has been warned about this in the past, and because the edits are so numerous (they number in the hundreds per week,) I can only add a few examples:

[90] [91] [92] [93] [94]

Megacheez has also been adding many length unit converts to baseball-related pages but these probably aren't violations.

If this isn't a violation I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Klohinx^talk 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been going on for several months now. Looking at the user's talk page they have been given specific warnings about this[95][96] and the user has even acknowledge the warnings,[97] yet they persist. I think it it is time for a block to get this editor's attention that this is not acceptable behaviour (when the correct course of action has been pointed out including reference to the MOS) and also to prevent further such disruptive editing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Several months? Several years, by the looks of it. Looking at the talkpage, they've been warned about the MOSNUM issues at least eight times (not to mention a number of other MOS and similar issues), and they're just carrying on doing it. I think there's possibly a CIR issue here when they reply to a warning with "You're welcome" and then carry on doing exactly what the warning was telling them not to. As a result, I have blocked them indefinitely until they discuss the issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

182.186.108.113

182.186.108.113 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) WP:NOTTHEM behavior on usertalk ([98] including accusing others belonging to the Mafia. Please revoke TPA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Maybe you inadvertently posted the wrong diffs, but the diffs posted do not support your complaint as they are diffs from an entirely unrelated user. However, having said that, the block hammer seems to have fallen anyway. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about. I saw the metaphoric comparison of Wikipedia to the Mafia on user talk page. Dismissed it as post-block grousing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblogger editing Jesselyn Radack in apparent violation of WP:BLPCOI; also EDITWARRING

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The WP:SPA Whistleblogger is editing Jesselyn Radack, in apparent violation of WP:BLPCOI.

Editor previously identified herself as the subject of Jesselyn Radack, on June 9. This was done in these notes, to these edits, both from 9 June 2020:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=prev&oldid=961666885
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=prev&oldid=961668869

The editor has added material to Jesselyn Radack which, if this is actually Jesselyn Radack, is a violation of WP:BLPCOI, in the above edits, also in edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&type=revision&diff=961666885&oldid=957291542
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=next&oldid=961666885
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=next&oldid=961667286

The edits make criminal claims against a person who is suing the real Jesselyn Radack in court for malicious prosecution and defamation. Whether or not it's her, these edits are WP:BLP violations.

The editor Whistleblogger is also editwarring, having been reverted several times. Editwarring happens here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=next&oldid=961667286

The situation needs attention.

NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

See contributions list. Normal Op (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW, which editor is she accusing? Normal Op (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

CORRECTION Looking at the edits, it appears that Whistleblogger is accusing "the person who wrote this section", which, based on the article edit history for that section is mostly NedFausa. Implication is she may be accusing NedFausa of being a person that is suing the real Jesselyn Radack for malicious prosecution and defamation. Which is pretty far-fetched. NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblogger may have been referring to now-blocked user KalHolmann (talk · contribs), who started the whole Fitzgibbon discussion in 2018. There was also an article for Trevor Scott FitzGibbon which was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Scott FitzGibbon). I think this accused edit warring situation is a little more complicated than the OP makes out. Maybe a CheckUser is in order? Normal Op (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW is right in inferring that Whistleblogger alludes to me in her two edit summaries that accuse the author of "this section". The section in question is FitzGibbon criminal and civil cases. MediaWiki's analytical tool Who Wrote That? does not provide a precise metric, but does indicate that I contributed most of that section as it then stood: 100 of 134 total words (≈ 75%). Accordingly, please let me state for the record that I am not Trevor FitzGibbon, and have never interacted online or offline with Jesselyn Radack, Trevor FitzGibbon, or any of their known associates. And since I am neither a serial predator nor have I ever been reported to the police for sexual assault, I request that an administrator promptly exercise WP:REVDEL to expunge those scurrilous accusations from the edit history of Jesselyn Radack. NedFausa (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully a REVDEL person can redact just the edit summary text, but leave the edit there. Otherwise, future evaluations of behavior won't be possible. Unfortunately, REVDELing the edit summary would also remove Whistleblogger's own OUTing. I think Whistleblogger should be COI'd/blocked before a REVDEL takes place (else the evidence goes poof). Normal Op (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

RevisionDelete allows redaction of edit summaries only, leaving the edit itself visible on the public wiki. Administrators can still review the unredacted summaries. Nothing on the Internet ever truly disappears. But at least Whistleblogger's allegations against me of criminality can be removed from public view. NedFausa (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest disclosure sought. El_C 20:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Man, what a mess. I just read another ANI for another editor of that page. If what he has said about the Fitzg case and Radack is even half true, she doesn't need to be editing her own article. But the other concern I have is that OP of this ANI seems pretty experienced for a new user (one day old). He seems to know about edit warring, User Talk pages, ANI, posting diffs, COI, BLP. He has no edits except related to the Jesselyn Radack article. SPA? Sock (resurrection of one of the older blocked/banned accounts)? Normal Op (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: There's a world of difference between an advanced content edit with citations properly formatted... to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (using the non-pejorative sense). And since this editor jumped right into the deep end of something controversial, with at least two prior editors being blocked, it's worth looking into. Normal Op (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the edit summaries under RD2 and have partially blocked Whistleblogger from the page in question due to unanswered autobio concerns and the BLP issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This could be a WP:DOLT case. While I'm not sure about the COI's editor's edits, the section of concern seems to have major problems since it seems to rely heavily on court documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding Normal Op's WP:BOOMERANG indef block against NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Normal Op and NedFausa: I feel compelled for some reason to link this rant for posterity: Special:PermaLink/966366704 § User talk:NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW § Sockblock so it lands in the archive of this thread at least, and to ping Ponyo the WP:CheckUser while I do it. I know no good will come of this; I know that it can be seen as needlessly "making enemies" and "picking fights", but it's not my intention, I just feel that this CU request was unnecessary, and I want my voice in the archive if nowhere else. I don't want to be seen as a coward either, writing only on Ned's talk page and not here. I don't know that anything Rechtsstreitigkeiten did warranted this, and I feel like Ponyo could have chosen to simply not run the CU and wait and see if NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW further disrupted the project, given the amazing service they did for the project by uncovering this serious WP:BLPCOI violation. We're penalizing the wrong things, I'm afraid. That's all I have to say, and will now WP:Leave it to the experienced to work it out, but I can't sleep without voicing my dissent, which is not disloyalty. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent block needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems that Kwamikagami is replacing straight apostrophes with curled ones and moving a lot of pages. I think a block is urgently needed. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an ʻOkina. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 17:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the admin has left an explanation of that in regard to Hawaiian articles at WT:HAWAII. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They are no longer an admin, but otherwise, yes. El_C 20:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, a few days ago I requested a list of all WP articles with curly apostrophes in the title, and have been moving them to straight apostrophes. There were over a thousand, which suggests no-one has cleaned this up in a while. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The beginnings or harassing/stalking behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Noloader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It looks like user Alexbrn is in the early stages of harassment/stalking behavior. He/she seems to be following me on wikipedia and indiscriminately reverting edits. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apitherapy&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&action=history.

It is a creepy feeling when a user is tracking your movements around a site.

Please do something about this editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Noloader: please provide diffs for the reverts that bother you. All I can see is that Alexbrn is one of the editors who has reverted your edits at Apitherapy, and that they reverted one of your edits at Open access, only to make a self-revert back to your version a couple of minutes later with an edit summary indicating that the first revert was a mistake. --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

bonadea - The Apitherapy was definitely a disagreement. I thought that was the end of things.

I don't believe Alexbrn's arrival at the Open Access article is random. I seem to be an object of user Alexbrn desire, and he/she is now following me around the site. This is very creepy behavior from Alexbrn.

It should lead immediately to the question... Why is Alexbrn now following me around the site and reverting valid edits? Here is the edit (there's only been one edit since the Apitherapy article): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&type=revision&diff=966291239&oldid=966255601. (The citation I removed was a duplicate and malformed, like a copy/paste gone bad).

Also take note of Alexbrn's response below. Rather then take responsibility for his/her actions, he seems to want to blame the person he/she is harassing/stalking. As if I am somehow responsible for him/her visiting my profile, clicking on my latest edits, and clicking revert.

Like I said, this is very creepy behavior from Alexbrn.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Noloader, maybe that just clicked on the wrong button to end up at the wrong page. Assume good faith. El_C 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - Sorry, I don't believe it was a mistake. They were intentional actions by user Alexbrn. To be a mistake, user Alexbrn would have had to "accidentally" clicked at least three different times - once into my profile, once into my history, and once to revert the edit. Randomly landing on the Open Access page alone would be a 1 in 6 million event given there are 6,114,482 English pages.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So what? They are allowed to review your contributions, if they so wish. You should not take offense if they make a mistake in the course of that. El_C 20:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - I completely agree anyone is allowed to make an edit. Subsequent edits happen all the time on this site. The oddity about this is, it was not a random edit by the next editor nor was it an improvement. User Alexbrn seems to be harassing/stalking me and reverting valid edits and turning them back to the former brokenness. That should at least concern you. If user Alexbrn is willing to harass/stalk me, then he/she will do it to others; and his/her edits are not improving the site - they are diminishing the site.

20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

One error in one article does not a pattern make. El_C 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - an article error is usually not a problem. The harassing/stalking behavior is a problem. And the willingness to revert edits out of spite is a problem. If you are not seeing the big picture, then maybe you should escalate the issue to Wikipeida administrators or employees. I'm guessing folks with professional training will have a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, your evidence of "harassing/stalking" and "spite" consists of two (2) edits, one of which was almost instantly self-reverted? Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Noloader: I can't really have been "following" you to Apitherapy when I've been editing that article on and off for years before your arrival there. As to the edit yesterday at Open Access, it was a mistake (I misread a diff) and I reverted a few minutes later. I should note this is your second recent report of me to an admin board after your malformed report at AN3[99], and you have said on my talk page that my behaviour is "stalking" and "very creepy".[100] So, I'm beginning to think that yes there might be a problem here, and that it's not me. You've been here long enough that you shouldn't be this WP:clueless. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Noloader, your evidence is insufficient, and at the moment, serves as an aspersion. Your must show a pattern and show that it makes sense. You report does neither right now. El_C 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - As I posted, we are in the early stages of the harassment/stalking. It is best to stop this sort of thing quickly.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'll just leave this here. Editor Interaction Analyser Noloader edit count: 2138 & Alexbrn edit count: 41581. (who is following whom? or is anyone?) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• To summarise, including talk pages, user talk pages, and notice boards, there are 20 pages in common. Of these 13 were edited first by Alexbrn. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no memory of having encountered this user before their recent Apitherapy edits, so even in pages we've both edited I suppose we edited different parts and/or edited chronologically far enough apart not to overlap. What gets me is that an editor with > 2,000 edits and ten years' service doesn't seem to grasp the basics of Wikipedia, even down to signing posts. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• So what I see is one article, 6 hours apart. An edit and a revert? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra - If all you see is an edit and revert, then I believe you are missing the bi picture. If you are not seeing the big picture, then maybe you should escalate the issue to Wikipeida administrators or employees. I'm guessing folks with professional training will have a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• There are more eyes on you now than if you hadn't made this report. I am not seeing anything actionable here - if this is stalking/harassment, then I should hand back the keys to my account because I routinely click through to Users' contributions if one of their edits seem a bit suspect. I would withdraw this and carry on as if nothing happened. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alfie. I think I'll let the request stand because the behavior was obvious and egregious. It is not appropriate behavior to stalk another editor, revert edits out of spite, and put an article into a [formerly] broken state. If you are engaging in the behavior then I think you should rethink your position.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insistence against declared RM consensus and other tendentious editing

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

User:Velayinosu has been active on Wikipedia for less than three months, but has already collected about 10 comments on their User talk page regarding unhelpful and obnoxiously non-collaborative behaviour (together with some accolades). After an RM was closed in which the user had participated and was not fond of the outcome, they have moved the article back to its previous name twice, including after a User talk page comment about that not being appropriate, and without opening a WP:Move review as was suggested to them. The article in question is now again at their preferred title, Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, despite an RM consensus declaration two weeks ago that came out differently. The user has also exhibited a remarkably sophisticated level of knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia for someone who has been around only briefly. Although this person also seems to have done a lot of helpful editing and has been extremely active, I suggest a brief block to get their attention and let them know that they need to learn to play nice with others. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof's complaint to Velayinosu about their unorthodox move was posted at User talk:Velayinosu#Your article title move contrary to a declared consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that anything that I have done warrants being blocked from editing. Organisms that have hyphens and dashes in their name is not addressed by WP:MOS and it has become standard on virus articles to use the hyphen for scientific names of viruses since that is what the ICTV does. My proposal is to keep the article in line with the hyphen standard until the MOS is edited to clarify how this situation should be addressed since the move to the dash is itself disruptive at this point in time. (If that is wrong, then fine, but the MOS issue remains.) I've started a section on the MOS talk page for this and it would be beneficial if others could participate in it (a related discussion is also being held at Talk:Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus). Velayinosu (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The RM was open for two weeks, and Velayinosu's was the sole expression of opposition (on an article that was getting about a thousand views per day). Based on that, it seems hard to say the RM discussion "was closed improperly/prematurely/etc.", as they alleged on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Opening a discussion at WT:MOS is fine, of course, but they should not insist that their preferred outcome must prevail while others consider their proposal to change the MoS to support their point of view. And this is not the only action by this editor that has generated complaint. As I said, their User talk page shows about 10 complaints in a 3-month period of activity in this account which shows a very high amount of expertise and activity for a new user. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I edited the MOS comment to address your concerns. And those warnings on my talk page were for minor things that were all resolved without further issue which I hope is the ultimate result of this discussion. If the problem is the overturning of the move discussion result, then I won't do that from now on, but the MOS issue should be addressed and it would be beneficial if uninvolved people participate in the discussion as well. Velayinosu (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not change what your comments say after someone else has already responded to them, especially if it is to remove statements that have been quoted or commented on specifically in someone else's remarks. That confuses the historical record and makes it impossible to understand the comments that others have made in response. I have reverted your change to what you said at WT:MOS. It is better to add further clarifying remarks as separate new comments, or to apply strikethrough formatting to the original comments and add a note to explain why some remarks have been struck. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the 9 other complaints on the User talk page, and none of them seem to have turned into protracted disputes. However, a common theme was not providing sufficient WP:edit summary information to explain what the editor is doing. As Velayinosu has already said they will respect RM results, I think this matter can be closed if they will also pledge to try harder to provide adequate edit summaries in the future. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'll try to be more informative with edit summaries. Velayinosu (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Vikasb2003 & Disruptive editing on BLP article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Vikasb2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been trying to edit the page of Ramanan Laxminarayan which is a biography of a living person. The section they intend to insert includes original research cited to a tweet (note, even the tweet does not support their addition in full). On being provided warning templates and links to the relevant policies, their response has been to indulge in personal attacks and revert back their edits.

• Special:Diff/965057155 - First addition. I posted a level 3 warning template (Special:Diff/965759027) seeing as they had a history of similar warnings.
• Special:Diff/965710495 - Revertion to the same. I posted a level 4 warning template (Special:Diff/965709485) with an added note on relevant policies.
• Special:Diff/965901140 - Their response to the warning template filled with personal attacks.
• Special:Diff/965909767 - Revertion to the same.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for WP:NPA, WP:DE. El_C 06:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cyberfan195 - Categories & Misleading edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is constantly making new categories and adding categories left and right, most with one of two edit summaries: "fixed." or "added source(s)". This has been continuing on, despite many warnings against this on their talk page, and even with a block for harassment in February 2020. Many other users, including myself, have been warning them for unconstructive edits, unsourced content, and their misleading edit summaries, with one tonight.

Yet, despite my recent warning, their contribution history shows they continue to use misleading edit summaries, seemingly ignoring that warning. At this point, the user seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Non-responsive, and continuing to use misleading summaries and disruptive edits. Something needs to be done here. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Their only interest appears to be adding categories; of their few edits to talk pages, most were to make small changes to categories that were incorrectly added. (The other edits were unblocking requests.) Trivialist (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Cyberfan195 indefinitely to force a response to the complaints. Sometimes I think we should just get rid of genres and categories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racism (at Idris Elba)

Racism at Wikipedia -- just below the surface -- rooted in the notion that black people cannot be English (at best, they can only be British). This idea is apparent here. We also have a talk-page section [101] -- a bit dated, except that there are some recent contributions going along with the first post in the section. It is also apparent in the way Idris Elba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited to favour British over English -- despite clear self-identification ("Listen guys: I'm English".) This is all quite shocking. We simply would not be having the same sort of discussion (and editing) in connection with a white person... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Strange then, that nobody has noticed that six of the seven forwards listed at England national football team#Current squad are not "really" English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The fuller discussion is on the BLP noticeboard, along with my comments on the matter as it should relate to ANI. Their most recent (5th) change to reintroduce their edit has been reverted, and an admin has warned them not to reinstate it. Let's just see how that goes. Assuming they drop the stick now, I'm not sure (further) admin action is needed. Also, you should've left ANI notices on both Chris Tomic and Ryan Soul's talk pages, as I believe you're referring to them in this matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have applied a 72 hour block for the edit warring (I note that it was not a 3RR violation, but it was edit warring nonetheless). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, Um, really? The edit wars over English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/British are at leats as old as Wikipedia. It's not racism, it's nationalism. Which is exactly as lame but slightly less problematic, at least mostly. Guy (help!) 23:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's nationalism -- but several of the posts people have made make it crystal clear it's also racism.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG Have you read the talk page discussion? British not English = boring, but not racist, conversation about nationalism. Black people can't be described as English? I guess I can imagine a non-racist way that someone could think that, but I'm really having to stretch the old AGF almost to breaking point. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, that's... disturbing. Guy (help!) 22:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Kremlin IP editing American political articles

109.252.171.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I first noticed this IP promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory as if they were an American who believed in it (I am one of them since 2 weeks ago, we have official site and etc. We will have one of us in congress soon.). They have also argued that Trump can do whatever he wants with regard to copyright. Now, when a user with an account makes statements that they believe QAnon is real or true, other admins and I have given them maybe one warning before indefinitely blocking them as lacking distinction between reality from fantasy necessary to edit.

There are other edits to non-political articles that don't appear to be problematic but elsewhere the IP sings Putin's praises (for putting in a loophole that will allow him to stay in office indefinitely) and even mocks those who don't join their chorus. They have also asserted that Crimea was not part of the Ukraine (as if Russia's invasion was totally legitimate).

The IP geolocates to the Kremlin. Given that Russia has a history of interfering in various website to skew public opinion, should this IP really be welcome to edit articles relating to international politics? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to partial-block IPs? If so, we should partial-block them if this is what we should expect. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 22:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit. Heiro 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

For clarification: does the IP geolocate to "the Kremlin" (your words), or to the whole city of Moscow? Otherwise, if an IP is disruptive it can be blocked whether it's coming from Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Washington DC, or the North Pole. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not if it's not a Kremlin employee, the IP pretending to be an US citizen fits one of the tricks used by the Russian web brigades. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You said "The IP geolocates to the Kremlin.". Your topic heading is "Kremlin IP editing American political articles". But on the page that you linked to, all I see is Moscow. Am I missing something, or are you assuming that's the same thing? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP location - Latitude:(55° 45′ 9.72″ N),Longitude:(37° 37′ 1.92″ E) shows as Srednyaya Arsenal'naya Bashnya, a military building inside the Kremlin. It's most likely an employee editing since they did not use a series of proxies to hide the location. CBS527^Talk 00:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP "location" is a public park in the dead center of the city, but I strongly doubt that the center of the gigantic red circle ringing Moscow in this link [102] is the actual location of this person's editing. If we're going to jump down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, a Russian intelligence operation targeting Wikipedia using IPs that geolocate to the center of Moscow is less parsimonious than a teenager's trolling operation to discover our most gullible editors. -Darouet (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See also the famous case of MaxMind [103]. Never trust IP geolocation data to be more precise than maybe a city unless you have good reason to think otherwise. Even 'city' is sometimes way too precise. Nil Einne (talk)

• I have blocked them for WP:CIR, POV pushing, and being WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether or not they are a Russian state troll. I have emailed ComCom however, as this is sensitive if true. The block length is one month right now, as they've had this same IP for a while. The block may need to be made longer, its possible they have a static IP. Another admin is free to change the block length, or update the block reason, should more info be found regarding their troll status. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

How long do you think it'll be before some of the people involved in this discussion find polonium replacing the sugar in their drinks? 86.181.78.88 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.78.88 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Range Blocks Needed

Given the threats and the source, IPv4 and IPv6 range blocks should be implemented. Can't imagine there would be much collateral damage from long term range blocks either. 2600:1003:B85A:8941:58A5:1343:374:B85 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User Redirecting Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe to Christopher Langan without consensus on talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Back in 2006 two articles were written on the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. They didn't pass AfD at the time. One was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive_Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe (without the hypen) and the other was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe. The later was redirected to Christopher Langan, the author of the CTMU. Since 2006 more as been written about the CTMU and I believe it deserves a shot at passing the GNG as determined by a consensus of editors on Wikipedia as the version that I've written. Instead of nominating the new version for AfD and having the appropriate discussion ජපස is replacing it with the redirect back to Christopher Langan and arguing for a request for comment on the topic of the new version of the article. I don't believe an RfC addresses this appropriately as (1) the consensus that was reached in 2006 was on entirely different version of the article (2) all of the sources in the 2020 version were published after 2006 (3) I see no evidence that the editors involved in the decision 14 years ago are still active on this article.

If ජපස believes the article is non-notable, I believe the appropriate action to take is an AfD. If there is an AfD, I'll respect whatever the outcome of the AfD is. - Scarpy (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Scarpy, please review and observe WP:ONUS. The longstanding version of the page has been as a redirect, for many years. Gain the consensus if you wish it to be otherwise. El_C 04:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a mainspace content dispute and I am doubtful that it belongs at ANI. That said, I would note that the last major discussion of this took place in 2006. An argument could be made that the 2006 discussion and consensus may be stale and due for a review. All of which said, this is not the forum for that discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem what would be the forum for that discussion? - Scarpy (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C I would ask the same question. What would the appropriate forum for changing consensus on this point be when none of the editors that determined it in 2006 are active on the topic. You're talking about something that's 14 years old. - Scarpy (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion for an RfC seems reasonable to me. You could also post a neutrally worded alert to the discussion on the talk pages of relevant wiki projects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur. El_C 04:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - Scarpy (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fake allegations by user from multiple accounts

• Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pixel Lupus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• XxPixel WarriorxX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user from multiple accounts disturbing and targeting me with fake allegations on my talk page without any proof or explanation please take a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytpks896 (talk • contribs)

I note that all of these accounts are declared as operated by the same person on Pixel Lupus's userpage (though it also says that Tylertoney Dude perfect is no longer used, which is self-evidently not true). Tylertoney Dude perfect/Pixel Lupus/XxPixel WarriorxX/whatever you want to be called, Ytpks896 is permitted to remove your comments from your talk page and has indicated that they do not want you to post to their talk page - please respect that. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok Now my part of the story, You may see that I said I do not operate Tylertoney Dude Perfect but my main account XxPixel WarriorxX is lost now and I could not log in so I needed to use another account if I wanted to edit Wikipedia so I used Tylertoney Dude Perfect. Done with this fact and now about Fake Allegations (Allegations- A type of Blame out on a person if the person that puts found him guilty) So practically I did not put allegation on him. Yeah..Yeah I know you will say about Neutrality and all so understand his edits centred Pakistan and I found Many Unfair on India's side and mostly for Sensitive and Disputed regions so I left a message saying whenever you edit keep mindset of both sides before editing that he actually did not follow according to me(Proofs I will give you)that is what I said. OK.Pixel Lupus (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• You say you don't operate it, yet you did use it to post on your page, along with your main account. Since you don't use it, I assume you have no problem if I just block the Tylertoney Dude Perfect and XxPixel WarriorxX so we don't have this problem (confusion) in the future? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Unless I'm missing something, this is bizarre. Firstly, if Pixel Lupus doesn't control those accounts, then the obvious question is, who does? Secondly, if in fact, they are theirs and that was an erroneous statement, then using three different accounts to warn another editor about the same issue has got to be about as blatant a misapplication of WP:VALIDALT in a long time. ——Serial ^# 16:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

At least you all can talk to me at my talk page if you have any doubts, All the three accounts ate mine only, By that statement I meant that I used XxPixel WarriorxX and Tylertoney Dude Perfect was inactive, but My XxPixel WarriorxX got lost so I started using Tylertoney Dude Perfect and about Pixel Lupus it is a account which I use when my accounts are unavailable cause they are at different phones so when they are Unavailable then I use this. Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• This user creating lots of confusion and making erroneous statements they also reverting my edits from different accounts and warning me from different account, I hope this user's other accounts must be blocked.

As long as you are correct I may support you but if you are not then I must not. I never have reverted any edit of except one: 1.) Kashmir Conflict Map which you.. You.. Reverted of ABHIMAN 19 and was a correct map so I added on his behalf cause he was blocked.. Thanks to you... For that..

Case is Different here:

2.) Afghanistan you.. You.. Reverted my edit stating it was not a good source so I agreed and went for a search for a good reliable source...

So pretty much.... I have defied your claims from your recent edits here...Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pixel Lupus unlike Dennis Brown I'm not as nice. I find your use of two different accounts in one section here disruptive and confusing. So I blocked the lost account and the one you claim you are not using. If another admin feels like unblocking one or both of the alternate accounts feel free. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I just had all this rope and wanted to see how he was going to hang himself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and Pixel Lupus, if you do that again with multiple accounts, you can expect to be blocked for socking. Declaring alt accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to use them to unnecessarily cause confusion. If fact, you have to have an alt account, may I suggest "Pixel Lupus (alt)". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(Alt) what is that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixel Lupus (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Pixel Lupus, 'alt' it is an abbreviation for 'alternative' - it's a way of showing that two accounts are controlled by the same person. I don't really understand why you think it necessary to have multiple accounts to edit from multiple devices - I edit from several devices using this account. If there is some overriding reason why you can't do that, ensure that any other accounts are a variation on your existing username. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruption from Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a Bulgarian user who is constantly editing articles concerning Macedonia, Macedonian people and the Macedonian language with blatant chauvinistic Bulgarian propaganda and pseudo historic "artificially created nation" myths, and is glorifying Axis occupation as "liberation" by citing dubious and biasedly one sided Bulgarian sources. Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Shatev&diff=prev&oldid=963892765

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Macedonian_Uprising_in_1941

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=957238827

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_language&diff=954199612&oldid=954196050

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_language&diff=954200901&oldid=954199612 Dedokire (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably the case is related to this issue. Wikipedia warriors: The new frontline of the battle for Macedonia organised by the United Macedonian Diaspora. Jingiby (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothere boomerang? Or just close? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What's really great is when outsiders go to the trouble of campaigning against you off Wiki. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked per NOTHERE. The fact that this came out of nowhere from an inactive account smells of sock or meatpuppetry. If I had a dollar for every nationalist/ethnic edit warrior on Wikipedia...Sro23 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

right-e-o. 9 edits in 10 years and then stuff I ain't sayin' --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Sro23. It is unfair that User:Jingiby's nationality was targeted now just for doing his job. There is a worrisome trend of meatpuppetry on Macedonia-topic articles as of late. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Update: @Sro23 and Deepfriedokra: since you were active here on this discussion, my I ask for your attention at Talk:Prespa agreement? The IPs are now attacking Jingiby again, and this time me as well. In meantime, I made now a Request for Protection at [104] as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• I blocked the one. It would take a sizable rangeblock to get them all. Block a whole country???? No. The RFPP people can have a go as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats enough, thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of RFPP: I have semi-protected the talk page for a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Those IP's are socks of User:Operahome. You know, that Igor Janev-obsessed one. Sro23 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, MelanieN, and Sro23:, you are awesome, thank you for your swift responses! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Tomic

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

This edit to Idris Elba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) neatly encapsulates the problem with Chris Tomic's editing: It doesn't matter what he himself describes himself as. A criminal in a court of law describes himself/herself as innocent; THAT DOES NOT MEAN however that HE OR SHE IS INNOCENT IN ACTUAL FACT. Ethnicity is a definition, not a description or self-chosen identity. It assertts not only that English is an ethnicity (a tendentious claim), but that it is only an ethnicity and not a nationality (which is doubly tendentious). It uses an analogy of criminality to assert that a black man somehow cannot be English, which at best is profoundly tone deaf. It is worth noting here that Elba was born in Hackney, which is within the sound of Bow Bells. Not only is he English, he's a Cockney! Anyway, I think Chris Tomic's edits are sufficiently disturbing that they mnay warrant a topic ban from the topics of nationality, race or ethnicity. Guy (help!) 09:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look through Chris Tomic's recent contributions. They returned from something of an editing hiatus earlier this year; since then, the majority of his edits have been related to the nationality of subjects - they're either unexplained changes from English/Welsh to British (e.g. this, this and this), changing a nationality to reflect ethnicity (e.g. this), or discussing nationality on talk pages (e.g. Talk:Niko Bellic). Randomly spot-checking some of their older contribs from before the hiatus, their interests seemed more diverse, but I did come across this and this which are about the subjects' Jewish heritage; the whole area of ethnicity seems to be of particular interest to them. I agree with JzG's conclusion that some of their recent comments are at best reprehensibly tone-deaf. Chris Tomic is currently blocked for edit warring at Idris Elba in the face of an obvious consensus at BLPN; if their first edit upon the expiration of the block is not a statement at this thread along the lines of "Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry, I've said some really stupid things; I will now carefully read MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:OPENPARABIO and WP:UKNATIONALS and ensure that I don't make any more changes that aren't fully compliant with all three", then I would support a TBAN from this whole area. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Turning article talk page into personal attacks platform

• Boris Malagurski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report this section of Talk:Boris Malagurski, as User:Mikola22 and User:EdJohnston are turning the article talk page into a platform for attacking me, making accusations against me, simply because of my interest in Boris Malagurski related topics.

--UrbanVillager (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst true the correct place to discus you actions is not on an articles talk page, but here. I am also not sure you wanted to draw attention to this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not an attack on you. I was interested in what Wikipedia rules say about this. It seems as you editing article instead of Boris Malagurski. You are interested in him and there is no problem with that. I didn’t know it was allowed, now I know. Mikola22 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Recently (July 4) I put full protection on the Boris Malagurski article due to edit warring. The dispute was whether three tags ought to be kept on the article: for COI, autobiography and NPOV. On 1 July UrbanVillager removed the three tags as part of the edit war. The thread on article talk is intended to reach agreement on whether the three tags should be kept. One of the issues to be resolved is if the 'COI' tag is justified. Apparently the claimed COI is about UrbanVillager. If he would prefer not to have the discussion about him on article talk, then I can relocate it to WP:COIN and then link to it from the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to request that an administrator other than User:EdJohnston assesses this incident, as EdJohnston is involved in the incident. I'd also like to add that this isn't the first time users are personally attacking me on the Boris Malagurski talk page because of my interest in Boris Malagurski related topics -- Previously, User:Santasa99 created a section titled Editor Urban Villager. My edits on articles are NPOV and I add facts without inputting a single bit of my personal POV, while I do my very best to find reliable sources for every single sentence that I add to any article. On the other hand, I see users coming with very strong opinions on Boris Malagurski and his work, as evident on the article talk page as well as the talk pages of Malagurski's films, and then attacking me for being one of the few constructive editors of the article. As for the removal of the tags, there was no consensus for adding the tags, but User:Santasa99 started an edit war over them. I'm not sure why EdJohnston protected the articles after User:Santasa99's revert, thus leaving the tags protected before consensus is reached on whether they should be added, but Wikipedia:Wrong Version is a great excuse for that. I see EdJohnston tried to remedy the fact that he added 2,600 characters of personal attacks against me, mentioning several other users as if he's trying to invite them to continue the attacks and accusations against me, by suggesting that maybe this isn't the place to discuss this, and that the witch hunt against me should continue elsewhere. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm going to limit this to conversation on that talk page only, as I'm not up to go research vague claims about past actions without diffs. What I see is Mikola22 asking a question about a COI regarding you on the talk page of the very article the COI would cover. Not a comfortable discussion, and perhaps better asked at WP:COIN but it is the 2nd best place to ask. EdJohnston, who is an admin and we assume knowledgeable about these things, answer it in detail, spelling out the history without injecting his own opinion, except to say he probably would have closed with the same result (no action). When pressed further on this issue, the first words out of Ed's mouth (keyboard) was "In my opinion, if there is a need for a longer COI discussion it should take place over at WP:COIN. " In short, I'm sure it is uncomfortable for you, but I can't see any issue with EdJohnston's actions, which were quite neutral. It would have been better if Mikola22 simply went to WP:COIN to start with, but it would have been worse if he had come to WP:ANI, where we are now. Again, I don't see any obvious bad faith. In the future, he will likely know where to go. I don't see any policy violation, even if the discussion was started in a less than optimal place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• There is no "personal attacks", there is expressed concerns on suspicion that your editing is in COI, and as it happened, I misread COI and COIN instruction regarding sequence of appropriate steps, that should be taken before formal report is filed, so instead of initiating discussion on your TP I started it on article TP. However, I admitted my mistake there, but conversation has already commenced and you have taken part in it, without complain. But when EdJohnston decided to protect the page it suddenly became a problem, and you resorted to generating suspicion regarding Edjohnston's involvement and actions.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the principle of neutrality has been broken and I can see why UV is filling like he/she has been attacked - there is more than ample evidence (plus the general style used) on the TP. There is no breathing space for people to discuss in good faith, not to mention that the RfC was started after an edit war, which was followed by report/s, all of which included the same mediator. The last comment on the TP suggests that the fellow editor UrbanVillager is a targeted for massive hounding and dirt digging, or that's my impression at least?! [105] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop-gap block on image competition editor please

I thought the Do's and Don'ts of that abominable image spamming competition had been communicated to participants by now, but obviously not. Could an admin please apply the brakes to Ababio70 while I clean up their trail of duplicates (argh), random keyword matches (argh), and nonsensical captions (argh). They don't seem to notice comments on their talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Shame we can't do more with Filter 1073 here, the editors that are treating this damn thing properly are simply getting outweighed by the spammers. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, I'm open to suggestions for a warn or throttle variant of the filter if someone can suggest good rules for it. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  GeneralNotability The rules are fine, it needs to be set to warn though I think. I wouldn't throttle it as there are some editors doing quite a few images perfectly well. I'd set it to warn, with quite a strong warning that images added must add value to the article by being (a) relevant (b) correctly captioned (c) not already in the article, and (d) not non-free, and that editors may be blocked if they do not follow these rules. Black Kite (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User Snowded

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Despite several attempts at resolution on the respective Talkpages this user has engaged in a series of personal attacks following an exchange about my editing of the Laugharne article. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you any evidence for this charge at all? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave his edit history on my and other people's user pages to speak for itself -----Snowded ^TALK 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think Snowded is the problem --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have warned Sirjohnperrot, but sanctions are still possible. El_C 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please also see the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:Verbcatcher#Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Where's the linked evidence of said behaviour? GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The talk page of Verbacher linked above pretty well says it all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also been reported for vandalism :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we may need to get Australian, forum shopping to get a user banned is shabby at best.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Only warned. Limbering up my throwing arm. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support you doing whatever you see fit, Deepfriedokra. El_C 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reading through Talk:Laugharne and his talk page, it would appear Sirjohnperrot is a problem. He's getting close to a tban on his name sake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Having seen the vitriol and offended attitude over a simple discussion of sources, not seeing their own faults while blowing out of proportion any disagreement, accusing attempts at helping them of being personal attacks (and personal insults), I'm convinced OP is not suited for a collaborative environment. Reporting non vandalism at WP:AIV was certainly beyond my imagination. @Sirjohnperrot:, this is a limited time offer. Please either substantiate your accisations here or withdraw your complaint. The alternative is that you be blocked from editing. If anyone sees an alternative outcome, please speak up. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

TBAN siuts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for the lad to respond. But, Snowded a vandal of articles? doubt it. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It gets better. Is this a legal threat? @Sirjohnperrot: Do please explain your accusations. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I sought clarification, which is to say, a categorical withdraw of any threat of legal action. El_C 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I need popcorn. This is better than Game of Thrones! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions are coming? El_C 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

on 18 June Sirjohnperrot requested protection of my user talk page.[106] This was interpreted as a request for protection of Laugharne.[107] Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an honest mistake. I wouldn't hold it against them. El_C 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In no hurry. Awaiting response from OP. TBAN vs Indef. Given the torrent of words, I'd expected a response. The quasi legal threat just makes this so much better. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project is the essay I had in mind. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I throw this hat into the ring? The phrase "family history burrowings" suggests that they may have a COI, and are attempting to write about one of their ancestors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah. Good be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, I posed that question to them directly (uw-coi). El_C 15:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Sir John is done for today. May be back in the evening, GMT --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm in no rush to act, myself. El_C 15:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A cliffhanger! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Still going! El_C 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Sirjohnperrot has responded to our concerns on his talk page HERE and again HERE. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to ponder how best to proceed. Suggestions welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure dramamongering on his talk page is helping him. I'm still where I was, a Tban obviously makes sense in one way, but I think the problems run deeper than this one topic. It's already been stated but I will repeat that some people just aren't suited to working in a collaborative environment. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but obviously something strong is needed. There does seem to be a consensus for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we give the lad another 24 hrs to provide his supposed evidence. If he doesn't? then this report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying give it a good day before saying good day? :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OP wants to complain about me. I again invited them to respond here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Signing off. Gotta claen up the yard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings to my fellow user, Dennis. We've not been formally introduced but let me congratulate you on your vituperative talents, they are considerable and clearly well practised. If you and Deepfriedokra are indeed benchmarks of collaborative working our planet is really in trouble. I suppose if gratuitous and ignorant abuse counts for anything anywhere you've found a position as Wiki administrators where it might, do you also venerate dishonesty like your fellow team members? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Shall we assume, you're putting evidence together? I've known Snowded for many years & ain't seen him vandalising articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, unless you have evidence to add, please refrain from the passive-aggressive innuendo. El_C 02:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this one todate bar a minimal response but I think it is worth a quick summary of how we got here:

1. An extended edit war by Sirjohnperrot (against all other editors involved) to insert the name of the Elizabethian Sir John Perrot as a notable person in the article on Laugharne. I, others and Airplaneman who protected the article explained that s/he had to provide evidence that the said Sir John was born in or lived in Laugharne and it wasn't enough to show he lived in another village within the wider area covered by Laughane Township (then a separate article).
2. S/he did not listen to all the advise given, but we tried to be helpful. I suggested that given the Townshop article was a stub the two articles could be merged at which point there would be no issue. That happened, I closed the merge, added in the disputed name. I then had the status of "favourite Wikipedia editor of all time" :-)
3. I stepped back then as editors with more knowledge and interest in local history got involved but it wasn't long before the tendatious behaviour started again and there were a series of attacks on Verbcatcher including a post where s/he said he had reported Verbcatcher to Oversight (I assume by email)
4. I then gave a level 2 warning] and s/he then threw every warning in the book on my talk page and edit warred when I deleted them - despite a polite note explaining policy
5. Then we get the report here, a few hours after reporting me for vandalism

My view on this is that:

1. S/he has the capability to be a good detailed editor on Wikipedia - lots of access to sources and interest in the material - little experience and what seems like an over obsession with one subject but that would not be the first time we have seen this and getting good editors is worth a little effort
2. But the agressive response to any contradiction is an issue - the way s/he frames the problem here, suggesting that I am taking revenge for loosing a debate on the insertion of Sir John (I actually put the name in folling the merge which I suggested) illustrates the problem.
3. Then we have the unwillingness to learn, despite constant references to policy there is zero evidence that s/he has read the material or attempted to understand it which raises the issue of competence; the assertion s/he had been singled out to be blocked when s/he only encountered edit conflicts being the latest example.

I'd suggest that an absolute ban on ANY reference to the competence, attitudes or motivations of any other editor coupled with a 1RR restriction and the suggestion of a mentor might be a way forward if s/he is prepared to accept it. A topic ban on ANYTHING to do with Perrots broadly defined for a month to allow experience to be built elsewhere might be a useful addition to that. But if there is no willingness to change, and I can't see any in the reponses then I can't see any other option than a long block. The latest suggestion that s/he appeal to Jimmy against the evil machinations of two admins doesn't help the case. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that he doesn't provide diffs for what he claims. A mentor would be acceptable & go from there. We must be careful not to appear to crush the lad. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Good mentors are worth their weight in gold. If Sirjohnperrot is amenable, maybe start scouting for one? El_C 06:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironically I did offer to help last month and the offer still stands (and to be clear I know I am not worth my weight in gold) but I think we need some evidence that s/he is willing to change and accept key policies before moving on here -----Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If they agree about and manage to find a mentor, that would be ideal — a fitting end to this saga. El_C 07:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay I've offered the evidence to support my report on several occasions already but the exchanges I've referenced seem to regarded as a confession that I made it all up. Not sure what 'diffs' have to do with it either - nothing has been deleted as far as I know - is it shorthand for a certain format? I'm always happy and grateful to be mentored btw - still got a couple of experienced editors giving me advice about this scrape - it can summed up as 'repent & survive' :( Pity they didn't tell me I hadn't already been banned after your admin pack tucked in yesterday - it would have spared me the embarrassment of making a premature scaffold farewell to my friends. I'm guessing the real event isn't far off though judging from today's deposits on my talkpage. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You have not been banned, but I suspect you are about to be. Diff means you find one edit they made and then link to it, you do not ask us to dig for your evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm obliged, can't imagine why anyone would call you rude names though Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW-- Help:Diff#Linking to a diff --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - don't suppose there is a template/model for an ANI report I can look at ? Not familiar territory as you know but I'm keen to assist Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a parallel discussion at User talk:Sirjohnperrot. As user stated a wish to report me, I feel I have nothing further to contribute, and have withdrawn. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Remedies-- quo vadis?

My impression from yesterday was that OP is not compatible with a collaborative project. With mentorship, user can probably be constructive, if they accept mentorship. I have not always found user to be receptive to reason/guidance/contradiction. I think they are overly tetchy. User has refused to provide dif's for the (to me baseless accusations) and has refused to withdraw them. Contrarily, user demands admins do something. Perhaps we should. UNless mentorship leaps forward as an option, I think a WP:TBAN (to be demarcated by the community) or an indefinite block, removable when user's intransigence has passed, are the options of choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm leaning more towards a block as time goes on. This is becoming a giant time sink for someone that isn't likely to get the point, since they have't gotten a single point yet. We've tried patience and that hasn't gotten us very far, except for a few "highbrow" insults. Simply put, I have better things to do than mentor someone who already assumes they are right on every point, thus, beyond criticism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to say, at this point I think if they are mentored it will not work, and the mentor will give up in frustration. But if someone wants to volunteer to waste their time why not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary from OP

OK - Here' s my summary This incident began with Verbcatcher accusing me of dishonestly by altering a source. He refused to apologise and I raised te matter with the oversight team because of his disruptive editing . In the event he didn’t revert my revision based on the source so their role proved unnecessary and I let the matter go until Snowded announced he was going to use the event as evidence in his campaign to get me blocked. That prompted my ANI report and now the quite disgraceful handling of it by the admin team.

Extended content brought over by OP from their talk page

This is the record of events beginning with informing Verbcatcher of my Oversight treport. In the absence of any apology for your traduction I have raised the matter in Oversight as below "I am an inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the situation can be remedied." Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC) @Sirjohnperrot: I am sorry that you have felt it necessary to escalate this. I have tried to be helpful and supportive of you efforts, including spending considerable time analysing the notability of W. T. David (Talk:Laugharne#Professor W.T.David), and tracing your lost relatives (c:User talk:Verbcatcher#Portreeve of Laugharne Image Deletion Request), both of which were in response to your requests. My comments about your citation of a web page that you appeared to have created were made in the light of your other unsatisfactory citations that I had recently worked on. These include: Laugharne Corporation Perrot Society Journal Dec 1991 by A.Rees 'Perrot Society Journal" appears to be a grandiose name for what appears to be a self-published family newsletter that was posted to an archive.org account that you have acknowledged that you control. The source does not include the word 'Journal'. Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018. This was a user contribution to a website. It was not made by Andy Burnham. I had asked you give more complete citations; while I am not alleging that these citations were not intended to deceive, it was reasonable to draw your attention to another citation that appeared to be misleading. You might care to consider The Mote and the Beam. Among your comments in Talk:Laugharne are: shortening the quote in a vain attempt to support your case is disappointing and disingenuous. you clearly manipulated the quotation in order to support an inaccurate contention. Also in Talk:Laugharne, Snowded referred to "Your constant accusations of vandalism" and later wrote "You are again resorting to personal attacks rather than engaging in the discussion". On your user talk page your remarks to Snowded included: "mendacious absurdities" "More graceless and dishonest nonsense" "your transparently irrational grounds for preventing legitimate editing" "if you had a shred of integrity you would report yourself and undertake to desist from future puerile behaviour" Also consider your edit summaries: 00:43, 1 July 2020 diff hist -15‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 965322876 by Verbcatcher (talk) As per talk page - inconsistent with other entries + unjustified departure from previous consensus with no justification - clear disruptive edit Tag: Undo 00:32, 1 July 2020 diff hist +7,161‎ Talk:Laugharne ‎ →‎Perrot: Disruptive edit reversion + reply from HoP to earlier query as reported 18:51, 30 June 2020 diff hist -3,743‎ User talk:Verbcatcher ‎ →‎Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead: Deleted after breach of confidence 11:29, 25 June 2020 diff hist +1‎ m Laugharne ‎ Restoring section alignment for the third time after reversions by this user - who is either unaware of the consequence of his edits in this respeect or thinks they don't *12:46, 1 June 2020 diff hist +118‎ Thomas Perrot ‎ Undid revision 959942299 by Snowded (talk)persistent vandalism by this user Tag: Undo 12:43, 1 June 2020 diff hist +21‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138848 by Snowded (talk)Vandalism there is no good reason for these repeated deletions by this users Tag: Undo 12:41, 1 June 2020 diff hist 0‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138883 by Snowded (talk This edit is undone because of vandaism, there is no good reason for it. Tag: Undo Verbcatcher (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) It seems you are not content with your previous offensive remarks but now wish to add further insults. The P*rr*tt Society Quarterly Journal "Family Notes", which you seek to demean with your sneering description as 'grandiose' has been published continuously since 1984. Throughout that 36 year period it has been registered with the Guild of One-Name Genealogical Societies and includes among its worldwide membership many distinguished academics who contribute regularly in its pages. You would do well to remember Wikipedia is also user-generated (without a printed version.) your attribution to me of this citation *Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018. is entirely mistaken. your description of the insinuations I took action about is patently untrue as anyone can read on the Talkpage my comments about you chopping up quotations in order to mislead were accurate and restrained. my remarks to Snowded are taken out of context and were from the final stages of testing and unproductive exchanges which reciprocated his tone. your other examples of the other iniquities mostly relate to my first faltering steps on the platform when I simply didn't understand the reasons given for repeated deletions and warnings. These further attempts to justify your inexcusable conduct through smears and self-serving evasion are revealing but not surprising Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC) I was mistaken in attributing the Andy Burnham citation to you, sorry. My other comments stand. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Sirjohnperrot you are heading for a block if you carry on like this -----Snowded TALK 17:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Snowded: Think I've heard something similar from you before - no doubt a willing volunteer to swing the axe eh? I wondered when you'd show up again on here. Another one happy to resort to baseless personal accusations when losing an argument, it's pretty sad to be honest. I hope Oversight have a look at your track record over the past couple of weeks too. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC) You are no longer a newbe editor and you have been warned about constant failure to comply with policy on personal attacks. After the last batch of this I (and others) went to some lengths to achieve a compromise but your response has been to fall back to your old ways. If you can't abide by community rules then your behaviour will be raised and I suspect a topic ban is the least you can expect if that happens -----Snowded TALK 03:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Verbcatcher: So your malicious imputations of dishonesty about my Francis Jones reference were based solely on your view of a citation to this respected and reliable published source which I was unaware did not meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria when it was made. Nothing at all to do with it replacing your own flawed citations and removing the contentious quotes within them which spuriously supported your disruptive edit of the NR entry description? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) References @Sirjohnperrot:You should assume that in each talk page posting and edit summary I mean what I say, and that I do not have a hidden agenda. I am unclear why you consider my citations to be flawed or contentious. The quotes are directly from the sources and do not misrepresent what they say. I did not intend to disparage The P*rr*tt Society, of which I was unaware. Its journal appears to be called 'Family Notes'; citing it as the 'Perrot Society Journal' and not mentioning its publisher was unhelpful and made it very difficult for others to follow it up. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Verbcatcher:Let me remind you of what you wrote: "@Sirjohnperrot: there are several issues with the citation you added today. The archive.org page that you link to was created today by the archive.org member "Perrott Family of Wales". Are you responsible for this upload? If so it would raise the suspicion that you might have created the page for the purpose of citing it here, and to make the source appear more authoritative. I am not questioning the accuracy of the quote. [...] It is unclear whether the title of the archive.org page 'WESTMEAD, Laugharne' is from Jones' book or if this was added by the uploader." In short what you say is that you suspect I have fabricated a reference - which is a disgraceful allegation for which you have not yet apologised. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Sirjohnperrot: I said "it would raise the suspicion that". This is not an accusation. You may think this is sophistry, but words are important and you should consider what I said, not what you think I meant. I said that I was not questioning the accuracy of the quote. It was not clear whether the mention of Laugharne on the archive.org was from Jones' book because it was not within the attributed quote. On reflection, the phrase to make the source appear more authoritative might be seen as provocative, but at that point you had not acknowledged that you had created the page. Creating a page on another site for the purpose of citing it in Wikipedia is not appropriate and gave rise to reasonable suspicions, particularly as you had not declared that this is what you had done. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Verbcatcher: You are right, it is sophistry to suggest your remarks were not a clear accusation of wrongdoing. Actually even Protagoras would struggle to conceal that connotation. As it happens I created the page for use in my correspondence educating Dr Thrush but there are several other citations in Wikipedia from the 'Perrot Family of Wales.org' pages which have existed for many years. I'm sure you'll now have great fun tracking them down and gleefully describing their contents as self-published - which of course they are, but only in replica form. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2001/07/2020 09:39 - Wikipedia wrote: > I am an inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and > welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My > issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher > on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His > conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which > continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and > courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher > has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the > situation can be remedied. > > -- > This email was sent by user "Sirjohnperrot" on the English Wikipedia to user > "Oversight". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation > cannot be held responsible for its contents. > > The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information > about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this > email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you > respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on > privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. > To manage email preferences for user ‪Sirjohnperrot please visit > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mute/Sirjohnperrot>. > From: XXXXX Sent: 01 July 2020 23:40 To: English Wikipedia Oversight Subject: RE: [Ticket#2020070110003506] Wikipedia email from user "Sirjohnperrot" I have reverted the edit in question in two stages and that version remains current as I write. The disruptive edit was by Verbcatcher and is identified with a red arrow on this screenshot of the edit history of the Laugharne article Verbcatcger edit history The context is in current discussion on the Laugharne Talk Page#Perrot and Verbcatcher’s Talk Page#Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe. To: XXXXX Subject: Re: [Ticket#2020070110003506] Wikipedia email from user "Sirjohnperrot" Dear XXXXX, Please note, this is not the place to report disruptive users. We act under a strict policy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight ) of what we can and can not remove. To report someone's behavior, please try ANI instead ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents ). If you still feel things need oversight after reading our policy, please email us back and be very specific about what needs to be removed. Sincerely, AmandaNP English Wikipedia Oversighter the Snowded decides to have another pop and use this situation to get me blocked User warnings Thank you for your support on my user talk page. For the future, I think it is preferable to put warnings to other users their user talk page (with an edit summary in case the the warning is deleted), so that if an administrator later reviews the editor's actions the warning is explicit. When appropriate, it also helps to use one of the user talk namespace templates (see WikiProject User warnings). We should assume that an admin will not simply count the warnings, but will use them to help review a the issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I've been trying to avoid making it formal. but the time may now be there -----Snowded TALK 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Verbcatcher: I think it is becoming a clear case of multiple levels of disruption and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. #I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----Snowded TALK 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) At this point I made the ANI Report given the history of this user given his continuing personal attacks which began with this outright lie about my registration of my username and has continued with multiple interventions claiming he is acting on behalf of a group of editors when it was always just him until he found an ally in Verbcatcher couple of days ago here's where it all kicks off with Snowded in my first ever talkpage exchange Yes 2 years ago - that's what my Talk page says at the top. None of my handful of contributions up to this encounter with you have been about Perrots and your reply yet again fails to address the obvious question asked. Instead it is used as a vehicle for more mendacious absurdities. My mobile phone doesn't seem to recognise the indentation code btw Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC) You have made 50 edits, the first two in July 2019 (less than a year ago) were to Gruffydd ap Rhys which were reverted for failing Wikipedia's criteria for verifiabilty. 80% of those 50 edits related to articles where you are promoting the name Perrot which you have assumed as your nom de plume. There is nothing at the top of your talk or user page which says differently. It is hardly a mendacious absurdity to assume you are on a mission here. I've answered your two questions and tried to help out by suggesting something less ambitious that you could put forward on the Laugharne talk page. -----Snowded TALK 15:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) The screenshot of the notification panel on my Talk page above, which you claim does not exist, shows my username registration two years ago. It incontrovertibly demonstrates the absurdity of your accusations that I am on here only to promote Perrots. Your characterisation of my post history is equally ridiculous, this current exchange contains the only references to that name. You have repeatedly failed to justify deleting my additions to the notable residents list for Laugharne and are apparently unable to grasp the wikipedia policies on relevance and notability. I am now transferring this discussion back to the article's Talk page in the hope that an editorial consensus will enable my edit adding Sir James Perrot and Sir Thomas Perrot to be restored, as was the case with Sir John Perrot whose entry you also deleted and failed to restore for no good reason. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for sanction

At this point, it seems clear that Sirjohnperrot lacks the ability to work in a collaborative system, and no amount of mentoring will help. I can't see anything gained from a topic ban or a short term block, so it is best if we just cut to the chase. I'm proposing a COMMUNITY block for an indefinite period of time (via WP:DE), meaning unblocking will require community consent as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Polling

• Support as proposer. This is turning into a giant time waster as he is never going to get "it". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above . Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps mentorship as part of a WP:STANDARD OFFER. If eligible. I don't think it would work now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Suspending per possible development. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reserve judgment for now. I am trying to work out what is going on (apart from the obvious, of course). Guy (help!) 20:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per all the evidence. Why hasn't this been done yet so that our wonderful Corps of Administration can spend their time more usefully? Hmm. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This person is unsuited for a collaborative project, and has been wasting the time of several productive editors who could otherwise be improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I have read through the discussions on Talk:Laugharne, on User talk:Sirjohnperrot, and on User talk:Verbcatcher. Each instance of escalating antagonism seemed to be initiated by Sirjohnperrot, and each conciliatory explanation by Verbcatcher (who demonstrated remarkable patience throughout) just seemed to make Sirjohnperrot angrier. That level of determination to find and embrace offense is unhelpful on Wikipedia. <insert>As Sirjohnperrot's added responses still give no acknowledgement of any problems with their own behavior, I do not support mentorship as an alternative until at least after standard offer.</insert> Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support It has become increasingly evident that "Sirjohnperrot" is unable to act collaboratively, and unable or unwilling to even consider how his own behaviour looks to others, let alone try to modify it. He sees anything and everything that he doesn't like as an attack on him, or deliberate lying, or any of various other dreadful things. He appears to be unable to conceive of the idea of respectfully disagreeing; that means both that he can't do so, and that he can't see that other people are doing so, but sees disrespect where there isn't any. He is not only convinced that he is always right about everything, but also seems to be unable to imagine anyone who disagrees with him (and therefore must be wrong) doing so for anything other than wicked motives. What is more, he shows absolutely no interest whatever in learning from what others say, or changing his approach in any way. Numerous editors have put very large amounts of time into trying to explain things for him, into giving him opportunities to move forward (such as offering mentoring), into suggesting steps we can take to improve things, and so on, but they have achieved nothing. It is time to put an end to this totally unproductive time sink, so that we can move on and do more useful work for the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The mess of material they brought here from their talk page -- as if it was going to justify everything -- was the last straw for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've spent a lot of time to try to work things out. And others have spent considerably more time than me, and progress is nonexistent. Enough is enough. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 01:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's disappointing that this user has come down to this kind of editing behavior. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, inexcusable conduct.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mainly following the OP's retaliatory WP:AN thread, which seems to prove the very point under discussion here. ——Serial ^# 09:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Meh. I think it was an act of desperation, rather than retaliation. It's just a highlight of the overall impression of not being a good match for Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Enough is enough, There's only so much patience the community has and Sir has used all of that up. –Davey2010^Talk 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mainly following the OP's retaliatory WP:AN thread, as three is so much wrong with its assumptions accusation and self justification that it is hard to see how they can be mentored. They have not listened to one thing that has been said to them, not one piece of advice. Even after they have been told they are still not aware of what Diffs are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

OK lets give mentoring a chance. Who is going to step up?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I still believe this fellow can be saved, with a mentor. My goodness, we should give it a chance. If after one month with a mentor, nothing has improved? then we can apply appropriate sanctions. If not a mentor? then a topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mentor, if possible. If a mentor can be found, that would be my preferred course of action. Some users have more growing pains with Wikipedia's learning curve than others. There is still a chance that Sirjohnperrot could become a productive editor. They just need to commit to significant correction. That, alongside the oversight of a mentor, can bring the chances of success here well within the realm of possibility. I choose to be optimistic. El_C 17:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, looks like this is the first noticeboard discussion in which they have been involved, their account has been autoconfirmed for less than six weeks, and evidence is not much stronger than the evidence they provided here of personal attacks by other editors. Peter James (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support with seven day appeal User appears intransigent, unwilling to learn, quick to blame others, quarrelsome (albeit politely), obsessive on minor points, not self-reflective, resentful, etc - qualities we frequently see in problematic users who drain our collective volunteer energy. I have mentored several times, and mentoring can work with users who have made mistakes but are willing to learn, but doesn't work with those who don't see that they are the problem. This user, albeit they have offered to withdraw the complaint which prompted this poll, still thinks that others are to blame rather than themselves. I'm also not comfortable voting for mentorship when nobody has volunteered to mentor. Because this is a new user and we like to give everyone a chance, we should, however, allow an appeal after seven days. If Sirjohnperrot is able to reflect on what people are saying, and demonstrate they understand what they have done wrong, and why we are voting to ban them from contributing to the project, then there is hope there will not be a repeat of this incident. If Sirjohnperrot is unable to reflect on this and come back after seven days with an acceptable appeal, then mentorship is highly unlikely to have worked anyway. SilkTork (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent points, as usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Quite frankly, I'm amazed that this is still going on. If I had caught it before the 24 reprieve was offered, I would have blocked them at that point. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support with seven day appeal as recommended by SilkTork. Sirjohnperrot's statement on his talk page appears to indicate contrition and that he is amenable to Snowded's offer of mentorship. Mojoworker (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (sanctions concerning Sirjohnperrot)

• Great Ghu! I have not read any of user's more recent stuff. Carried over from his talk? I also see a response from AmandaNP (DeltaQuad) carried over. FWIW, there is more related content here. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
• Disclaimer please be aware that a large extract from section from User talk:Sirjohnperrot has been pasted into this discussion. This may lead to confusion as pasted content includes signatures from Sirjohnperrot, Snowded and myself for content that we had not posted to this Administrators' noticeboard discussion. This extract also makes this discussion difficult to follow – would it be appropriate to clarify what was been posted from elsewhere, perhaps by placing it in a grey box? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I collapsed the confusing stuff; hope I got it right. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm of riper years and with that goes some opinions which seem to be unfashionable on here, such as truth is important. The belief that if you do something crooked, say something untrue - just to gain an advantage - then that gain is not worth having. Ban me if you like but I agree with Mr Kipling - "...on being lied about - don't deal in lies" I don't and if a pack of lies prevails in the community empowered to protect Wikipedia'ss main purpose l it'll be a sad day indeed. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know, I hadn't read that comment when I posted my comment above, but it is a perfect confirmation of something I said there; you seem to be unable to conceive of anyone sincerely, in good faith, disagreeing with you. Anyone who says or does anything you think is wrong must by lying. Well, in a collaborative project there are always going to be disagreements among participants, and anyone who cannot or will not accept such disagreements as good faith differences of opinion to be worked with, but always sees them as lies and attacks to be uncompromisingly opposed, is, obviously, never going to be able to work collaboratively. JBW (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose if you disregard everybody other than the two involved in my report (+ a few admins) who I've disagreed with amicably and constructively on here then your description of my delinquent state would be correct. There are quite a few of those I like to think but not on this list clearly. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. He's thrown his toys out of his perambulater, now ban him? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 21:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just 'pram' in Stockport Roxy, nothing fancy about folk from here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnperrot (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not interested in the Truth®, it is interested in verifiable facts. See WP:TRUTH. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am and so should you be, we're people after all but I agree Wikipedia is about accuracy, which relies on honesty Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is precisely why you can't adapt to editing here within the policies set forth. It requires you adopt a basic set of rules, some you will find common sense, some, less so, but we all agree with function within the bounds of these "rules". The rules (policies and guidelines) are decided by the community and we agree to comply with them. Or we don't, and we leave. Compliance is not optional. Sadly, I would imagine you are nice enough in person, perhaps a little curmudgeonly, but we all can be as we age. But good intentions aren't good enough. Either you can work collaboratively, or you can't. So it isn't personal (it can't be, I don't know you, nor does anyone else here). It is simply that we have better things to do than debate endlessly over what is already accepted by the community, particularly when you are unwilling to bend in the wind the least amount. Your reaction to my comment just above demonstrates this. This just isn't the right platform for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown Why does my last reply show I'm unable to comply with the rules? Your ban proposal and this poll is very unfair. Seeking to write me off as some sort of 'curmudgeonly' lost cause on the basis of this single issue is also both offensive and inaccurate. My relationship with the majority of users I have engaged with on Wikipedia is perfectly good and maybe it's you who need to review your own earlier conduct in this matter and your current prejudicial mode of expression to comply with WP:NPA. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Polls are inherently fair in that they allow the community as a whole to opine and decide an issue, instead of a single admin taking unilateral action. Considering I could have simply blocked you without any input from anyone (that is what admins like myself are granted the tools for), I would consider polling the community to be the ultimate act of fairness, as you aren't subject to the whims or misinterpretations of a single person. The fact that you can't see this is part of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm getting fed up of the unfounded allegations that Sirjohnperrot is making about various people (myself included), and their continued unwillingness to provide evidence when directly asked to do so. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: User has removed the offending passage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I believe, in fairness, that that comment was hyperbole, but given the amount of effort spent expounding on the need for truth and accuracy, the discussion over its removal is ironic, as is the use of hyperbole in the first place --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• The real Sir John Perrot died in the Tower awaiting execution, probably poisoned by his enemies who thought Elizabeth was about to pardon him and feared his retribution. Hope that doesn't happen to me ;( Sirjohnperrot (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've watched many of these (ANI threads) play out over more than a decade here. It may take a day or so before an uninvolved admin decides the conversation here has run it's course and looks over the evidence to make a decision, but unless you make a some serious course changes fast, you're inability to play and work well with others has pretty much sealed your fate. Which will be exile, not poison. Instead of making statements like the one above, you should probably put on a contrite face, apologize to a few people, and endeavor to work within policies and collaboratively, like everyone else here. If literally everyone you encounter here tells you you are doing it wrong, you may want to take the advice on board and consider there may be something wrong with how you do things. Heiro 23:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have acknowleged my shortcomings in this from the start and collaborate happily most of the time. It's an education to read the comments about me on here - as though trying to confront what I regard as an important problem with two users somehow cancels out all the good relationships with the others and brands me as a hopeless case. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I damn sure don't expect Elizabeth to swoop in and save your bacon, it's going to take a modern equivalent of Dee or higher this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When I got the email note that the Incredible Hulk was on the case there was a brief moment of hope - alas it seems you won't be turning green on my account  :( Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubly doubtful, little dude, this account falsely represents the orange Hulkster. Best I can do is advise you train, eat your vitamins, say your prayers and believe in yourself. Then jump out of that tower and flap your pythons as fast as you can, I hear footsteps! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite seriously, this is all rather upsetting really. Laugharne is our favourite place and while idly browsing its Wikipedia’s article a couple of weeks ago I noticed that Sir John Perrot, it's most famous resident for 300 years until Dylan Thomas turned up, didn't feature on the town’s Notable People list. I ventured to add him - my last attempted edit was two years ago and like that one it was immediately deleted - which got me here. My faculties must be in steep decline because I did actually manage a successful contribution in 2006 - maybe it was easier then.

My recent Wiki experience was really very positive until now, lots of quality chat with knowledgeable people who are also interested in Welsh medieval history and then onto discussions about poetry, wiki policies on sourcing, copyrights, image formatting and many other topics. It really is puzzling that my attempt to prevent a dishonest claim being repeated through a request to Oversight - and on their recommendation transferred to ANI for action - should result in this profoundly demeaning and unjustified proposal and process. The disconnected bits of various unedifying exchanges I was obliged to cobble together as 'diffs' are now being used to determine "what sanctions I deserve" when only relevant to my report. They are completely unrepresentative of my conduct as an editor when taken out of their wider context but are being used illegitimately as a basis for most the comments made here. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• May I ask if the final verdict of this poll translates into the action proposed or are there further stages in the process? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No further stages. The result here, will be implemented. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well the can appeal after the block is in place, but they will need a much (much!) better case about their actions then they have made here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is the last step. Either a consensus opposes and you walk away, or you are blocked indefinitely and may appeal only to the community at large, or the Arbitration Committee, typically after at least a 6 month break. No single admin can overturn a community block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They have agreed to a mentor [[108]], any volunteers?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They also have asked to change their user name to Horatius_At_The Bridge... No I do not think they get it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

9sigh) As a global renamer, I must sadly inform you that renaming is not open to those "under a cloud". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering about that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope he's not gotten the idea that changing his name, will somehow avoid his getting banned. It's the individual behind the username that being considered for a ban, not just the username itself. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have informed them already that is the case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My request for a Username change has nothing to do with this at all. To make progress I will withdraw my report about Snowded. Please advise any action I should take to confirm this and then you can proceed with your deliberations secure in the knowledge that I'm going nowhere. If you wish it I've said before and I repeat that I'm very happy to have a mentor to help steer me through the Wiki shoals and if someone is prepared to take me on I'll be most grateful. I think we would all welcome a speedy resolution of this sorry saga so please press on and do your duty asap Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: Withdrawal, at this point, will not close this thread, per WP: BOOMERANG. You cannot simply withdraw to avoid sanctions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't for a moment think or suggest it would, it was simply a gesture of goodwill to help simplify the issues here, clarify that I have never been resistant to mentoring if you think that should be offered and to expedite this process if that is possible.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't taken part in the above poll for obvious reasons but I'd support the idea of a one week ban with the right to appeal. I think there has to be some evidence of understanding of why it has got to this stage and a willingness to read, work on understanding and then apply policy. Throught this saga links have been given but apparently ignored. If no one else is willing and/or Sirjohnperrot can't find someone then I'd be willing to take on the mentor role - although I understand that might not be welcome. That would including helping them on or off line understand what will be important in the appeal. The reason I placed the two warnings (3rr and then NPA) was I could see a block coming if a monitoring admin saw the behaviour and hoped some reflection would be triggered. As a community I think mentoring "difficult" editors is something we need to think about and develop an appraoch for. I've had mixed success in a few attempts but we need editors like this who are prepared to do the detailed work. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: The issue for many is not do we think it would help, do you?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would, as my old mentor Sir Karl Popper used to say "experience is what we call our mistakes" and I'm clearly very experienced on here ;) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Although parrots can be very affectionate and cute when immature, they often become aggressive when mature and may bite.

-EEng

my old mentor Sir Karl Popper – Oh please. Have you no idea how strained that sounds? EEng 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You have only had an account for a year, with less than 200 edits (90% in the last month). No I do not think you are very experienced.11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Irony doesn't appear to be your strong suit friend. There are clearly some on here who think Wikipedia would be improved if I was just escorted off the premises. To them I say that I believe this platform is a powerful force for good and its aims are irreproachable. I would do nothing to undermine those values and my contributions are intended solely to further them.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I left out a tiled by mistake.

-EEng

That was me, I left out a tiled by mistake. And no irony is not often to pick up, in certain circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You just reminded me of the time Obi wan asks Yoda : "are we going the right way?" and he answers: "off course, we are" Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked it, Sirjohnperrot. Thanks for that. El_C 11:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A question, what other platforms would be affected by a Wikipedia block?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Note this is a more specific technical question, if a block can remove a users ability to use their user name elsewhere that is rather significant, and should affect our willingness to stop people being able to access functionality that is nothing to do with us. I raised it here as until raised by Sirjohnperrot I was not aware it might even be an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• The block is isolated to the English Wikipedia, we don't have the authority to block on any other Wiki. That means unless someone is globally blocked (something we can't do here), they can edit at Commons, Simple, German or any other language Wiki under Wikimedia. That is how community blocks have always worked; limited to the Wiki in which it was enforced. Technically, they can go the German Wikipedia and ask for the name change there, and be granted the change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Alas. This is one of the drawbacks to globalization. Like a username acceptable on de.wiki might not be here. And then there is confusion and other problems because of the globalness of accounts As a global renamer (were I not already involved through this discussion), I would decline based on this still being up in the air. We have discussed this sort of thing amongst ourselves in the past, and the consensus has been to decline. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to close

Can we agree to close this on the SilkTork variation? Block but with the right to appeal after 7 days? If we leave access to the talk page then I can work with Sirjohnperrot on the appeal as he has accepted mentorship. That way the workings will be visible to whoever reviews the appeal if/when it is made-----Snowded ^TALK 03:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. All credit to you for intervening. Deb (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If users think this will work fine, go for it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It needs an admin to do it - I don't have the mop so I can't put the block in place and I was involved anyway -----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• There actually isn't a consensus for SilkTork's idea outright, although I won't protest if that is what the closer decides to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No but it was more or less the last response so people didn't have it in mind. It seems reasonable to me - if the user can't get an appeal together what have we lost?-----Snowded ^TALK 15:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, if the editor has agreed to a mentor and will agree to a voluntary one week ban from editing main article space then perhaps any sanction could be withdrawn for a week to see how it works? WP:IAR and WP:ROPE spring to mind, if he continues as before there appears to be a community sanction to block them if they return to the same ways. It seems that a head of steam has built up over this, which is a shame since they seem on the face of it to have stepped back. Does it matter if we wait a week? WCM_email 12:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canvassing and threatened to have an admin called on me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been told I was canvassing by Lil-unique1 and have been threatened by MaranoFan that he would bring admin if I kept creating “Finneas stubs”. This has happened in the past by different users and has made me very stressed. It seems like they want me banned, so if an admin can please do that request and ban this account, because I was canvassing and creating article that someone doesn’t like. That would be very helpful. The users can be happy and I can finally stop stressing over these incidents and move on with my life... DarklyShadows (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DarklyShadows, if editing Wikipedia is causing you distress, you should stop. I would be willing to block you for any duration you wish, up to and including indefinitely. El_C 14:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of ANI. You should leave ANI notices on both those editors' talk pages to notify them of this discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C Indefinitely would be great. It seems these users want me gone and it’s making me very worried and stressed. Thanks a lot. DarklyShadows (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please revdel edit summary containing offensive, ableist personal attack from User:John Maynard Friedman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Diff.

Please revdel the edit summary only, which contains an ableist personal attack from User:John Maynard Friedman, in direct contravention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks § What is considered to be a personal attack?Nᵒ1, under WP:CRDNᵒˢ2 & 3.

I did not see this slur when I wrote out Special:PermaLink/966743960 (see very bottom of page), only later did I see it in the edit summary. That edit summarizes the controversy before I discovered this edit summary.

An image of me showing my height (File:Fredrick Brennan selfie.jpg) is on my user page. My user page also links to the article here about me which features the same image in the first sentence, as well as a link to a 12 May 2020 ANI discussion proving it's me. I am 26 years old. I am not a teenager and certainly no longer a boy. I have osteogenesis imperfecta which caused my congenital, permanent dwarfism.

[L]ittle boy, along with little man, is most commonly directed at me by QAnon people and 8chan users I've angered by campaigning for 8chan to be closed. In fact, they usually use the softer little man, but John Maynard Friedman has here gone for the harshest form of this insult, implying I'm immature due to being a dwarf. Other editors should get the message that this will not be tolerated. It is a clear-cut personal attack. Amazingly, he has the chutzpah to declare my good faith attempt at an olive branch through humor a "provocation", and then decides to call a dwarf a little boy. If my olive branch and improving Wiktionary, which I would have done anyway, is a personal attack, I'll accept chastisement or sanction. But I will not accept editors mocking my disability, and he should immediately apologize.

I cannot request an apology from him as it could be seen as Wikipedia:Harassment because he requested a voluntary WP:IBAN. And, I don't think just an apology is enough. The community should know about this behavior. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As EEng said, there are better ways to sort this out than going to ANI. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the offending edit summary. We aim to be inclusive to the utmost on Wikipedia. Any mocking of one's disability will be responded to most harshly. That said, I can't tell if that was the intent here, but I will warn the user against doing so in no uncertain terms. Are you sure you want this report to remain visible, Psiĥedelisto? El_C 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to request at least a cursory look at whether there's a boomerang concerning this editor's consistent battleground mentality and disruptive editing at template:Char and its associated TFD. There seems to be a pretty consistent WP:NOT HERE and WP:DE pattern in this user's refusal to edit collaboratively. A couple days ago, it looked like he might be turning over a new leaf by engaging a bit with User:Spitzak, but that seems to have been wishful thinking on my part when I held off on going to ANEW. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Vanisaac. That is callous. El_C 01:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 (+10, actually). EEng 02:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

<stunned, slack-jawed silence> EEng 02:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I think we should block Friedman until we get a satisfactory answer. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, thank you. User:John Maynard Friedman, this is a serious matter. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also redacted Vanisaac assertion that Psiĥedelisto is using his disability to game the system. Unbelievable. The heartlessness. I'm seriously weighing blocking them, as well. El_C 01:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I have blocked Vanisaac for one week. Sorry, but I'm pretty disgusted. El_C 01:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What happened here? In no one's defense, and in everyone's offense, that talk page discussion went badly in a few ways (even by the OP), and this report spiraled out of control quickly. I think this jumped the shark when emotions over took logic. This thread is a textbook example of worst-case-scenario. Why couldn't this have been talked out first? I think we have some people from different backgrounds interacting here without considering the other person's background. Lots of good people involved here. I purposely am using the word "people" here instead of "editors". Can everyone take a second look here? I think this can be worked out better. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, anything concrete beyond a general chastisement to everyone? I'll repeat what Drmies said: this is a serious matter. I'm not sure you're fully appreciating that. El_C 04:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

But from what I can tell from digging thru the diffs and talk pages, was it really a conscious attack on the OP's disability? I'm asking for serious proof. The OP seemed to be getting under a few people's skin at the template talk. I agree with revdelling the edit summary, but where can it be shown that JMK was attacking based on disability? I thought they were attacking based on talk page interactions. Am I missing something? I'm not trying to downplay this, but can't this be resolved with some discussion? Where are the diffs showing they were clearing trying to hurt the OP based on their knowledge of the disability? Was this just a case of bad choice of words? Where's the diffs? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The diff is at the top of the report, entitled: "Diff." Clarifications from John Maynard Friedman have been sought. No need for redundancy, Bison X. El_C 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The diff was I will not descend to your level. I am ignoring everything you write. I choose not to debate with you or engage with you in any way. The reasons will be obvious to everyone except you. My choice is to work with editors who aim for consensus by calm and reasoned discussion and do not need to resort to personal attacks or believe that they can just impose their will irrespective of discussion in progress. and their edit summary was apparently "little boy", right? The OP frustrated the hell out of JMK, right? Where is it acknowledged they knew the latitude of what the hell they were saying? Is there a history here you're not letting on about? Are these blocks really appropriate? Psiĥedelisto was only asking for revdel of the edit summary. Can I ask @Psiĥedelisto: to respond here? I think there might be a way to work thru this. However, if JMK has previously acknowledged their disability, then I am completely off base here, I admit. But is that the case? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your insensitivity has been noted. Psiĥedelisto, please do not feel obliged to respond to that. Please move along, Bison X. You are not helping. El_C 05:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(e/c with close) I've been on both sides of something like this -- usually a misunderstanding. I must be missing something, so I apologize. I'll "move along." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• This footnote is not intended as a contribution or material comment on the closed discussion above. However as my user-name has been put on the record with motives attributed to me, I feel that I should be allowed a closing comment. (If this is not allowed, then I will let it go). Had it not all happened in the middle of the night UK time, I would have rushed to correct a horrible misunderstanding. I have never encountered the complainant before this week, I know nothing about their personal circumstances and had no reason to go poking about. I have apologised at my talk page for an unintentional but very real insult.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  And I'll just add that JMF apoligized to P on another page, and P has graciously accepted that apology. So a painful episode has ended well, I think. EEng 15:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USER: Mr.User200 - keeps his posting his personal conclusions and counts under military/aviation articles.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

his most recent hits are:

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

MIM-23 Hawk

but I am very sure he is everywhere, moving in the shadows and driving his personal POV as given facts. Give him a warning, block, I don't know... Just do something, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnkd (talk • contribs)

Just in case, use talk page for dispute resolution. Also the edit you reverted was just stick to the Source ( Literal from the RS "The airstrikes late Saturday on the al-Waitya airbase in the desert southwestern of Tripoli destroyed military equipment recently brought in by Turkey, including air-defense systems, according to officials in Tripoli. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media", the Washington Post. Your errasing of information at List of aviation incidents is pure blanking of content because you dont like it. And that edit is vandalism or DONTLIKEIT at least. You have errased that table over 8 timed in a years other users have reverted your blancking including me. Other pages have a final table too. See the Shotdown template artivles.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My talk page.

Can an admin sort out this weirdness that seems to be attacking my talk page. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I just indef'd the Commander in Chief. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

heh, cheers, let's make Wikipedia great again! Govvy (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"[W]hy remove i need rights" — tweet-worthy! El_C 15:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Not even the actual real Donald Trump would write English as garbled as this. Now about those tax returns.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Covfefe? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

lol, I could restore the content for a laugh! heh. Govvy (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If this were the real Trump he wouldn't be making a Wikipedia account to "make things right", he'd tweet something like: "Terrible! The failing Fake News Pedia isn't talking about how we are REBUILDING OUR ECONOMY. Did Hillary pay them off? Or was it China? JOBS!" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I only just noticed this thread. I came across this user via Special:Log/newusers. Adam9007 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

heh, I decided to added it to bottom of User:Govvy for a laugh, feel free to write funny stuff below it if you want. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I missed my joke earlier. I impeached the Commander in Chief. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible breach of edit restrictions

Das osmnezz is subject to editing restrictions not allowing them to create BLPs directly into article space- the notice for it is at the top of their talkpage. However, they created List of foreign English Non-League players, a list consisting almost entirely of living people. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.", therefore I believe this list is a BLP according to that page. Thus, according to that definition of BLP, Das osmnezz has broken their edit restrictions. Pinging Ad Orientem as the admin who enforced these edit restrictions in 2017. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Those editing restrictions seem to be withdrawn. Reyk _YO! 14:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't notice that. However, they first created this article in article space in February 2019, which would still be a violation. And if this is the standard of articles they're going to be producing, then maybe the restrictions were correct to be in place. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• If that's the case then I'd guess this article was known to Ad Orientem when they decided to unban. But let's see what AO says about it. Reyk _YO! 14:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. A few points. I have provisionally lifted the editing restrictions based on a gradual improvement in their article creation. To date he has created over 700 articles. Most of those are stubs but clearly do pass GNG and cleared AfC. I was not aware of this list, but the BLP and general quality concerns raised appear valid to me. Regards the breach of editing restrictions; it's possible he may not have understood that the list was covered in those restrictions (I don't think English is their first language). In any event the breach is from a year and a half ago, so I am inclined to treat this as stale sans evidence that it is part of a pattern of behavior. As far as I can tell he was pretty good about abiding by the restrictions and I am aware of only one other breach, which was minor and treated as a no harm no foul event. Having said this, I am not at all impressed by this list and may chime in at the AfD. I would very much like Das osmnezz to join us here, acknowledge the concerns raised above and assure us that this is not going to be the sort of thing we can expect in the future. Lastly, I would caution Das osmnezz, formally, that editing restrictions can be reinstated if sloppy editing and/or questionable page creation starts to become a recurring problem. We all make mistakes and even experienced editors have had pages they created deleted. But I don't want to see this becoming a pattern. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Sulfurboy:... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If the first thing this user is going to do is put this level of crap into mainspace, it seems to me that they've not learnt how to write decent articles. Most of their articles have been borderline notable stubs anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is really stupid. That was created in mainspace back in 2019, probably accidentally, and moved back to mainspace on 3 July. There's a reasonable argument that the article wasn't directly about a BLP, and it's so far back that it's not an urgent issue. This should have been dealt with back then, but I don't support any further sanctions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• I second what SportingFlyer states. AO pinged me to this as I recommended to them that the restrictions on Das be lifted. I have reviewed a few dozen of their articles via the AfC process and all passed notability guidelines with flying colors. Trying to nitpick on some year and a half old list article is a case of WP:DEADHORSE Sulfurboy (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see any purpose in sanction here. It might be a technical violation, but 1. it is very old, 2. it is possible that they didn't see this as being covered by the restriction because it wasn't an article on any individual. Any sanction at this late of date, under these circumstances, would be punitive rather than preventive. In a nutshell, if this is the worst he did while under the restriction, we should overlook it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• My 2p - one, this is not an "old" violation, he moved the page into mainspace less than a week ago. Two, and more importantly, we are missing the bigger issue here - Das osmnezz's lack of understanding and competence. I have seen a large number of their creations at AFC, some are non-notable, some are notable but in incredibly poor condition. It's such hard work tidying up after this editor. GiantSnowman 10:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated insults by Kyteto and problem with an admin

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

A few days ago I got in a minor revert war with the user User:Kyteto in the article BDC Aero Industrie over my removal of a few badly sourced trivial paragraphs. Which he and another user claimed I had removed in a bad faith edit to intentionally make the article seem less notable by removing the sources that the content was attached to. Which simply wasn't factual. When I messaged Kyteto on his talk to work things out he proceeded to insult and attack me in message after message. Including calling me arrogant and hypocritical multiple times (as can be seen in his changeset comments here, and here at the end of his comment). Even after I said I was in the wrong, that I didn't care if the sources that I had removed were restored or retained, and asked him not to insult me anymore.

I probably would have been fine with just letting things go. Except an admin named User:El C got involved, put the whole thing on me by claiming I was the one casting aspersions etc etc and said Kyteto had the right to comment as he saw fit because he's a long standing member. I assume the "comments" that were OK for Kyteto to make related to the insults, because those were the only things he said that I ever took issue with. I'm not really satisfied with the outcome. Especially an admin "resolving" things by saying it's cool that Kyteto called me an arrogant hypocrite repeatedly, among other things, because he's been here a while. I assume the WP:PA still applies to long standing members. If so, then he should be capable for violating it and User:El C shouldn't be telling people it's OK for long standing members to insult them. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Links to the personal attacks are needed. What El_C said may have been misrepresented, as they did not OK personal attacks. Also, I think the removal of sources when such removal decreases the likelihood of an WP:AfD candidate being seen as notable is a poor idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, can you clarify what you meant when saying: “Also, I think the removal sources when such removal decreases...”? It’s a bit ungrammatical. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I thought I provided links to his talk page comments in the first paragraph. At the end of the third line. In his changeset comments he called my approach to this hypocritical twice in the first one and in the second one at the end he said "it comes off as hypocritical, in my opinion - the fact that you compound that with the justification of "bad edits" also comes off as arrogant, in my opinion." I'm pretty sure he said it in other places to, but even he didn't that's more then enough IMO. Especially since I asked him to stop after the first time.

I agree removing the sources might have been a poor idea, but I wasn't thinking about doing the AfD at that point and I said Kyteto could restore them if he wanted when I realized it probably wasn't the best thing to do. Last time I checked though articles can be edited during AfDs anyway and I assume that would include removing badly sourced content. Either way, it doesn't warrant the personal attacks. Although, I removed them before I decided to do one. I don't think I misrepresented what El_C said. There might not have been an outright OK of the personal attacks, but they weren't addressed at all. Which seems like tacit approval to me. Especially since it was combined with the statement that Kyteto could say whatever he wants. Otherwise, El_C should have explicitly said otherwise. He/she was fine calling me out for casting aspersions, when I wasn't the one calling anyone arrogant. So, if he/she had a problem with Kyteto doing it there was zero reason not to just say so. BTW, Kyteto also accused me of intentionally trying to hide what I was doing multiple times for some reason and went off about how I was trying to miss-lead people with my changeset comments. Undid revision 966615420 by Robert McClenon (talk)Which made no sense. Really, most of the interaction seemed like an attempted character assassination or something on his part. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want to be accused of arrogance and hypocrisy then stop behaving with arrogance and hypocrisy. Kyteto took the time to give a lengthy explanation of how your actions were incorrect without making any personal attack. Read and understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, that's well and good. Except I said already that I did and said multiple he could restore the sources. I'm not sure what's arrogant or hypocritical about agree with the persons and telling them to do what they want. Even if it was though, there's still a civil way to go about things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted Adamant1 on that article. It's never smart to remove good sources, even if it is trivial, when an article is at AFD. They are smart enough to filter the wheat from the chaff there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, except like I said I removed the sources before I did the AfD. So, I don't know what your talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Removing reliable sources then sending it to AFD is no different than sending it, then removing them. Your Jedi mind tricks don't work around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: it's a silly thing to edit war over, especially when it's clear that it's an edit-war rather than 3RR (meaning your two reverts would stil be considereed warring). the AfD will see that it all comes out in the wash, one way or another. ——Serial ^# 12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I think the links provided support the conjecture that you have been casting aspersions. Maybe you're just tetchy today or something, but you are coming across as bellicose. We do edit articles at AfD, BTW. Generally we seek to rescue if possible. As has been noted, removing cites looks like the opposite of WP:BEFORE. If an article is to sink on the shoals of AfD, let her go down with flags flying and brightwork polished. Don't see much here to do of an admin nature-- Block/Protect/Delete --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I never claimed I didn't cast aspersions. Just that it wasn't proportional to or in the same nature as Kyteto's and that he didn't called out for his casting of them while I did. Like I said in my original message I would have been fine letting it go if Ahunt hadn't of came along and chastised me for it without doing the same to Kyteto or saying it was cool for him to do because he's been here awhile. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying my tone could have been better, I'm not fine with me being the only one that gets called out for it though when Kyteto clearly did the same thing. The excuse of long-term membership by El_C wasn't a good way to approach it either. Also, what was bellicose about saying he could restore the sources if he wanted to? He was the one that didn't and continued the argument instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

When referring to Ahunt and Kyteto, Adamant1 wrote: Re sock puppeting. It doesn't matter if you are "individual people." "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. So, I warned Adamant1 that those two users are editors in good standing who may edit and comment as they see fit. I also warned him not to WP:HOUND Kyteto, but instead use ANI for any pattern of problems they may identify. This report is not what I had in mind. Needless to say, I stand by that warning, even if I did let Adamant1 have the last word (at length). Which obviously wasn't enough. But that very lengthy discussion on Kyteto's talk page, that clearly needed to end sooner rather than later. El_C 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I have zero problem with you saying Kyteto can edit how he sees fit because he's a long-term member (although I think that's questionable when it comes to edit warring). My problem is with the part that he can "comment" however he wants due to it. Which your not addressing in your message. My original comment about sockpuppeting has nothing to do with it and seems like a whataboutism. I was just explaining to him why I had reverted him and Ahunt in the first place, because at the time I felt like they were working together to slant the AfD in a certain direction. So I'm not sure how it's relevant. It has nothing to do with or justifies him calling me arrogant or hypocritical multiple times . Let alone you not calling him out for doing so. When you where fine calling me out. It's completely ridiculous to act like there's a connection between me explaining myself and him saying I was an arrogant hypocrite, or that there was no reason to say anything to him because of it. It just shows he wasn't willing to accept my explanation and continued badgering me. Which you fully should have said something about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I'll focus my warnings as I see fit. You are welcome to bring that up to review, which you have done with this report, but I would suggest, again, that you move on from this and take my warning to heart. El_C 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a very good way to handle this. I think it's fair to request that you be more balanced and fair in how you focus your warnings and to bring it up when you aren't. Telling me to just move on when I'm bringing up what I think is a legitimate complaint about how you dealt with something is rather muh IMO. Especially since you suggested on Kyteto's talk page that I file complaint if felt like things weren't settled or that otherwise I'd be violating WP:HOUND by continuing it. I can't bring it up for review like you told me to do and also move on from it at the same time. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I don't know what muh is, but this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. If you're unable to move on from this, that is on you and not to your credit, I challenge. El_C 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I note that despite the original poster's verbosity above we still haven't been given any diffs of personal attacks, rather than valid criticism of edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your talking about. I included the diffs of personal attacks in my first message, at the end of the third line. I'm not sure how I was being verbose either. I thought we were suppose to explain things and people keep miss quoting me, or saying I didn't say things that I did (like with you). So, I felt the need to be more detailed. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have read the diffs that you provided in your first message and still can't see any personal attacks there. Can you please quote the particular sentence(s) involved which contained personal attacks, rather than criticism of edits? And they were both edits by Kyteto, but you also complained about El_C. How about some diffs for that complaint? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Re quotes, for Kyteto

• "You're hear complaining about being reverted several times, but you've done it to me in the same timeframe at more than double the frequency, so it comes off as hypocritical, in my opinion - the fact that you compound that with the justification of "bad edits" also comes off as arrogant."
• "hiding that deletion under the euphemism of 'fixing' is underhanded,"
• "I find it deceptive to be removing the autogenerated Undid revision xxxxxxx by yyyyyy from your edit summaries, as if you're trying to obfuscate your reversion actions from the log,"
• "either your latest version of events is a lie, or your edit summary was, they cannot be both true. False narratives indeed,"
• "you value your own opinions and actions to a higher level than diametrically identical actions being performed by others," "I'm sure you'd be mystified if I suddenly started telling you about the actions of random editors and how their actions should be transposed onto you; in such a circumstance I am certain you'd be unhappy. Again, a double-standard,"
• "my takeaway from this is that your belief is, that when you edit content that's not the same, it 'doesn't count', but when I edit content that's not the same, you're counting it differently? Sounds like a hypocritical approach to me." Etc etc. All that is from only a few messages to.

With El_C the main thing was him saying "Adamant1, a warning: like Kyteto, Ahunt is an editor is good standing. They are entitled to comment as they see fit. Please do not cast aspersions." When Kyteto was the one casting aspersions as I've quoted him here as doing. Which El_C didn't call him out for. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• These aren't personal attacks, they are criticisms. If you can't handle disagreement or criticism, you're not going to have a good time at Wikipedia. Personal attacks are along the lines of "You are an asshat" or "You're a fucking idiot". Those would be actual attacks. Commenting on your actions is, well, commenting on your actions. There is nothing actionable here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how what he said was "criticisms" or how the distinction matters anyway. WP:PA says personal attacks involve "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." So, I assume saying things like I was using changesets comments to hide my reverts, that I was lying, and that I have a hypocritical approach to this whole thing would qualify as personal attacks. No guideline anywhere, WP:PA, WP:AGF, or otherwise says bad behavior is just confined to saying someone is a fucking idiot. Him saying I was using changeset comments to hide things isn't just a disagreement either. I'm totally fine with someone disagreeing with me or commenting on my actions. That wasn't all he was doing though. Also, if what he said is just normal stuff that people on Wikipedia have to tolerate I don't see why El_C would have ever called me out for casting aspirations. It's kind of a weird double standard to argue that what Kyteto said was normal criticism that I just deal with, but then to also claim El_C calling me out for casting aspersions was legitimate and the appropriate thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I'm a lot more sensitive to aspersions about socking than I am about some jabs that are lightly interspersed in a very lengthy discussion thread. Especially when these are borderline, at best. Also, do you not see a problem with the manner in which you engaged this very report? My sincere hope is that you will be able to draw some lessons from this. Please rely more on your critical faculties and introspect. El_C 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C I wasn't accusing Kyteto of being a socket puppet on his talk page or anywhere else. I was saying that if both of them were reverting me in a concreted way together to try and get me to violate the 3RR rule so they could report me for it that my defense would be them sock puppeting. Which is why I specifically said "I'd be fine making the argument of sock puppeting if" Otherwise, I wouldn't have just let it go after that and reported them for it. Saying "i'd be fine going to the grocery store if I needed groceries" isn't the same as saying "I'm going to the grocery store for groceries." I'm not sure how can say me doing the first one is casting asperations. Let alone that it is at all comparable to him calling me an arrogant hypocrite multiple times. There's no way me saying what I did was was worse then what he said, and if they were equal you still didn't call him out for his part of the arguement and should have. Instead of tacitly approving of it by saying he can say whatever he wants. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, quit casting aspirations and just wallow in the mud with the rest of us. Grandpallama (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama I don't see how it's wallowing in the mud to ask for fair treatment and for people to be treated equally. Anyway, El_C said to take up the issue here if I wasn't satisfied with the outcome. I wasn't, so I did. That's it. Non-constructive and overly critical comments like your's are a big reason why this whole arduous discussion hasn't ended yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

this whole arduous discussion hasn't ended yet Really? I don't think you're reading the "room" correctly. But please, carry on. Grandpallama (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll stop responding when you stop writing useless critical comments. How about that? Like I said, I was over this a long time ago and I'm only responding still because of comments like yours. So, us both stopping seems fair to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Aspiration effect in casting: [109] --T*U (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hope this does not turn into Aspiration pneumonia from mud wallowing --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar

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

Belteshazzar is an editor with just under 7,000 edits, of which at least 200 relate to Bates method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) either directly or indirectly. His advocacy of fringe content at that article has been going on for over a year, and his vigorous talk page advocacy for at least four months, including not just WP:FRINGE material but also sources that fail RS (and especially MEDRS), blatant WP:SYN and more. As he himself added to WP:IDHT, "if you obstinately stick with one argument for too long, other editors might then assume that anything else you advocate for is wrong." He is a disruptive presence at that article and shows no sign of dropping the stick. I request that he be topic banned from articles related eyesight. Guy (help!) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, or you can save everyone some time and just AE ban that topic area per WP:ARBPS. I would support. El_C 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We've already discussed taking Belteshazzar to ArbEnf. There's no need for discussion here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"over a year" is misleading, as I edited very rarely until March of this year.

Please note that I asked an optometrist for help, which I obviously wouldn't do if I were advocating for the Bates method. (He has not yet responded, probably because he knows of no better sources.)

Most recently, I simply tried to more accurately reflect an already cited source and sources it cites, which say there is sometimes an improvement of more than two lines in acuity from the initial blur after glasses are removed. That would seem to be more than "slight". Belteshazzar (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as the claim that I advocate for "sources that fail RS (and especially MEDRS), blatant WP:SYN", this is applied quite inconsistently in the current Bates method article. A reference to pseudomyopia is excluded because the source does not quite connect it to the Bates method specifically, whereas other sources cited in the article do not specifically connect the Bates method to things they are cited for. Sources from 1943 and 1957 are used to source a key point about why the Bates method might sometimes seem to work, but a 1952 source by Elwin Marg is rejected insofar as another such point is concerned. Belteshazzar (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I was going to sit on the fence for this one, but with the suggestion[110] that "short-lasting" might not mean "temporary" because of some unspecified "context", I think a line has been crossed. I think it would be good for everybody if Belteshazzar could focus on other areas of the Project than the Bates method. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Did you see my response here? I do believe the intended meaning was likely a bit different, but I acknowledge that it does indeed appear to say what you think it does, and I certainly won't try to impose my interpretation on the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The trouble is that in creating pointless discussions, editors' time, the most valuable resource the Project has, is being wasted. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
      • If we're going to talk about people's time being wasted, the current article will likely not dissuade readers from wasting their time with the Bates method. If pseudomyopia and "flashes of clear vision" were explained, readers might realize that they or someone they know are not likely to get much more improvement than they already have. "ineffective" at the top is also damaging in this regard, because it might convince such readers that the article authors don't know what they're talking about. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk

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

Flight of the boomerang

Dear Wikipedia admins,a user named NitinMlk, is targeting biography BLP pages in name of caste factor continuously.He belongs to a particular caste 'Jat' himself and is trying to spoil all genuine history articles in pursuit of vandalism. His pattern of spoiling articles is uniform and always targetted against biographies,BLP of all castes of India, expect his own.Almost all times he doesn't even read the references provided and simply modifies all articles and mentions his particular caste in all articles. Respected, admins I urge you to monitor such racist and casteist users like NitinMlk and keep Wikipedia free platform for all well-sourced content.

Thanks & Regards 27.255.238.114 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP who opened this discussion did not inform NitinMlk of its opening. I have left them a note on their talk page informing them of the thread. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• "He doesn't read the references"? This revert you made of Nitinmlk actually contains no sources at all, as one webcite saying a book exists isn't actually a source, and the other paragraph has no source at all, so unless I hear a good reason why your version is superior, I'm going to revert it as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Caste warriors do show up from time to time. There is the ability to give them a warning about discretionary sanctions for South Asian artilces, though I am unsure whether such a warning is reserved for admins to give or whether any editor may give them. It feels like a admin grade warning. Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone can add it. It is an alert, not a warning. It does not imply wrongdoing at the point of being issued. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please add it whenever you see a new caste warrior, Fiddle Faddle and others! It's a big help for admins if an alert gets added early. We can only give DS sanctions for disruption that occurred after they got the alert, and it's quite frustrating, I find, to have to first give the alert and then wait for more disruption. (So doesn't the alert ever stop the disruption? Well.. frankly.. not so's you'd notice, no.) Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Bishonen, Sitush, Thank you both. I have now worked out how and when to deploy it and will add it to my portfolio of non admin tasks I am able to do Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• The anon's source appears to be this, which was written ca. 200 years ago. It is essentially a primary text. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• I've blocked the anon for a month. If that was an account, they'd get a NOTHERE block. Bishonen | tålk 09:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

• First of all, I apologise for the delay. This report was filed after I logged out yesterday, and I came to know about it only a few minutes ago.

As already explained by Sitush, they only provided an approx. 200-year-old source. Such outdated, non-scholarly works are not considered reliable for history-related details on this project. In fact, there are many modern scholarly sources available for the subject, and I cited one of them in my edit summary. Here is the full quote from that book's latest edition:

Few details about Bhai Mani Singh

McLeod, W. H.; Fenech, Louis E. (2014). Historical Dictionary of Sikhism (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 199. ISBN 978-1442236004. MANI SINGH (1673–1738). A Jat Sikh born in a village near Patiala. He became a devoted follower of Guru Gobind Singh and after the evacuation of Anandpur in 1704 escorted two of the Guru’s wives to Delhi. Returning to join the Guru in Damdama Sahib, he inscribed, by tradition, a copy of the Adi Granth at the Guru’s dictation. He is also said to have gathered together the various works that now form the Dasam Granth. This too is by tradition. In the controversy over changes introduced into the Panth by Banda, he evidently sided with the Tat Khalsa. When the Punjab eventually quieted down following the execution of Banda, he was placed in charge of Harimandir Sahib by Mata Sundari. In 1738 he was executed by the Mughal governor of Lahore on a spurious charge of failing to pay tribute. Since then he has been remembered by the Panth as a great martyr.

As far as mentioning caste in a BLP is considered, we have a long-term consensus that caste should be mentioned only if the subject self-identify with it – see here for details. Also, I always read the references properly and provide clear edit summaries for my edits. Rest of the anon's comment is just full of nonsensical claims and personal attacks.

PS: The anon removed an unsourced detail from the article,[111] after which I posted a welcome template on their page.[112] And that was my only interaction with them before they opened this thread. So I am a bit surprised by this mud-slinging. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride: Annual accusations of bias

If others have feedback to offer at Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Loves_Pride#Bias, by all means. I'm over it. You lost me at 'Wiki Loves Domestic Violence'.

Wiki Loves Pride is an annual campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content across Wikimedia projects, among other goals such as making the editing community more inclusive and working with LGBT-related institutions. I've helped organize this campaign for several years now, and each year I get to read comments about how the campaign does not comply with Wikipedia's neutrality standards, see a stream of disparaging (if not hateful) comments on Wikipedia's Facebook page after sharing anything LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride, and even sometimes receive hateful messages in my email inbox.

If editors have constructive feedback about the campaign, or can think of improvements to project pages so I don't have to read these same comments every year (some sort of banner or FAQ or something?), I invite you to share thoughts on the talk page.

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've hatted that noxious mess per WP:NOTFORUM. Sorry you have to put up with this sort of abusive nonsense - goes with the territory on Wikipedia these days, I'm afraid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

For edits such as this, this, and the final warning they received, I have blocked Somua35 for this edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, Ian.thomson, and Swarm: See more here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Update: The comment has been removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That user left a message on my page complaining about my description of Somua35's post as if I was addressing him instead. Um, @Ray2556: you sure you want to say it that way? Because that doesn't leave the best implication for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, upon counting their edits and seeing that just over three-quarters of their activity is complaining about Wiki Loves Pride (half of that before that WP:POINT-edly made lipservice of doing something else), I'm just gonna block them as NOTHERE (not sockpuppetry, even though they stumbled into what I could pretend was a confession). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Primal Groudon and OR

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

User is continuing to add original research to articles despite warnings at Book of Ruth and Book of Joshua (e.g., here and here). How their own analysis of Biblical text constituted OR was explained to them late last year at Talk:Book of Ruth#Original research by multiple other editors. I just dropped a final warning on their talk page, but another attempt was made to add the same text back. (They've also now made a 4th revert at Book of Joshua too as I'm writing this). There are some other indications in their editing history that suggest that they're unwilling or unable to cite sources. It might be time for some sanctions here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you're lying about the number of reverts and the fact that my edits weren't original research? How despicable. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You've now made 3 at Book of Ruth, and 4 at Book of Joshua. My original post had the wrong one at 4, and I've since corrected that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In reality, I'v only made two on each. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are now the 5 reverts at Book of Joshua: [113], [114], [115], [116], [117] and 3 at Book of Ruth: [118], [119], [120] (not even including the initial edit which was to re-introduce material that you were trying to add to the article several months ago). Insisting that something isn't a revert in an edit summary doesn't make it so.–Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• After a long break, Primal Groudon recently returned to editing Wikipedia. Today they made their first edit after the break. They do appear to be restarting the campaign of original research about Bible topics that they were warned about previously, in December 2019. Unless they agree to stop, I suggest a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. Some very strange edit summaries from Primal Groudon, claiming their reverts on Book of Joshua aren't violations of 3RR "as this edit isn't a revert". Instead they believe it's "the vandalism that constantly reverts me" that violates 3RR. I'm baffled, but I suppose a highly AGF explanation could be that they don't understand, or have not seen, the definition of a revert: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". They don't seem to understand, or know, the "whether in whole or in part" part. And are unwilling to learn — the "How despicable" above is not promising. Anyway, they have now reverted Book of Joshua five times in less than an hour [sic], with those kinds of aggressive and IDHT edit summaries, and are also edit warring to insert original research in Book of Ruth. I have blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. It's a pretty short block considering the disruption, but then it's their first. Bishonen | tålk 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

Can someone check out what Groudon did at Talk:List of states by population in 1 CE? I'm not sure whether there was agreement to this redirect and whether it involves a rename. Achar Sva (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Although deletion of the mother-article seems an attractive alternative.Achar Sva (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to have Mary Kay Letourneau's wikipedia account locked (User:Smmary)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Infamous former school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau had a wikipedia account, Smmary that was used intermittently over the last decade to dispute claims about herself on her article per WP:BLPSELF, most recently just last year. Now that the subject is deceased per recent news coverage, and the fact that the article got over 700,000 views in the past few days can her user and talk pages be permanently protected. Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clash Jester

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Clash Jester (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE; see the number of warnings on his user page and his ongoing creation of very questionable redirects shown in his deleted CONTRIBS, which came about after their block for pretending to be a famous footballer. At worst a troll who thinks they are cleverer than they are, at best somebody who is CIR/NOTHERE. I suggest an indef block. GiantSnowman 16:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. See their talkpage, redirect mess. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether they are a professional footballer or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• I think we have a CIR issue. Emailed me three times over the rename and unblock. Posted so many times to their talk page I could not accept their request and someone else unblocked during all the edit conflicts. Just too hot to trot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  I did not think too hard about the rename. Gah! t'ink about it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed on an indefinite block, we should not have imposters on Wikipedia such as this one "pretending to be a famous footballer". Footballers should be training at the time and days of these edits made by this user, not spending time trolling. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with a block, he's clearly not here for the benefit of Wikipedia. JMHamo (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the input here, and my own review of his live and deleted contribs, I think an indef block for WP:NOTHERE is due. Going to block after this edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam-only account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Status:     Done

• BALA YESU SCHOOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Spam-only account, soft blocked. Change to hard block because it is a spam-only account and username violates policy as promotional. I tried submitting this to WP:AIV, but it got removed by a bot. –User456541 14:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User456541, the account was blocked by the (very experienced) admin who declined their draft article - I trust that Deepfriedokra took the account's contributions into account when deciding on what type of block to apply. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post close reply on block of BALA YESU SCHOOL--

Reblocked by Deb as a SPAMU. Which is fine. SPAMU places obstacles to article creation, so I went with SOFTER block and a COI notice. The subject may or may not turn out to be notable. Actually, it would have been better, User456541, to discuss with me before taking the matter to WP:AIV or here. Also, as this concerned an action I took, it would have been nice to have been notified me of this discussion. I also chose SOFTER in an effort to be less bitey. There has been a concern with driving good faith editors away with overly enthusiastic blocks. Yes, a SPAMU block is acceptable under policy. I just did not feel it necessary. That Deb changed it is fine, though. We all have different thresholds and different sensibilities. (I used to only block possible VOA's for a week. A certain other admin kept changing them to INDEF.) ANd I've made it clear over the years that changing an admin action of mine is at the discretion of any other admin. Oh good grief, I just saw the "vandal" label on the template. So much for WP:AGF. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see I did not delete the draft. It was tagged by OP. Once again, different sensibilities and threshold. The draft did not meet my threshold for WP:G11. Promotional tones, but I did not see it as "unambiguously promotional". That Deb deleted it is, once again fine. However, I don't see a single errant attempt to create an article as sufficient to brand a new user as a "spam only" account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I guess we've pretty much given up on explaining how WP works to newbies before blocking them. This is what we do to some kid who dared to make two misguided but good faith edits, with no edits after the first message on their talk page, in draft space, about their school. To be clear, those messages weren't after they continued to edit; they all came after they made their two edits. The hard block was a nice touch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  I shall increase my efforts to welcome and warn. Yes, I know we are all tired, burned out, and sometimes COVID-adled (waves hand). Sometimes the easy thing is not the best thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm being too harsh and snarky, sorry. I think I'm less annoyed that you and Deb did what you did, and more annoyed that this seems to be what almost everyone is doing these days to almost all newbies in similar situations. I mean, a rename was obviously needed eventually, and that's the standard template, and there were links to the teahouse, so this all seems like SOP. But if I was a newbie faced with a user talk page like that, after just two good-faith (if misguided) edits, with two different (contradictory) block notices at the bottom, including one that says I have to convince an admin that I'm not a spammer before I'm allowed to create a new username, I'd just throw up my hands and walk away. You don't need to increase your efforts so much as we need to increase our efforts. We have to figure out a way to differentiate between actual spammers, and new editors who don't know any better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been going on for years and years, Floq. In this instance, declining the draft as completely unsuitable for mainspace is all that was required. The blocks were superfluous. Either this is a kid who doesn't know how WP works, who would be back, or a spammer who has said their piece and departed, not giving two hoots about the block. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to correct this, because it's difficult to argue against an admin saying "I was just following policy, guv" followed by two other admins who say "yes, 'x' was following policy". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

. So probably it would have been better to just notify them of the user name violation instead of blocking. Will do that more and the other less. And probably need to raise my threshold to creating G11's instead of just promotionally toned editing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I generally go very easy on G11s in draft space, and reserve it for very serious piss takers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am interested in User456541's conduct here, and also their behaviour in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow and Rock and trying to speedy an article with the rationale "twinkle doesn't wanna tag it". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  LOL. Took me a moment to parse "twinkle doesn't wanna tag it". I'm not always the brightest bulb, so sometimes I gotta twinkle too, but in a different way. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Notified OP that conversation refocused, which he failed to do for me when he started original thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, that was 'cause it was already at AfD. FWIW, I would have thought A7 as a business/group, but it did assert significance, and did not meet my threshold for WP:G11. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:User456541

• In January User456541 was warned by TonyBallioni, as a CU, from continuing to make comments that aren't particularly helpful and are if anything distracting or disruptive to the SPI process. Praxidicae advised them against templating CU-blocked editors; Primefac warned them against unnecessary tagging.
  Okay, that was January. Fast forward to June.
• On the 8th, there's a bizarre discussion, between himself and a now-retired editor, whom 456541 had twice attempted to speedy-delete their talk page, and when the retired editor came to 54etc's talk, 54etc accuses them of turning his page "into a Discord DM channel" and threatens to get his page protected so the retired ed. can no longer post.
• On the 16th, they misapply a G11 tag which is swiftly contested. The same day, ST47—yet to receive a reply to their email regarding oversightable (or not) material—is forced to publicly tell 54etc that oversight is not for routine requests under any of the criteria for speedy deletion; further, ST47 notes that 54etc requested the oversighting of "Hiiii" under CSD criterion U5 (misuse as webhost). The same day, NJA warned them to take more care in their AIV reports, noting that he edits were not vandalism, but COI at most. Shortly after, Atlantic306 [asked them to take more care with their CSD tagging, which was reiterated by Passengerpigeon; the latter also offered adoptioon as a possibility. This was accepted; but has it stalled since the end of last month?
• On June 22, Dreamy Jazz declined a G5, and the following day, Jogurney declined an A7.
• June 25th, and Praxidicae again warns 54etc that he is continually making the same mistakes that he has already been warned about; her reply is a slightly bald and less than reassuringly unsigned "OK" four minutes later.
• Last but not least, on 7 July, Premeditated Chaos reiterated previous concerns: Please, stop tagging things for speedy deletion until you are more experienced - the amount of people pointing out issues with your speedy deletion tagging on this talk page is really concerning reiterated previous warnings.
  I say nothing about the curious WP:ENGVAR instruction at the top of their talk page, but having been warned about misdirecting their actions into adminesque-areas in January, that they are still repeatedly making the same mistakes in spite of multiple warnings weeks on end, leads me, unfortunately, to suspect that they're not really listening; if they are, there's little evidence of it. (First things first, they could reduce the amount time (currently over 50%) that they spend on user/talk pages perhaps.) ——Serial ^# 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should take a wikibreak to get more familiar with policy. –User456541 12:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also trying to improve, because I can now spot G11 and U5 without any problem. –User456541 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"I should take a wikibreak" as a response to all of these very valid concerns is not doing you any favors. Rarely, if ever does this work for editors who do this. We call that diva quitting and avoiding sanctions. You need to address each issue and commit by action to not continuing this. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Bloody Hell. All I wanted was for them to understand the need to discuss with other users before posting to ANI and to notify them on doing so. Note Britishism --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RE: "can now spot G11 ... without any problem" Well, no. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal TBAN(s) User:User456541

These can be implemented on their return. Due to the serious WP:BITE concerns, User:User456541 should not CSD tag anything, particularly WP:G11 or WP:U5 and should not request WP:UAA blocks. User:User456541 needs to leave other user's user space alone. Will definitely need to discuss with any user before going to any noticeboard. User:User456541 should restrict themselves to article improvement. There's enough work to be done here to last a lifetime-- Wikipedia:Community_portal (Feel free to add if needed.)

(Amending to add recent changes patrolling. Not convinced they have the experience for that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

• Proposer support --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support the Britisher^^^ (see you in Leicester Square after the war, old chap!); joking aside, I wonder if a TBan from [[WP: project space might (as well as the userspace restriction) be easier to follow. while having the same effect. ——Serial ^# 14:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I see that user456541 has got a case of ANI Flu and is carrying on doing recent changes patrolling, hoping this thread will go away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's odd; I thought they were on Wikibreak... ——Serial ^# 16:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's good. I'd recommended constructive editing in article space. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Gah. Not good. They need to not try to correct other people's editing now. Left 'em a note. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: They respond above. But like any wikiholic, they went on a "wikibreak" that did not last very long. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It's not just BITE concerns. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#8 years-undetected hoax article, where the user tagged Battle of Ceber for speedy deletion as a hoax and it actually got deleted (spoiler alert: it's not a hoax). I don't doubt their good intentions, but the execution is hasty and destructive. For their sake, they need to be TBANned from CSD, lest they wind up blocked when they return. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack, disruptive edits, and battleground behavior by User:LordAgincourt

• LordAgincourt (talk · contribs)

The reported user was blocked for disruptive editing and personal attack on 25 June and 27 June.[121] I warned this user for his edits on Ganja, Azerbaijan and he used personal attack in his reply.[122] See how he replied to another editor that reverted his edits.[123][124] This case is a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE because it seems LordAgincourt refuses to follow WP rules and guidelines even after 2x block. Also see how he disrupted talk pages; e.g. deleting other editors' comments[125] and troll stuff like this.[126] --Wario-Man (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You can clearly see im contributing constructive edits to help improve an artticle. It is not vandalism. It is not trolling. It os not a violation. I was already blocked for deleting a dead talk page which seems excessive. My edit was sourced from an E.I article on Ganzak. Did you bother to look it up? You seemed to attack me on my talk page saying something that doesnt appear to be true. The edit was xlarifying a contradiction in the article. And you want to block me for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordAgincourt (talk • contribs) 05:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Religious POV pushing and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Sanjoydey33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be pushing a narrative suggesting that events from Hindu mythology were historical. During the last week alone, they twice removed or replaced the word "mythology" in section titles which discuss Hindu gods.[127][128] In the second case, they justified their actions by directly stating that it was due to their personal belief that a medieval chronicle with heavy mythological elements was a "true history". In a later discussion with me, they justified the removal of sourced content in another article because they saw it as contradicting two-thousand-year-old religious texts and mythological epics.[129] When I said how problematic such a rational was,[130] they launched a series of personal attacks against me, accusing me of "Hinduphobia" and having an "Islamic supremacist agenda".[131]

Note that I have twice warned them that their actions constituted a potential violation of WP:RNPOV,[132][133] though this has apparently been ignored.
Alivardi (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Accusations of "Hinduphobia" and "Islamic supremacist agenda" over editing disagreements are completely unacceptable, and so is treating ancient texts as "true history". Unfortunately the user has not received a discretionary sanctions alert since 2018, or I would have considered a lengthy topic ban. As it is, I've blocked them for a week. (And given them a DS alert for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.) Bishonen | tålk 19:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kalpathyram's legal threats against മയലാം മല്ലു

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kalpathyram is making legal threats against മയലാം മല്ലു here. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to notify them of this discussion. I have done so. I have also blocked under WP:NLT. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kadasa12

Will someone please block Kadasa12 (talk · contribs) for WP:NPA on my talk page and elsewhere. If you look at their talk, you'll see mention of at least two IPs they appear also to be using. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

- Sitush (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated reversions by Israell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Disclaimer: I have been found guilty of edit warring on this page and am currently under a ban, so I fully acknowledge that (along with another user User:TruthGuardians). However another user on the page is guilty of edit warring as of this morning, and as per the sanctions on this topic, such behaviour is to be reported here.

Page: FBI files on Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Israell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/966884951

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/966886713
2. Special:Diff/966890645
3. Special:Diff/966900419
4. Special:Diff/966917033

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/966974522

Comments:
There is a wider issue this article being used to push an agenda (see above and Special:Diff/966884626). That conversation is ongoing. However attempts to bring other Wikieditors into the conversation through the addition of WP:NPOV have been thwarted by User:Israell. They have repeatedly removed the tag from the page, claiming they feel the article is already "balanced".

Note: User:Israell has already been warned for potentially WP:CANVASSING in this topic, suggesting a partial bias. WikiMane11 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pigsonthewing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a preventative measure to prevent further edit warning. Editor repeatedly removes information given in the article with the claim it isn't sourced. It is clearly. The claim is bizarre as it is dishonest, the first admin to cross paths with me on this has failed to act, despite agreeing with me about the issue and the content. Dapi89 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is John Cunningham (RAF officer) FYI. Dapi89 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Who identified the birds as Kentish plover? Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that the discussion on the talk page is more than covering it, however Dapi89 is refusing to hear it. Dapi89 is making a claim as to the specific type of bird without sources to back it up and is the one who inserted the specific bird type in the first place. Seems like a wooden aerial weapon is coming around. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dapi89: When making an ANI report, you must notify the involved editors. I have done so for you in this case.

Taking a look at the page history, it appears that both editors have broken 3RR. No exemption appears to have been claimed by either. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread the page history. Dapi89 has broken 3RR; Pigsonthewing performed two non-consecutive reverts, then two consecutive reverts with no other edits in between, which doesn't break 3RR according to my interpretation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There was certainly an edit war nine days ago; but PotW hasn't edited the article in a week. Dapi89's report is, frankly, verging on the disruptive: if anything, they have re-ignited the edit-war on their own. . ——Serial ^# 13:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[ec; not stale] Time for a Boomerang. Immediately after returning for a one-week block, Dapi89 has one again restored a claim not made in the cited source, with an edit summary of "dishonest lover [sic] mentioned in Golley; further reversion will be referred to disruptive editing page". The falsity of the claim has been established on the talk page. Although they has just posted there, with false accusations, they do not refute. @RexxS: as the admin who previously protected the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reopened the report. Sorry about that, Pigsonthewing. El_C 14:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Max Pumpking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Max Pumpking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please revoke TPA. See for example this edit or the edit summary of the immedately following edit. Please also revdel the contents, some stuff there doesnt belong here... Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: I have reformatted your comment to make a clickable link, rather than forcing people to edit the page and use copy-paste; I hope that's all right. --JBL (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No need, they're globally locked now and thus have no talk page access. Praxidicae (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Akoroves has taken to being a troll account

Resolved

 – Indef blocks issued.

Quick backstory User:Akoroves previously was blocked for sockpuppetry when he repeatedly trying to add himself (Alexander Korevesis) to Korovesis using a second account (User:Wikiauthor77). Since then, the Korovesis page has been protected multiple times due to random IPs adding Alexander Korevesis to the list of notable people, prompting this warning from User:NinjaRobotPirate. Almost immediately after the second period of page protection ended on June 4, the editor immediately started to add either fictional people (ex: ex2 and ex2) or himself but with a fictional description (ex) through random IPs until a third page protection was placed. This has prompted Akoroves to actually use his account to continue trolling the page (ex1, ex2). I seeing that the editor only wishes to troll the page, this editor clearly is not here to build an encyclopedia. GPL93 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and WP:STICK

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

LéKashmiriSocialiste, who was indeffed per WP:NOTHERE then unblocked upon promises to engage in better behavior,[134] is here mainly for engaging in POV pushing as he refers all American and Indian sources as "biased" because "United States government is an anti-communist and anti-Chinese government".[135] Clearly he is engaging in WP:RGW.

He is failing to drop WP:STICK as well. He was rightfully blocked for 1 week for edit warring as he made more than 4 reverts over same content, and since the expiry of the block he has continued to attack admin Yamla with words like "do they allow dictators like you?... how does it feel to be abusing power and beating someone to near death over a lost penny"[136], "Yamla here recklessly and harshly blocked for mere 2 reverts",[137] even after being to stop it. But he remains hostile to users.[138] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aman Kumar Goel I suggest you learn the meaning of POV-pushing. United States is an enemy of China and it's not just my views. When I said better behavior I didn't mean I will try to not say something you don't like or do what you want. Here's the source that shows how USA is engaging in overt and covertly acting against China: [139]. You have had no counter even if I have proven with reliable sources that USA is an enemy of China.

Yamla has acted in a tyrannical way and his block was incorrect. Regardless I have agreed not to call him that, but it's not an insult when he has abused his position. I havbe no regrets for it [140]. That's because WP:3RR and making multiple reverts is only meant to discourage an edit conflict and one or two reverts can't be a war as long as you have no intention to revert further I had "Even without a 3RR violation: "an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".

Thing is there's nothing prohibiting more than one revert either, it's just intent of edit-warring. So Yamla is wrong in his block and has refused to apologize. After my 2 reverts, I didn't revert for a day nor I intended to revert anymore. So I had no intention of edit warring. And just like 1 or 2 punches doesn't mean a fight, 1 or 2 reverts when you don't intend to make any further is not an edit war. If you think it is, then you can have the policies edited.

The one being really hostile here without here is you making up false claims because you don't agree with me on India-China conflict. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also btw, I stopped talking to Yamla or leaving messages at his talk page many days ago. I agreed not to comment on his talk page even. And I haven't talked about my 1 week block for 2 reverts with anyone else too for many days. So WP:STICK has nothing to do with it, no matter what way you look at it. I request that you amend your complain. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Had enough of this

I'm stepping away from the conflict but I would prefer attacks such as this, this and this were dealt with. I'd also appreciate someone looking at this account who popped up at exactly the same time as the IP started attacking. Maybe also this one who appeared out of nowhere. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked the IPv4 address for PAs and edit warring. The IPv6 address could be...some really meta WP:MEAT I guess? But I'm not gonna block yet. The Sherrif of Nottingham account probably needs a rename, but I'm on mobile and don't wanna search out the rename template :p Otherwise their edits seem productive enough, probably just a local resident. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Criticsandupdates

Criticsandupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persisting in adding material to Jayne Joso, which doesn't appear to be supported by the source cited. When I've raised this at User talk:Criticsandupdates, there's been no reply - Criticsandupdates just reinstates the material. The only communication I've had has been this rather cryptic message, which the user immediately deleted. Note that there's been COI editing of this article before, as noted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Jayne Joso. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that row 143 of the march spreadsheet cited says that an award was med to "Jayne Rollinson" for "The Water CaTts (novel)" There is no cited source that says that Jayne Joso is Jayne Rollinson, although that might be the case. Brief and cryptic communication, failing to mention a difference of name, edit warring to insert a statement of debatable significan ce noty clearly supported by the cited source, none of this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I linked WP:Communication is required on their talk page, maybe they will wise up and communicate in the next 24 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP put a sock puppet tag on the IP page. See here. Since that account is blocked, this IP might as well be blocked for block evasion. Interstellarity (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reblocked the /64 range for 3 months.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ponyo for looking into this. Interstellarity (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A succession of IP editors has been removing the piped parts of links in Indian film-related lists, to the great aggravation of other editors, particularly DABfixers, who come across their messes. This diff is typical. The solution is reversion; but at least three editors (including myself) have been fixing individual entries on the usual assumption that someone hadn't checked their links before posting. It's very possible to miss things that way: bluelinks to WP:PTOPICs don't show up on any radar, and it was only when I chanced to spot a film called Railway Station that I thought to look more deeply.

This one is live (last edit 02:49, 10 July 2020)

• 2A02:C7D:2235:800:B9E3:AF9B:AFAF:601B

These are stale (active 1 May 2020 - 6 July 2020; sorted in range order):

• 2A02:C7D:2235:800:10F7:5D4C:27AB:9FCF
• 2A02:C7D:2235:800:80D3:25B6:D5FB:A541
• 2A02:C7D:2235:800:8574:17C8:7BC:A5CB
• 2A02:C7D:2235:800:B088:75E3:1083:1A2A
• 2A02:C7D:2235:800:F806:2079:29F5:73E6
• 2A02:C7D:2235:800:F565:2240:84B6:8D03

There could well have been others. They seem never to stay on one IP for more than a day. This looks WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR, and I suggest an appropriately-designed WP:BLOCK. Narky Blert (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock one month. El_C 13:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That was quick, I was still posting the notifications! Narky Blert (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MathKeduor7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Made at an SPI I just opened here: [141]. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Entry: “Whiteness”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently came across this hate-motivated entry on Wikipedia and felt that it should be reported in order that it be removed immediately. Elaborating on racist, stereotypical thinking benefits no one and constitutes a psychopathology that should not be construed as knowledge and shared with the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckoperniak (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The process for deleting an article is over here. --Golbez (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not thinking we need a lot of time on this one.[142][143] - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Ckoperniak - thank you for your report. I have made an official note of this entry. Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back to User:NVTHello

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

User was previously reported for unsourced genre changes here and here. User has once again continued their unsourced changes and refuses to use a Talk page, this time including articles related to Cascada and the latest such changes being at Helicopter (Martin Garrix and Firebeatz song). In my second report to this noticeboard, a suggestion was made by the last blocking admin GeneralNotability to indef the user. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I left a note linking WP:Communication is required and urged him to read it before making any further edits. Lets see what happens, while leaving this report open a few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• They still haven't edited, just wanted to keep this thread alive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, User has attempted another unsourced addition, but seems to have self reverted after giving up on spelling the intended genre correctly. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  I know this is slow, but keep me in the loop. I don't want to block him just to block him, I've given him info, and I hope he will read it. If not, then he will force me to block me until he does. Hoping that can be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked the editor for repeating the same edits that got him blocked the first time. Based on the edit summaries, I question their ability to work in a collaborative effort at all, but will let the reviewing admin decide that, assuming they appeal their block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sabotage in my articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello and do not be bored. The service of the great managers of Wikipedia. This IP sabotages my creative articles. Please block it.W Mozart (Talk) 10:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wmozart1, for the record you shouldn't remove CSD tags from articles you have created yourself. ——Serial ^# 10:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I apologize, I didn't know this, but did these labels hit my articles?They intend to sabotage the labels.W Mozart (Talk) 10:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• He tagged two articles for speedy delete, but his other contribs have been very positive. I'm not inclined to block him at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:Hello . Excuse me, what do you mean by positive?I am a newcomer and I am not very familiar with the rules. Thank you for your help.W Mozart (Talk) 10:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect too that while the IP may have been trolling you, they were probably not inaccurate in their assertions. Your first edit, after all, was this near-perfectly formatted and referenced draft. ——Serial ^# 10:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I don't think that's the link you wanted... Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh, ta Naypta ——Serial ^# 10:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• By positive, I mean they corrected a date of birth for a rapper's page, communicated on the talk page in a pleasant manner, provided sources, etc. The kind of stuff we encourage. By tagging your two articles, I'm not sure of their motivation. Might be good, might be bad, but it is hard to tell their motivation with just those two edits. They MIGHT have been in good faith. Or not. That isn't strong enough to block someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone with access to deleted articles might consider it worthwhile to compare Draft:Newsha Modabber, created in a single edit by User:Wmozart1 on the 8th of July [144] with earlier deleted creations of articles on the same subject in February, both speedy deleted as G5 'Creations by banned or blocked users' [145]. The IP named above seems to think there is socking going on, and I'd have to agree that it seems at least plausible. 109.159.88.21 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That is interesting. I think the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArmanAfifeh/Archive is interesting, but it means a {{checkuser needed}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone on commons noted a behavioral connection between Wmozart1 and "Mh6ti". I see Mh6ti is identified in that SPI. DMacks (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Triangulating from commons:File:Kamis party.jpg suggests a connection to 5.126.118.53, part of a pool that both User:Berean Hunter and User:AmandaNP have rangeblocked here on enwiki (they did not identify the master in the public log). I'm also seeing overlap with User:Gm110m, who is CU-blocked here on enwiki. DMacks (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Pinging TonyBallioni who also appears to have blocked the (now globally-locked) Yasproject, the original creator. ——Serial ^# 11:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comrade @W Mozart: those are our articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I made the article you mentioned according to its sources, its sources are valid and I did not publish it in Drift.W Mozart (Talk) 11:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comrade @Ian.thomson: I think there is a misunderstanding for our friends.W Mozart (Talk) 11:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:,@Serial Number 54129: Please check my account To be determined.W Mozart (Talk) 11:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

W Mozart, can I ask why you are applying to become a new page reviewer only 7 days after creating your account? [146] What exactly is the urgency, and why do you think that the normal 90 days of editing (amongst other criteria) shouldn't apply to you? 109.159.88.21 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a patrol. Is this a crime? I have just arrived and I have been on the wiki for 6 days. If my request is wrong, I apologize to you.W Mozart (Talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If I wasn't a newcomer, I would have known the rules better, but I don't know much about being a newcomer.I have not yet read the rules to find out if my request was wrong or right. If this is a crime in your opinion, I apologize to you.W Mozart (Talk) 11:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For a newcomer, you seem to be remarkably skilled at creating multiple articles in a very short period, each in a single edit. 109.159.88.21 (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Swallow because I use my own wiki translator that doesn't require skill.W Mozart (Talk) 12:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia does not accept machine-translated articles. And using any automated translator requires skill - or at least, a level of competence in the language being translated to that you appear to lack. Even ignoring the issues with notability, sourcing etc, your articles are incoherent. As is your last comment. What exactly do you mean by 'swallow'? 109.159.88.21 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone should probably look into W Mozart's contributions on Commons too. There appear to be multiple uploads of images for which the claimed public domain copyright status isn't compatible with the source stated. [147] 12:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. DMacks (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also note that Draft:Amin Fardin, also created by W Mozart, appears to be an autobiography: "I have become very popular within Iranian/Kurdish/ Afghani community due to my reports. Despite the YouTube ban in Iran, My YouTube channel has got more than 100 million minutes viewing and is very well popular, most of my videos on YouTube’s gets more than 500,000 views on YouTube..." 109.159.88.21 (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That article's deleted history correlates Wmozart1 with multiple other socks in the noted SPI. DMacks (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And on it goes: it should be noted that creation of content regarding Amin Fardin on multiple Wikiprojects is a recurring theme in the long-running sockpuppetry archive linked earlier. [148] 109.159.88.21 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My dear, when I told myself to inspect, I do not know what you are looking for in my account, but I request that they inspect.W Mozart (Talk) 12:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

When me is arguing with me, ping me too. You who are old already know this.W Mozart (Talk) 12:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wmozart1 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to Azizvisi (talk · contribs) and several others. I will update the SPI shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged their (non-redirect) creations as {{Db-g5|Azizvisi}}. They also created seven redirects which will soon qualify for G8. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nuked. DMacks (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pity, in a way. From Draft:Amin Fardin and after receiving residency, He started exposing himself.[36][37][38][39] Found art at its finest. Qwirkle (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pure gold, Qwirkle! ——Serial ^# 14:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following a request for intervention at WT:FOOTY, in late May I protected Eniola Aluko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after an account claiming to be the subject and her assistant (Apokaradokia (talk · contribs)) made repeated edits to it. Recently I noticed another similarly named account (Dokiakara1964 (talk · contribs)) had been making similar edits, so undid them. Today, a third account (LegallyWiki87 (talk · contribs)) reinstated the same edits. I reverted, warned the user about WP:COI and asked them to request changes on the talk page, and semi-protected the article.

LegallyWiki87 has just left a message on my talk page saying this is "now the subject of legal investigation". Cheers, Number 57 17:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef and left them an explanation what they can do if their words were misinterpreted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Darth-X-President

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Darth-X-President was previously blocked by another admin (not me) for disruptive editing, specifically, frequent page moves without discussion and an unwillingness to acknowledge concerns posted to their Talk page. They pledged to "never move a page without discussing it with others" [149], on which basis I unblocked them. Two days ago they did, in fact, make another unilateral page move [150] without discussion and outside a naming convention. This move was then undone. I then posted this request for clarification to their Talk page. Since the datestamp on my request for clarification, they have resumed editing but have not answered my inquiry. I believe reimposing the indefinite block would be warranted, however, would prefer not to do so out of a preponderance of caution as my judgment may be clouded since I was the one who unblocked them in the first place. Would an admin please review this and take whatever action or non-action you feel is appropriate? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• You unblocked them, you are in the best position to decide if they have violated the terms. There is nothing barring you from policing your own unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Since you were the unblocking admin I contacted you about this rather than considering the block myself. I didn't want to step on your toes and I think in many cases the unblocking admin is the best to reimpose a block if they feel the terms of the unblock have been violated. Canterbury Tail talk 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I also admire your willingness to be open-minded and forgiving - but if they're ignoring your communication, I don't see a single thing wrong with a reblock. — Ched (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. Based on that I've blocked the editor in question. Chetsford (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kenneth Saclote

Kenneth Saclote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing beauty pageant Wikipedia pages for longer than I can even remember. They have received warning after warning, and I have reported them twice, but administrators did not even acknowledge my report either time, which allowed the editor to continue on vandalizing articles with no consequences. They have received final warnings more times than I can count and has shown no interest in pursuing discussions on how to follow editing rules. The editors @Bri: and @EdJohnston: previously added on and vouched for my reports of Kenneth Saclote that went unanswered, so if they'd like to add anything else I invite them to. Kenneth Saclote's vandalism has most often occurred on the Miss Universe 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, and the article history can show their vandalism stemming back to December 2019, when they were first reported. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Jjj1238. This report needs details before any action would be justified. Search for 'Saclote' in the following links to see if you can back up your report:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025 ‎
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026

–EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Bedriczwaleta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have watched him closely after his checkuser block to see if he legitimately improves his behavior, as i have made my remarks on his IP back in early June. I thought he has done good so far without any problems, but then i just found out he was blocked on pl.wiki (for profanity) yesterday for one day. After that block he posted this (in Polish), and it was copied from some website i will not post in here because he posted his account password in there.

Because of that (and the password post), i told him that message should not be posted and i asked the moderators that these posts should be deleted. Instead, the posts were never deleted and i got to know him personally. I tried to be nice to him and he said this (in Polish, due to the law:)

Czas na aresztowanie na Seszelach !!! „Kamerun” to także nazwa byłej niemieckiej kolonii - mimo uzyskania w 1959 r. Niepodległości od Francji - „Praca w Kamerunie” lol nie, Afryka Środkowa nie jest fałszywa. P.D. Nie umiem mówić po francusku ani po angielsku, albo po prostu jestem aresztowany na tej małej wyspie we wschodniej Afryce, którą powiedziałem w pierwszym słowie. Mam nadzieję, że moja siostra zmarła z AK-47, który mam w domu - pomimo zakazu symboli komunistycznych - Zrób mi zdjęcie swojego kalkulatora !!! 29 lutego myślałem o czcionce Riglos O.

Also called me this:

Proszę czekać dużo czasu, ponieważ mój komputer jest zepsuty, wyglądasz na Indonezyjczyka bez IQ lub po prostu opóźnionego kumpla z Azji Południowo-Wschodniej.

Recently it appears that i have mended my relationship with him, with this:

tak i nie znam tej części Warszawy, którą mieszkam xd. również dziękuję !!! to nie wojna, to tylko kontrowersja, ponieważ nikt nie musi ujawniać hasła. Potrzebuję też pomocy Piotra, ponieważ wp.pl jest niemożliwe

However, these first two quotes are really made me horrified at what is going on with him. I need help. I really need help. SMB​99​thx Email! 05:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have emailed administrators regarding this. I was terrified and fearful, it feels like a ermegency situation, despite that i'm trying to be nice with him. SMB​99​thx Email! 05:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"I need help. I really need help." SMB99thx, what type of help do you believe you need? Bedriczwaleta has been indefinitely blocked already. If you feel you are in mortal danger, you should contact your local police department and email [email protected]. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe i'm in mortal danger. I need help because he posted messages like arresting himself and exiling to Seychelles and mentioned AK-47 in his sister's death (my condolences). I feel terrified about what happened to him, not myself. I need help because he's probably in a dangerous situation despite my attempts at getting him on the right track since 10 June. I have emailed [email protected] on this situation. SMB​99​thx Email! 05:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction: He feels threatened and as such caused him to send messages like that (getting arrested, not arresting himself). Again, the problem is that his messages seem to scream for help and because of this, i want help too because he's in a bad situation. I cannot help him by myself. I fear for his life. SMB​99​thx Email! 06:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@SMB99thx: if you have emailed [email protected] then you have done the right thing to deal with the situation. They have a very professional system in place for dealing with this kind of thing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Thank you. We need to save lives, including him (based on the messages) at threat of being imprisoned or exiled. Unblocked or blocked does not matter. SMB​99​thx Email! 07:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking he may have a mental problem. His last post to his talkpage, which he deleted, translates as "= WARNING: == If I speak any language other than Polish, I will be arrested for a thousand dollars (or slightly almost PLN 3,968). I may be sentenced to death and permanently isolated, and if not, on a private plane, convict me indefinite time in Seychelles. This is a GOOD WARNING NOW !!! I also advertised you." Ok, the translation isn't perfect, but... Doug Weller talk 08:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You are maybe right that he's mentally disturbed. He said that he's saddened by death of his sister and he's unhappy about George Floyd protests. George Floyd protests are also the reason why i am back here at full-time. I wish him for the best facing those issues he had. SMB​99​thx Email! 11:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best if this was closed and left for [email protected] to deal with. Whatever problem this editor may have is best dealt with by people who know what they are doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'll consider seconding your proposal to close this. I brought this up on ANI because i really don't know how to do with him. I feel i treated him badly. I have entertained getting him either globally locked or have his talk page access revoked with the help of admins but i can't get myself to do so. As i have said, he needs help. SMB​99​thx Email! 11:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BlackSun2104

User:BlackSun2104 is edit warring Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. There was a consensus on how to work the high frequency document with very specific ways to handle certain countries. It does not matter whether the information provided is correct, there is a reason behind every entry made over a prelonger period. User refuses to discuss the matter. KittenKlub (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The user has been warned enough, and if the continue I will block them for edit-warring. However, the consensus you refer to is not reflected at the talk page of the template despite the existence of the two blocks there explaining current consensus. One does not expect a new user going through all the talk pages archives of this heavily edited talk page, and if this issue (using templates rather than bare numbers) is important it should be added to the consensus block(s).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:I know that the documentation is far from perfect. The difficult calculation for the US is there for a reason because some territories are included a separate entries, but are counted in the US total. The reasoning behind the wikidata for India and the template is unknown for me as well. KittenKlub (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But then you should not expect a user with 120 edits in total to grasp this from the very beginning? I think dropping them a more helpful note at their talk page could take the situation a long way.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter:

I've regularly edited the aforementioned template and would like to bring my comments here.

As a user with around 560 edits back when the aforementioned template was at extended auto-confirmed protection, I was able to grasp the sum template almost immediately. For reference, the template was definitely the first item I edited on Wikipedia that used the sum template. I can only speak for this from the templates used for the United States; I never paid attention to how other locations' figures were structured.

Then again, this isn't all that BlackSun2104's done.

He's also worded several of his so-called "reminders" to update locations' figures as "Required" (therefore disregarding WP:VOLUNTEER) [[151]]; [[152]], assumes Wikipedia editors are "careless" [[153]], hasn't learned that editing a topic after publishing it for the first time is possible [[154]] (three topics in a row! all about the same issue!), says that we are "slow to update" [[155]] (another three in a row {again disregarding WP:VOLUNTEER}), and quite frankly just adds stress to the editors of the template.

After a hiatus, he has returned with the same degree of ignorance for WP:VOLUNTEER [[156]]. Should I also note that reply from the editor who responded wasn't a veteran editor of the template and gave off some "f*$! off" vibes?

Clearly, this editor hasn't learned even the basic tenets of Wikipedia (and probably has no intentions to), and has not responded to a single reminder that other editors of the template has left on the editor's talk page [[157]]. And besides, the talk page consensus may not have explicitly stated anything regarding sum templates, but it has mentioned how to handle territories on the template—and BlackSun2104's most recent edits to the template have clearly violated that clause of the consensus.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I find the behavior of the user highly problematic. If they continue please ping me, and I will block them if I am around. However, I do not think I should block the user who got the last warning and has not edited after a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Incivility towards WMF employees at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am pretty sure nothing would come out of this topic, and I will probably be the one everything is blamed on, however, I am afraid we have to go through it to demonstrate that the community is not capable of solving the problem. We have a topic, Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)#Civility and safe space, started by @Qgil-WMF:, a WMF employee (I believe he is employed in the community engagement of whatever it is now, under Maggie Dennis). Quim argues that even if there is a disagreement between the WMF and the community (which is the case now), the discussions still can be held civilly, and WP:CIVILITY is not optional here. A number of users supported this but a number of users also opposed (some of them are using W?F notation for the WMF, following the earlier suggestion by Guy Macon). If I try to summarize the arguments (and I might be wrong here because these are not my arguments) there are three: (i) the community is so exhausted because of the policy of WMF which takes disastrous decisions affecting the community without prior consultation and without taking the feedback of the community into account, that it is ok to be sometimes incivil; (ii) the WMF can do with us whatever they want, and we can not do anything with them, so being incivil is justified; (iii) what is happening (including using W?F in the responses to WMF employees) is civil and ok. I will not provide diffs, reading the whole topic (it is not that long) is instructive. My argument is basically that we need somehow to enforce civility at least at that page (may be the VP and its talk page), but I think with this one I will leave it here and see what the community can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As I am not seeking sanctions against specific individuals (and generally while I strongly disagree with some opinions provided there I believe all users who participated in the discussion are at this point net-positive for Wikipedia), I will not go to the individual talk pages. Instead, in my next edits I will ping all the participants of that discussion and also leave there a message about the existence of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush, Naypta, Fram, QEDK, and Hammersoft:--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman, Certes, Joe Roe, GreenMeansGo, and RexxS:--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb and Barkeep49:, I hope I did not forget anybody--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you for posting this here. I have been fairly clear, both here and elsewhere on-wiki, in that I am of the opinion that our civility policy should be enforced much more strongly everywhere on the wiki, not just at VPWMF. That being said, I think there is a particular issue at VPWMF, and that it's particularly serious because it doesn't only affect one or two editors; rather, it affects the entire community's relationship with the WMF and its staff, and could even affect recruiting staff members for the WMF in the first instance. I know I wouldn't want to work for an organisation where I spent my day taking abuse from random usernames on Wikipedia. I share your lack of faith that this will be resolved here, but one can hope that it will be.

WP:CIVILITY does not have exceptions, and IAR is not, in my view, valid for the civility policy. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Strongly agree that the civility policy is IAR-exempt. There's a difference, in any discussion be it on or off Wikipedia, between being robust in your arguments and crossing the line into name-calling or similar. As one example, we wouldn't tolerate a community member deliberately changing another party to a (non-WMF targeted) discussion's name repeatedly to make a point, so why are we doing the same when referring to the WMF here? I don't think the WMF as an organisation is perfect, far from it, but I do think we should be expressing views in a way that's respectful to the human reading it at the other end, regardless of our thoughts on the entity as a whole. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please give diffs of my "harrassment" or incivility. It is all explained on that talk page and very clearly I was misrepresented from the outset. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned you are in group (iii) - you think the discussion is above the WP:CIVILITY threshold. Please correct me if i am wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Not good enough. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This place is for admin intervention. If someone wants to block me for saying that an idea seemed "stupid" and yet also saying that if it must carry on then whoever lies behind it should consider WP:SYSTEMIC then go ahead. I am not in a diplomatic service and I'm not going to write an extra 20 words to make the same point when everyone knows what I mean anyway. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you for the ping. Having re-read my contributions, I am confident that they contain no harassment or incivility. I look forward to a speedy resolution so that we can resume our search for a workable solution. Certes (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Who has been harassed there actually? The only one arguing that a specific discussion was running afoul of civility and safe space concerns was Qgil, who accused Sitush of being uncivil. But even that was just Qgil giving their opinion, perhaps in an attempt to stifle negative opinions of WMF right from the start. If there are other bits of the discussion you think are uncivil and constitute harassment, then please provide diffs. I haven't checked what has been said since last night, but at that time it was just a theoretical discussion of what might be allowable or expected in certain circumstances, not any actual harassment or incivility, so no reason at all to involve ANI and to post dramatic headlines. Fram (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have now read the discussion at that talk page since I left for the night, and there is only one post there that is truly problematic and needs some admin stepping in, and that is the hugely chilling and unwarranted "We are not quite ripe for arbitration, but I think I will try first ANI before movng to the arbitration." by Ymblanter. WTF? How can anyone reading that discussion think there is anything there that needs ANI, never mind arbitration? That, together with the false "harassment" claim here, is just an attempt at intimidation and scaring away people. This is not acceptable, collegial behaviour, and is much more uncivil and anti-safespace than anything else said there. Fram (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure how I should reply to this. Let us see what others have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• One of the problems is that while we're volunteers, WMF employees are just that, and they deserve to be treated with the same kind of respect we would give to employees of any other organization we interact with. Yes, we can have vigorous debate, but we can't skirt the same lines of incivility as we can get away with when we're interacting with each other. We can't treat them like other volunteers. Using W?F is bullying, IMO, and so was the discussion of the 'Article of the week'. This in my opinion is the same as being rude to a waiter or the grocery store clerk just because you can. For all we know this person has had 'interacting with enwiki at VPWMF' added to their job description. —valereee (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ha! You are sort of suggesting that the reverse may not apply, ie: that the WMF employees need not respect the volunteers. Cart before horse, I think, given they would have no job without us volunteers. Brilliant! - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sitush, where has a WMF employee been calling something you did stupid, or rendering your username in an insulting way, or otherwise interacting with you in a way you found disrespectful to the point you needed to open a discussion about it on a talk page? The reason you can get away with being rude to waiters is because they can't punch back. I hope you aren't that kind of person. —valereee (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  I would argue that there have been cases where the WMF has been sealioning us (e.g. superprotect, Wikipedia rebranding, etc.) and even though they use polite language, they are actually telling the community to go f*ck itself. Of course that's not a reason to be rude to them, especially not to individual employees, but respect must go both ways. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't see Guy Macon's suggestion of W?F you've referred to, but considering the 'rebranding' issue, which looked like it would quite possibly change WMF to WPF, this doesn't seem like bullying. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So you do not think that widely promoting a relatively poor article via an official Twitter feed and doing so without first consulting the community was disrespectful and potentially quite damaging? I'm not trawling back through my ten years or so here but I can tell you that there have been occasions when WMF employees have been disrespectful, even if they adopt sealioning to be thus. Me, I just say it as it is because civil disrespect is still disrespect so why go round the houses? Not that I consider my remarks to be disrespectful and I have said as much. Just now above, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your comment. I can tell you now how this thread will end up - no consensus - because that's how all discussions about WP:CIVIL end up. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think there's a concern to be addressed, and that forum is the place to address it. The whole reason for having the forum is to give WMF a place to come and ask about shit like that, and the way to make sure they think of it is to make that place a place they feel like they can maybe bounce around an idea without being called stupid. And the reason all discussions about civility go nowhere is that there are too many people here who enjoy being uncivil. —valereee (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the reason is because civility is in the eye of the beholder. But if you think that it is because too many people "enjoy" it then just maybe there is consensus that WP:CONSENSUS does not work for the issue? - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following? —valereee (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, you wrote it: the reason all discussions about civility go nowhere is that there are too many people here who enjoy being uncivil. But you cannot possibly prove it. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You also say to make that place a place they feel like they can maybe bounce around an idea ... But they didn't, did they? They just went ahead and did it on their Twitter feed. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee We can't treat [W?F employees] like other volunteers. Why not? The civility policy already applies to every discussion. Are you suggesting there should be a separate civility policy governing interactions with W?F employees? (my use of "W?F" is just a little bit of protest against renaming) Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 11:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Harassment is, as always, a serious accusation, and not one to be made lightly and without evidence, particularly by an admin. Reviewing the discussion, I'm not seeing anything that can be construed as "harassment", or even incivility. If I'm overlooking something, please elaborate, by all means. However it's not clear to me what the implication of "W?F" is. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  The level of incivility some volunteer editors are willing to accept from one another shouldn't be the low bar for everything. We're dealing with employees of an organization. —valereee (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Asked and answered above. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your answers were nonresponsive. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Sitush's answers were spot-on. You appear to be claiming that there was no answer instead of an answer that you are not willing to accept. You may find [ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ ] to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I actually agree that harassment is too broad a notion, and there is likely nothing in this thread which a majority would define as harassment. I therefore changed the title of this topic. I disagree about incivility.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• While I do see the point that we shouldn't abuse the WMF just because we can (and vice versa), others do have a point that the WMF should at least warn the community if they're doing to do anything major that is going to draw a lot of outside attention. At the very least, they should have posted a notice to that article's talk page before making it Article of the Week to give the article regulars time to clean it up (if not, ya know, putting something in the Signpost to give even more members time to prepare). These aren't opposing issues, these are perpendicular issues being used by differing sides. If the WMF is not going to do that, they need to not get butthurt when their actions are criticized. And sure, we shouldn't seek to make them butthurt and I'm not yet seeing any reason to go all A.WMF.A.B. here. As for the other issue of balance of power (e.g. the WMF can remove members of this community but not the other way around), the only WMF employee I can think of who I actually got into a conflict with where I know we were both angry at each other is not a current employee. Anecdotal but that episode suggests for me that although (actually perhaps because) the WMF is non-profit, they will cut employees who cause too much trouble getting butthurt over criticism or who otherwise risk putting them too far in the red. If I had to propose any solutions, it'd be for the WMF to say they'll try to do better at checking with the community before taking actions that affect it and (unless and until the WMF starts secretly removing members of the community for editorial purposes) for the community to remember that the WMF is just trying to keep the damn site up. No apologies, no blocks, no bans, no new polices or guidelines or taskforces or initiatives. I know that's gonna be unsatisfactory to a lot of people. Oh well. No real action needs to be taken. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Skimming through the discussion, I see robust debate ("stupid idea" is NOT a personal attack, even if overly blunt, btw), but what disturbs me is that I am seeing WMF employees DEMAND more respect than we normally give each other. This is certainly part of the reason I gave up my admin bit for some time, and wrote the open letter (still) on my user page. There is nothing on that page that needs administrative interference. All I can conclude is that some people are being very thin skinned and wanting our policy on civility enforced on WMF pages at a level that it isn't enforced on every other page, and THAT is a problem. If you can't handle robust debate, then collaborative projects aren't your cup of tea. Yes, we want to be civil in all things, but that this trivial thing was brought here is a bit disturbing and reinforces the reservations that many of us already have about the Foundation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  It seems that most times that a representative from the WMF talks to the community, I'm reminded of the animated film "Animal Farm", where one of the Seven Commandments is modified to read "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" (emphasis added). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  the animated film "Animal Farm" Oh. Uh. I love you Dennis. But I think maybe I have a book you need to borrow. GMG^talk 20:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Having read the discussions above and on pages referenced, I cannot help but to think WP:CIVILITY, in this case, is used as a means to quench dissent. That is unequivocally bad and transcends the scope of the policy in question. Moreover if sanctions or remedies are not requested and no diffs of actual incivility are provided, the question what this is doing on WP:ANI is a legitimate one. Kleuske (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• To echo the above two comments. This is another example of the WMF attempting to enforce a level of discourse which is incompatible with the ENWP community, it's policies and general robust discussion. Frankly the accusations of harassment and incivility are just laughably idiotic. The pattern is getting tiresome. WMF does stupid thing. Members of community get annoyed at stupid thing and call it stupid. WMF and it's lackeys complain about their feelings being hurt. The concept that if they stopped doing stupid things without talking to the community first, they wouldn't get treated harshly afterwards seems never to cross their minds. Despite it being repeatedly pointed out to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• (Since I was pinged.) Dennis' formulation is a fairly good one re: "more respect than we normally give each other". Not to say that we do or ought to disrespect one other. But this ain't a tea party, and we ain't here to compliment the drapery and the scones. This is a factory floor and the machinery runs by smashing ideas into each other, and doing our gods honest best to argue our position, because that's how we get a better encyclopedia. I think most of us on the floor are pretty used to that.

If people are crossing the line into legitimate attacks against people, rather than ideas, then we should call them out on it, myself included. As it happens, I no-so-long-ago had occasion to email Ymblanter and apologize, because I was concerned that I'd given them honest offense. If I've given someone else offense then let me know and I'll be happy to apologize for that too. But ideas? Ideas are fair game. We should attack them more. Mine. Yours. All of them. And we ought not disrespect the issue of harassment by confusing harassment with the sound of smashing ideas. GMG^talk 11:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've read through the discussion and I'm not sure what the exact issue is. I don't see any breaches of civility and would strongly oppose any action taken.

It's nice for the WMF to tweet about popular and well written (emphasis mine) articles. It's probably also fine for them to tweet about articles that need editing or improvement (which we also have a project for). It's not a bad idea on its own merits. So, the ideal course of action would be to explain to the WMF that we have established procedures in place and they'd be welcome to use and advertise content from those as a demonstration of what we do.

That should end the conversation, but because the community and the WMF have been at loggerheads with each other for years and years, with the WMF having lost the community's respect, anything they do is likely to be received poorly, regardless of its merits. I think the community needs to be more respectful to the messages the WMF send out (cf. "never attribute to malice etc") but equally the WMF need to be respectful towards the community and frame their messages in the least antagonising way they can possibly muster. That's kind of the essence of what (I think) WP:CIVIL is.

I agree with Only In Death that the WMF has made questionable actions that have antagonised the community and caused perfectly justifiable criticism and blowback; however, I don't agree that this specific thing (Article of the Week) warrants the same level of robust criticism as some of the more well-publicised events of the past. Is this really a hill worth dying on? The point somebody made about rebranding often being an exercise for consultants to make money is a fair and legitimate one; I'm struggling to find a way that could phrase that in a way that would make the WMF understand it. The use of "W?F" is silly and is similar to those who call Brexiters "stupid, ignorant racist Tory scumbags" - I agree with their point of view, I just don't understand what effect it will have other than making them feel better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You know what I think would honest-to-god help solve the issue more than anything else? Every Foundation employee, regardless of rank or stature, is required to spend a minimum of 45 minutes every day contributing to a project in some way. Not posting on phab. Not looking at a spreadsheet. In the trenches, with the Soldiers, doing the ditry work. You want to proofread an article? Go for it. You want to take a walk outside your office and snap some pictures to upload to Commons? Fantastic. But when you submit your timesheet, that justifies why we are using donations to pay for your salary, you need to have a justification of how you spent your three hours and 45 minutes this week contributing to the thing that employs you. GMG^talk 13:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo This has been suggested before - I've seen it rejected on legal grounds, specifically: people from the foundation editing as part of their work would introduce liability issues. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, it might contravene their 501(c)(3) status. ——Serial ^# 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not totally sure I understand what's problematic about that from a tax perspective. I had considered that it might be dicey from a 230 perspective. I presumed it could be framed as a training requirement. As in, they weren't being paid to "contribute" any content in particular with no oversight, but they were contributing as a way to familiarize themselves with the projects they were running. Interesting. GMG^talk 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

230 of the CDA is the main concern, I think. I presumed it could be framed as a training requirement. Hm... not sure that would work, but it's an interesting line of thought. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have read the original conversations carefully but only skimmed here. I think volunteers need to have a way to protest foundation decisions and W?F seems like a reasonable one and not, in my view, bullying. If the foundation chooses not to respond to people using that language that too seems reasonable. What bothered me in the discussion is that some members of the community were suggesting that foundation employees deserve no respect or should have no expectation of civility. Also I'm pretty proud of the house metaphor I came up with to describe what happened here so I'll just link to that diff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• If this is the example of incivility that WMF came out with, we have a problem. Not of incivility, but rather one of the WMF (or, at least the one employee who opened the incivility thread) not understanding the meaning of debate and discourse being able to deal with (mild) criticism. That, it seems to me, is the bigger problem. (Nice analogy @Barkeep49:. Particularly the use of the landlord - renter because it nicely sets up the power equation.)--regentspark (comment) 14:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

regentspark, I fixed your link for you, hope you don't mind. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. I just want to say that I had seen this page a few hours ago and I had written a detailed reply sharing my perspective. Meanwhile, the discussion has... evolved here too, and now I fear posting what others may interpret as more gasoline. I want to thank Ymblanter for acting with best intentions. I have no interest in accentuating any tensions. I find the discussion here interesting but (to be clear) I am not seeking any administrators' action. Looking forward to the time and place when we all can discuss about one tweet without causing these side effects. Meanwhile, we'll do our best. Right now I'm not sure about the best immediate next steps, but probably it will become clearer in the next day(s). Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• If telling the WMF that one of their ideas was stupid every time they came up with a stupid idea was sanctionable, we wouldn't have many editors left. There is a massive difference between saying an idea is stupid, and saying a person is stupid. Having said that, the Article of the Week wasn't a stupid idea, it was just badly implemented, something we've seen from the WMF many times as well. "Would you like a functional WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia?" "Sure we would!" *WMF come up with Visual Editor* Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is a culture clash that will never be resolved. Sheer tilting at windmills here. The WMF has the culture of a San Francisco non profit. To those who aren't familiar with this type of culture, calling a colleague's idea or work "stupid" is a damn near fireable offense in this culture. Enwiki, meanwhile, has the culture of an internet website. In this type of culture, I can call a colleague a "c---" and people would debate whether or not I should be punished for it. Trying to get internet people to act the way people act at San Fran nonprofits is hilariously unrealistic. You'll have a better chance of brokering peace in the Middle East. WMF just needs to accept they're dealing with internet culture. A more reasonable standard is trying to stop people from calling each other "c---". Also recognize that it's a very self selected group that's posting there (myself included), not representative of the wider community. (Same at ANI by the way. You'd get a different response if you posted this at VPP or on Cent.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• That is a good point, but I don't think that the culture is specific to San Francisco. My wife works for an NYC non-profit, and the culture seems pretty similar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• +1 on this being a good point. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for sounding like a broken record but I did not call anyone "stupid" and have no idea whether it was the work of one person or a committee. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich. We've adopted a culture of communication- and it's served us well- that forthright language, for the sake of the actual article contents, is welcome and expected. The Fram debacle has shown us that trying to elevate civility above, and to the detriment of, all other concerns isn't going to work and if the WMF wants to keep picking that fight they're going to keep losing. Besides, it isn't really collegiality at all; you can still snark and snipe at each other all day in the style of a Noel Coward comedy of manners provided nobody says "fuck" but that's just a veneer of civility, not the real thing. Reyk _YO! 16:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Evidence, please. This started with Ymblanter making the following claim:

"This is pretty much what you are doing now - harassing WMF employees by calling them names on the sole basis of them being WMF employees."[158]

I responded with

"Please provide a diff where anyone on Wikipedia called anyone names on the sole basis of them being a W?F employee. I will be glad to report that behavior at ANI and ask the Administrators to put a stop to it.[159]

Ymblanter then came here making vague accusations without providing a single diff to back up the above claim. Since when does AN or ANI even discuss reports where the complainant refuses to provide diffs?

In the above thread Valereee claims "Using W?F is bullying, and Ymblanter claims that "using W?F in the responses to WMF employees" is a violation of WP:CIVIL (an assertion that multiple editors in this thread have disagreed with.)

For the record, here is my suggestion in its entirety:

A minor gesture of protest: W?F

As a minor gesture of protest against the Wikimedia foundation's decision to rebrand itself with Wikipedia's good name, until they back down I choose to call them "the "W?F".

Feel free to assume that this stands for "WMF", "WPF", or "WTF".

I call on those who oppose the rebranding to start using "W?F".

"We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board."[160] -- Heather Walls, head of the Communications department at the Wikimedia Foundation and executive sponsor of the Brand project.

Sometimes it is the small things that tip the scales. --Guy Macon, 1 July 2020

I dispute the assertion that the above is incivility, and I would call the reader's attention to [ https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: I've suggested once before that you ought to withdraw the comparison between societal privilege that people live through every day and people not liking what you say on Wikipedia. I'd like to strongly make that suggestion once more. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I do not agree that one cannot compare things that are similar in some ways without implying that they are similar in all ways. In my opinion, your suggestion leads to a world without metaphor or simile, never comparing anything to anything else and noting the similarities unless they are identical in all ways. I personally think that it is acceptable for me to say "I am burning up" on a hot day or "let's eat. I'm starving" without having a new Tone Police Academy graduate accuse me of insensitivity to people who are actually on fire or who are actually starving. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's being incivil Guy, I just think it's being an attention-seeking dick. And to try and compare it to the Everyday Feminism article you linked to is ridiculous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 has been warned on his talk page about personal attacks such as the one above. Let us hope that he does not choose to escalate the conflict with additional personal attacks or other conduct unbecoming of an administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x3 - I just posted a longer version of this to the VP talk page thread, so will try not to be too redundant. In terms of what's relevant for ANI, it seems important to distinguish between harsh criticism of the foundation and harsh criticism of employees as individuals, because civility doesn't work the same way in both cases. It also seems important to assume that responses to a WMF employee acting as a representative of the organization are more accurately directed at the foundation. That's what I see in the AoTW thread. If someone calls something the WMF did "stupid", while not ideal, that's different from calling a person stupid or even telling a person "your idea is stupid". It does get at a fundamental question regarding interaction between the foundation and the community: is it better for the employee working on AoTW (for example) to try to engage with the community even though it's personal because the community does value that personal element, or is it better to have designated employees communicate dispassionately on behalf of the foundation at the risk of fully formalizing the relationship. I don't know the answer to that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Numerous editors across a wide range of Wikimedia projects have used various means of imploring the WMF to listen to us regarding their ill-conceived rebranding project. So now they are communicating with us... by asking us to be more polite. Very tone-deaf. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

What is all this bullshit about safe spaces and blah blah blah. We are the Union, they are the company. (Redacted) We are the ones on the side of the angels here. They just count and waste the money. We are the alruistic volunteers that create what they market. They will listen to us, or they won't have a product to rebrand. John from Idegon (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. Clear WP:CIVILITY violation. This needs action from an admin. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Action taken, see Special:Diff/967115115/967193875 --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• To those who would forbid even the minor expression of protest of using the term "W?F", you are aware that WP:CIVIL does not apply to saying things about organizations, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless WMF has become sentient, then there are still editors involved, so that's irrelevant. Given that it's pretty obvious that this stands for "What the Fuck" surely anyone who advocates the usage of such a phrase should be permanently banned from Wikipedia, without prejudice. It's time that the 5 pillars were enforced, and there's no reason for such clear hostility, which only leads to a hostile environment. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that advocating for draconian blanket bans contributes to a hostile environment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You want to make casual use of "WTF" a bannable offense? WTF?!?! Good luck trying to push that one through. Let me know how it works out for you.

I made my meaning perfectly clear several times:

"As a minor gesture of protest against the Wikimedia foundation's decision to rebrand itself with Wikipedia's good name, until they back down I choose to call them "the "W?F".

Feel free to assume that this stands for "WMF", "WPF", or "WTF".

I call on those who oppose the rebranding to start using "W?F"."

Your transparent attempt to paint "W?F" as as anything other than what it is -- a minor gesture of protest against the Wikimedia foundation's decision to rebrand itself with Wikipedia's good name -- is classic sealioning. See [ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

WTF with the Straw Man argument, User:Guy Macon? Where did I say that casual use of WTF should be a bannable offence? The example you gave, would be targeted harassment - which is most certainly not casual usage. How is it not targeted? How would it not create a hostile environment? It's about time WMF drained the swamp of incivility around here, as far as I'm concerned. Their house - their rules. Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Did they build the house? No. Did they furnish the house? No. Do they clean the house? No. Do they do maintenance on the grounds? No. Do they compensate us for the time and effort we expend making their house look nice? No. You want to improve the tone of community discussions related to the WMF? Get the WMF to listen to what we are saying because without us they would have nothing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Did they furnish the house? Yes, with their team of MediaWiki developers. Do they clean the house? Yes, with Trust and Safety. Do they do maintenance on the grounds? Yes, with the Operations team, who keep Wikipedia, all the other Wikimedia sites, Toolforge etc etc running and fast for people around the world.

Are the WMF content creators? No, usually not. Are they hugely valuable to this project and to all the other projects? Yes. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The W?F could accomplish all of those goals -- and do a better job at them than they are doing now -- while spending between 5% and 10% of the 91 million US dollars (that's 72 million Pounds sterling, 124 Canadian dollars or 131 million Australian dollars) that they spent last year. I have run the numbers and I several people have checked my numbers, coming up with roughly the same result. All of the details with citations to sources can be found at WP:CANCER. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, I stand by my comment. I think that a majority of this community would place little to no confidence in the WMF functions that you mentioned. The WMF is overcompensated for its remarkably small contribution to our volunteer-driven project. They rake in the donations off the strength of our labor and allow us no meaningful input in decision-making. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC?
After having mulled this whole affair over quite a bit, the question of who is being harassed, here, remains unanswered. A legitimate case can be made Sitush is the one being harassed, since he’s the one being singled out and dragged to the drama board on apparently spurious grounds. Opinions? Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that a legitimate case can be made as described. This description is the opposite of what I read in this thread. The answer to the question who is being harassed here? is "no one". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sitush will be fine. There are enough eyes on this that people see what is really going on. Personally, I would prefer the discussion over this mess stay within the confines of this thread. I'm under no illusion that the Foundation is going to have an epiphany over this, and will instead be more entrenched in the idea that we, the unwashed masses, are an uncouth, unruly bunch that must be controlled. This thread clearly proves this isn't hyperbole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see much of a point in this continuing a whole lot further. I appreciate that Ymb opened the discussion up for broader input. Discussion is our tool. But there is no administrative action called, or even really asked for. I'm sorry that Qgil feels they're being put in a tough corner. I'm sorry they're being put in a tough corner. If they feel they're being harassed, we will absolutely take that seriously. But...that takes more than vaguely saying that a discussion is unpleasant. As others have pointed out, we're not the customers here. We're...kindof...you know...the people who donate millions of dollars in free labor, write and police all the content, and more often then not, develop the things the help us write and police all the content. So I mean, if things are getting a bit unpleasant, then if you want to be the waiter, then yes, we would like to speak to your manager. I'm not sure what she's doing these days, but we're the people who built and designed the restaurant, and also the menu, and also we cook all the food for free. GMG^talk 23:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Dennis Brown, I will be fine. I do wish Qgil-WMF could find a clearer writing style than corporate flannel such as this because it really doesn't help, but I was never going to be sanctioned because I did nothing wrong. I take far worse flak pretty much daily from aggrieved contributors in the India topic area. I've just been interviewed by a guy writing an article for The Caravan (magazine) and he is horrified at what I have to put up with but would also I think be astonished if he saw how the WMF approach civility etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course you were never going to be sanctioned. Of course you didn't do anything wrong. Accusing you of "Incivility towards W[redacted]F employees" when you clearly were talking about something stupid that the W?F did was an intimidation tactic to get you to stop criticizing the W?F. I am being treated the same way. See that little ? between the W and the F? Because other editors have started using "W?F" I have been accused of showing up at the workplace of W?F employees, threatening them, and harassing them, and have been told that the W?F should ban me from all W?F projects -- all because of that question mark. They just want to bully critics into silence. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, this is not a complete analogy, but why do not you try replying to the American editors by calling their country "United fucking states", or, if you want to avoid incivility accusations for using the word "fuck", "United copulating states", or "U?A" for brevity? And see what happens? This is fully aligned with your opinion that one may not attack persons but is fully entitled to say anything about organizations, and, after all, the sentiment is very wide spread over the world.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as both an American and an American veteran of the United States Air Force, I don't take offense if he uses "United Fucking States". Then again, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the first and more important right recognized (and I do mean recognized, not granted) is the right to free speech. I take a comment like "United Fucking States" as a statement against the action of the government, not an individual attack against any one person. To quote Evelyn Beatrice (channeling Voltaire) "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I will defend to the death your right to say it". People get entirely too butt-hurt over little things. I'm more offended by you bringing this non-issue to ANI, Ymblanter. I had always held you in high esteem until now. This does look more like bullying than addressing a problem, as I don't see a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If I would come across a discussion where people use the "United Fucking States" routinely referring to the US I would not participate in this discussion unless I am absolutely forced to. This is just not a level of conversation I can support. Sorry but I am at this point not able to explain it more clearly than I already did.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I might not either, but I'm not going to harass someone over the use. I always have the option of just ignoring it. I'm not thin skinned and perhaps due to my past, accept that not everyone is going to have the same opinion. That doesn't address the fact that this discussion as a whole shouldn't have ever taken place, and the complaining that (as a community) we aren't polite enough when addressing Foundation members. There is a serious culture problem in San Francisco, a real disconnect from the greater community here. And I came back just to watch it get fixed (unlikely, in my eyes) or implode upon the arrogance of itself. This isn't directed at you personally, but it does appear you've been a part of that culture long enough that you have lost your objectivity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I do not think I have been part of that culture at all, if I understand correctly what you mean. I spent my entire career at the university (exact sciences, mind you), and we always talk to the point. We are not using this corporate speech mentioned in this thread. I have never been to San Francisco, for the record. Concerning my relations with WMF, I can cite my own reply from another page, even if it is on a longish side: "I have been very vocal opposing all controversial initiatives by the WMF in the last 12 years. Specifically concerning rebranding, my signature is in the first 20 in the RfC and in the first 40 in the petition, opposing rebranding. I have made several dozen statements and I am probably one of the 10 top posters on meta on the topic. I had #Notmyfoundation tag at my user page and only removed it after the statement of the Board that they will look into the issue". I do not see I can be branded as somebody who always does what the WMF says, or as a kind of their agent of influence here. However, I see a problem, which is the level of discussion - I still think it is civility, but in any case this level is not acceptable for many people. Yesterday we had issues with Wikidata editors, today we have issues with WMF employees, tomorrow we are going to have a problem with women editors (note that the only woman editor in this thread was essentially barked upon and apparently decided not to continue). It is not a question of individual editors being at fault - again, the only editor here who unambiguously crossed the line, got an immediate block. It is a problem with the position of the line. It is not about opinions. I do not have a specific opinion about the article of the week, and I strongly oppose rebranding. It is about of how these opinions are expressed. We can tell eberybody to grow a thiick skin. The consequence would be that we are discussing without Wikidata editors, without WMF employees, without women editors - and then suddently we get suprrised when people start talking about toxic environment (though I personally really hate this term) and UCoC. And then peorple go to Twitter to discuss issues which must be discussed here but they do not feel comfortable discussing here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a serious culture problem in San Francisco, a real disconnect from the greater community here. That made me LOL. It's the other way around, Dennis. It's this online community that has a serious culture problem and is disconnected from the greater community (the world). 90% white and male is the proof. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

W?F was funny in the beginning, when you first introduced in on Meta, but apparently you just do not know how to stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot read Guy's mind but the idea that W?F has to mean WTF never crossed mine until someone mentioned it here. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet and the wildcard ? is a standard thing in computing, and that is how I accepted it - "substitute any letter here". This entire thread is ill-conceived, as was the tweet that sparked it. I also cannot read your mind, Ymblanter, but I am seriously at a loss regarding why you would bring something to ANI yet seemingly state from the outset that you do not want admin action. If it had to be anywhere, which is dubious, perhaps AN would have been a better forum given that some administrators were in fact involved in the original discussion. The entire thing is a farrago of your making and of the WMF, sorry. It will happen again soon because it is what the WMF do: act without consultation, waffle about civility when challenged, walk away with some corporate flannel after lighting the fire, rinse, repeat.

This thread never served a useful purpose and should be closed. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought I was very clear in the beginning why I brought it here. Let me try again. (1) I think we have a problem in that discussion, which is that the general level of the discussion (that people advocate that opponents of WMF employees should be exempt from WP:CIVILITY - at least this is how I read the discussion, and it turns out that I am in a minority, but I am not the only one) is not really acceptable and is actually counterproductive. If I were a WMF employee I would never go and participate in the discussion where bad faith is assumed against me by default. May be people do not mean it, but this is how I would perceive it. Whereas this might look like a problem of WMF, and even of one particular WMF employee, and I see that many people advise "to grow thick skin", this is in fact a long-standing problem which the moist vocal community voices so far refused to recognize - for example, that women are generally uncomfortable to participating in discussions at such level, not on the merits of the issue discussed, but purely because of the language used. The question was "can we do it better", and the answer is apparently no. (I will not even mention UcOC here, because this would make the whole picture even more difficult). (2) I wanted to have independent opinions - whether we have a problem. Apparently people mostly think we do not. ANI is a reasonable place to ask for independent opinions on the level of a discussion as far as behavior is concerned. I would say AN is less suitable - I was no necessarily asking for opinions of administrators, but I do not hold a strong opinion here. (iii) Contrary to what sone people stated here, I was not (and am not) seeking sanctions against individual participants of the discussion. However I think - I still think, though I was not supported here in this thread - that some actions different from blocks or topic bands or protections - could be taken. For example, a Wikipedian of high standing could have gone there and ask the users to tone down. (Joe Roe tried, and was told to mind his own business, but may be more of them would accomplish the job). (4) As this is a problem - not necessarily with WMF employees, but generally, as I outlined above - which clearly is perceived by many parties as detrimental for Wikipedia and needs to be solved, the issue at some point will make it to the arbitration. I do not exactly know what this case would be, and I highly doubt it would be a case against Sitush or Guy Macon, probably something way more general. In order for the case to be accepted, one must demonstrate that the community was not able to deal with the issue. This discussion (and, indeed, I agree it will be closed or arxived as unresolved) is one step to demonstrate this. This is what I started the topic from.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You confused 'unresolved' with 'soundly rejected' there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B103N48 needs a quick refresher on WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY

B103N48 needs a quick refresher on WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Not requesting sanctions.

The various conversations can be found here, but short story, user apparently thinks their editing is beyond community scrutiny, and after I attempted to clarify why this and this edit, where the user adds obnoxious, confusing slashes to needlessly complicate a cast list, wasn't consistent with community guidelines, they opted to get pissy. NJA attempted to provide some context for why I was trying to assist, but they didn't bother to respond. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. OK, you're not seeking sanctions, Cyphoidbomb, but that was fairly extreme, and they were blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks less than a month ago. I've blocked for 72 hours this time. Bishonen | tålk 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: I trust your judgment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks at War of 1812 talk page

Reason for report

Personal attacks

Page

War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

My posting: [18:55, 28 June 2020][161]; Elinruby's reply: [Revision as of 19:26, 28 June 2020][162]

Requested remedy

Topic ban on article

Elinruby's personal attacks on me

Oh good lord. I see now why nobody is currently editing the article. [06:12, 24 June 2020][163] I have little patience with wikilawyers who refuse to examine their beliefs. [14:33, 25 June 2020][164] Of course big American bwana know better what happen to me!!!! [07:21, 26 June 2020][165] ...you really understand nothing at all about Canadian history and you should not be in this article at all [07:40, 26 June 2020][166] ...You took an exclamation at your ignorance and tried to say I couldnt prove it...I was trying to explain how insulting you are but I see now that you are incapable of understanding such a thing. You know nothing, Jon Snow....This tells me that I have been wasting my breath. If this were a different article I would suspect paid editing or some other COI. You spout wikijargon very fluently, always inappropriately mind you, but well enough to intimidate many editors. (Bites tongue) Your responses are off-topic, demand proof of assertions that were not made, and never ever provide a source. This is contentious editing and what you call consensus of historians is a cudgel you use when you WP:DONTLIKEIT. I suggest you reflect on your behaviour. You and I are done with this topic [09:10, 28 June 2020][167] You spelled his name wrong AGAIN....{God you are patronizing)...It would also be very nice if you discussed in good faith. [09:25, 28 June 2020][168] I don't call you "pompous", I call you by the name you gave yourself. [20:53, 2 July 2020][169] I still think you need to brush up on Wikipedia policies. [19:43, 2 July 2020][170] I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have actually, and I have actually done some constructive editing, not just trolled on talk pages. [20:47, 2 July 2020][171] So your comments are confusing again. [21:04, 3 July 2020][172]

Elinruby's attacks on other editors

it may astonish you but being wrong for years doesn't mean it's right. Talking to you is like talking to Bolsonaro henchmen, and I would know. I was actually going to suggest partof, but sheer exhaustion overwhelmed me. It's cute that you think you can keep saying there is a consensus. No there is not, because here I am. Exterminating "Indians" is not a good thing, sorry, and it's even worse when you fall it an atrocity when they fight back [22:36, 6 July 2020][173] @Ironic Luck: good luck with that. I have no interest in debating anything so poorly enunciated and ill-founded, which furthermore betrays a fundamental misperception of what the hell I actually said. The change I was talking about in the wiki box is in a completely different section, so I am really not sure why you posted that wall of text? You have a nice day. [23:45, 5 July 2020][174] TL;DR. Perhaps if you focused on specific points rather that grandstanding god help us another section. Meanwhile I see no reason why I should respond to your jejeune remarks about what you think I said somewhere. Improve your reading skills maybe. [15:04, 6 July 2020][175] This is what you and TFD WP:OWN. Hope you are proud. It's really really sloppy [22:54, 6 July 2020][176]

Comments:

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War of 1812 room!

-EEng

Since this editor began editing the article War of 1812 about two weeks ago, they have consistently attacked me and to a lesser extent other editors on a discussion page. While I have requested them to stop, the abuse continues. Most recently, I replaced their comment "You are just trolling" with the template "Personal attack removed" (RPA).[177] Elinruby then replaced the template with:

Hard revert, TFD was just whining about his comments being moved, yet feels entitled to say it's a personal attack when I agree that there are ownership issues on the page. If the shoe fits, dude, but that is not what I said. Your bad behaviour is escalating. It must be sad to be stuck on one topic like this, I feel for you, really. But uh no, we not be deleting random parties to this war to please you. [Elinruby 23:33, 6 July 2020][178]

Since I have tried to discuss this issue with them and they have not changed, I recommend a topic ban for Elinruby from the War of 1812.

TFD (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Have you some insight into this matter you might share? Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: reping w/o the ststutter. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, pls stand by... Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

<sounds of crickets chirping> EEng 00:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

lol, thanks for reminder; copla more things, then I'm here.. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Tl;dr: Not much to see here, admin-wise: trouts all around. For Elinruby, a trout for allowing himself to be goaded into some intemperate language; and for User:The Four Deuces a trout or more for placing false user warnings.

Elinruby (talk · contribs) is a long-time user with 40K edits, and a major contributor to a wide range of articles; we have collaborated on translations and articles involving Brazilian and French history and current events. Elinruby is a consummate Wikipedia contributor and content-creator, with a 11::1 ratio of Mainspace to Talk page usage (Main=80%, Talk=7). He collaborates well on Talk pages, and is often the first to seek the opinion of others.

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has been here equally as long, with 41k edits, and a 1::6 ratio of Main to Talk usage (Main=11%, Talk=67). I don't believe we've crossed paths much, before Talk:War of 1812 where I have 5 edits.

All of the links provided by TFD above are from Talk:War of 1812, where they have been editing since 2010 (34 in July). Elinruby has edited since 23 June 2020).

Apparently, the War of 1812 is somewhat controversial, as far as the question "Who Won the War of 1812?" is concerned, at least among Wikipedia editors at the article Talk page. (I get the feeling this controversy does not extend to historians, who hold differing views as they often do, but apparently among some editors here, it is a hot-button issue, with one dedicated archive even called, "Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?". Who knew? But I'm not that familiar with either this topic, or the talk page.)

Elinruby gets along with most everyone, generates a lot of content, and uses Talk pages to have fruitful conversations, often inviting feedback from others. That is typical for him, posting numerous Talk page discussions asking for feedback on content matters, as he did at the 1812 Talk page:

Six discussion sections opened by Elinruby at Talk:War of 1812 seeking feedback

#WP:MOSFLAG – requests feedback on removal of Infobox flags: Does anyone object to implementing this? (perma) #Neutrality in question, uncited text – asks for help on an unsourced quotation Review pls:<copy-of-quotation> (perma) #Check for neutrality – asks for aid with another quotation regarding British Navy (perma) #Cited, but neutrality questioned anyway – lists a quotation, apparently asking for feedback about NPOV, per the section title (perma) #Questioned text – "Where is/are the best places to make this point?" (perma) #BRD: nationality of commanders in infobox – (perma)

Whatever this is on Elinruby's part, I see no widespread pattern of abuse. What I see from TFD's links, is Elinruby getting frustrated, notably by TFD, and lashing out out of frustration in ways he shouldn't. Elinruby should monitor his own reactions better when being baited, and pay more attention to WP:AVOIDYOU. That's him at his worst when provoked; however mostly what I see is Elinruby acting pro-actively on this Talk page to to foster collaboration.

Even when he disagrees, cordial responses are more typical of Elinruby's interactions, such as these fruitful exchanges with User:Tirronan:

Discussion excerpts from Talk:War of 1812

Excerpt from discussion at Talk:War of 1812#Check for neutrality So as far as you are concerned this is beside the point? And yeah, it often does sound like excuses. But you say better-trained matters? Because I think there was one of those too. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Nationality aside, ... [ long response truncated ] To that extent, the single ship battles did matter, mostly to the long term detriment of the USN.Tirronan (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Ok that helps thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Excerpt from discussion at Talk:War of 1812#Cited, but neutrality questioned anyway: Yeah that is absolutely correct. They got crushed in the one battle they attempted to fright and, they went away.Tirronan (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Huh, think I disagree with you on that, but you do seem more famiar with events than I am. Which battle are you talking about. Thames I guess? The part I was questioning was "defence" -- standing in line and waiting to get shot was not their preferred tactic, but there are a lot of mentions of ambush, right?Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Yeah, got it in one. Confederation fighting methods were more modern than the line up and fight methods. Huge losses to a Nation's forces tended to end fighting for that nation over a long term.Tirronan (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD, on the other hand, is overly quick to criticize other editors, but has a thin skin, when legitimate problems with his behavior are pointed out, retreating into non-explanations in an attempt to justify his behavior.

When despite the heat in the discussion at Talk:War of 1812, Elinruby wouldn't bend to TFD's preferred content, TFD then placed an invalid Edit-warring template on Elinruby's User talk page (here; diff, perma) even though the WP:3RR criterion of 3 reverts within 24 hours had not been met. (Elinruby has three lifetime reverts at the article, one of those, a self-revert. In response, I placed this notification (diff) at TFD's Talk page to explain why the EW template he placed was mistaken. Rather than thanks, or even silence (probably the wisest course), he chose to make a snarky reply trying to wriggle out of it, claiming without evidence that he "counted more than three reverts", and avoided dealing with his misbehavior by taking on the victim's role.

TFD appears generous in his bestowal of accusations of bad faith and viewing the behavior of others as personal attacks, but unable to distinguish between an accurate description of unacceptable behavior on his part and a personal attack, when he is the one being called out. If he isn't getting his way at an article Talk page, placing erroneous user warning templates is not the way to gain consensus, or simply stifle opposing views. A trout at least.

Nothing seriously actionable here, at this point. Sorry it took me so long to get back; I need to move someplace that has a 28-hour day. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to thank Mathglot (talk · contribs) for speaking up. I have not been ignoring this, but did not want to generate a bunch of defensiveness for you to wade through. TFD's quotes above are accurate but out of context, and I can trust you to see that, right? For instance, I told him he did not understand Canadian history *if he didn't understand the link between Quebec and French-language instruction*. "Big American bwana" was in response to being told I had a false memory of what I learned in high school, not that I was even saying that this was proof of anything... Anyway. I wish someone would explain the distinction between balance and weight and fringe theory to him, but if this is a boomerang (and personally I think it should be) then I don't think the penalty should be a topic ban, at least not yet. And yet, several of the editors have been intimidated by him, and I am not sure how to solve that. I will answer any questions that anyone has, but that is what I have to say. And BTW, Mathglot and I know each other from WP:PNT and a number of big translation projects, but have never met outside of Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion by 170.167.194.123

• 170.167.194.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP claims to have made an edit "earlier" to User talk:Oshwah that was reverted. The only edits to that page that were reverted in the last 24 hours were made by users that were subsequently blocked. I don't know which account belongs to them, but this is obviously a case of block evasion. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• LTA, blocked a month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on many wrestling-related pages by Andrew9393787

User:Andrew9393787 contributes in various destructive ways to many wrestling-related pages. They persistently adds unsourced content with subsequent removal of the "unsourced" template on Ronda Rousey, a behavior which is leading to an edit war. They seems to have issues with sources in general, either by failing in provide them (such as on 6ix9ine 1 2) or interpreting them at will, deliberately adding errors such as on WWE (1 2); in late June when The Undertaker seemingly announced his retirement, Andrew9393787 stoically engaged into an edit war, also removing seemingly reliable sources hinting the retirement.
The user has been warned countless times on talk page about different issues warnings that were promptly deleted (including a last warning from me); they laconically replied to me with a "don't tell me what to do" on my talk). Khruner (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you should hit him over the head with a folding chair and be done with it. --JBL (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Such a manouver would probably only be part of a long feud. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've exhausted my wrestling knowledge, so I'm going to have to tag out of this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

From skimming their contributions over the past month or two, I'm not seeing anything worth keeping. Indeffed. If anyone unblocks, recommend also applying a topic ban on pro wrestling. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Spudlace) continued reverts and vandalism on Portuguese cuisine

(Spudlace) has been engaged in WP:Vandalism, violated WP:3RV and deleted even images repeatedly against this article:

Portuguese_cuisine

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967169490&oldid=967086611

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967149938&oldid=967149124

Also because they display a similar MO (aggressive conduct, fanaticism, supposedly new profile with apparent knowledge of Wikipedia editing tools which doesn’t add up with new users) to banned serial vandal User:JamesOredan(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JamesOredan). Based on experience, the alarm bells are ringing and I strongly suspect this is yet another sockpuppet profile created with single-purpose intent. Please check user’s Spudlace activity.

Many thanks, Melroross (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

2)

This user Spudlace continues to vandalise the same page, with no valid explanation to their persistent reverts of referenced contents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967204596&oldid=967190779

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=967204808

Please assist with this very disruptive, counterproductive and time-consuming reversal mission by Spudlace.

Thank you Melroross (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

3)

This user User:Spudlace continues with disruptive and malicious editing:

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

User:Spudlace Added ‘multiple issues template’ to this article for alleged unreliable sources, bare referencing and (WP) notices, when very little is left to question. They do not contribute with quality, duly referenced and academic contents, but rather either revert other editors’ good-faith contributions or add peculiar, inaccurate and speculative contents which make little or no sense.

Third request, please assist with this. Melroross (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Spudlace is also involved in pretty aggressive disputed edits at Salsa (sauce). I assume good faith, but a tune-up of approach is certainly in order. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I don't see any notification of this complaint at Spudlace's talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

ThienDe98 Xam lon

ThienDe98 Xam lon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:NOTHERE. Yust see Special:History/COVID-19 pandemic in France. And please protect the page, while you're at it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mass-deletion of blocked user

Regarding User:Zinedinemay2006 , I reported them for for constantly recreating deleted and draftified pages to which he was swifty permanently blocked. I was thinking it could be in order for the pages created to be mass-removed. Take a look at the users talk page and contribs and you will see more about what I mean.   Kadzi   (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just discussing this on IRC. They have created over 100 pages, but quite a number have been cleaned up by other editors, e.g. Protea rubropilosa. Those ones should be left, at least. For the rest, not sure if it's better to delete/redirect the ones that are left, or just putting on maintenance tags. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep - there's also tons of draft pages that will now be unnecessarily stagnant in draftspace for 6 months (as user is blocked)   Kadzi   (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the drafts are duplicates of mainspace articles (they recreated the same articles in mainspace after they were draftified). I suppose these mainspace duplicates could be deleted using G6, as cut-and-paste moves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

These new articles are in a horrible shape, that's a vast amount of cleaning-up - in effect they would have to be completely rewritten. Would support speedying the lot rather than expecting people to do that. But exempt those instances that have been sorted out correctly, like the one linked above. (Also note that a fair few of these are subspecies that would not normally receive a separate article in any case.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I (as well as Praxidicae) went through and redirected the subspecies articles to the appropriate species article (and even made a new article). I also had cleaned a few others up. They are certainly garbage articles, poorly formatted, sourced, and translated. It didn't take me too long to cleanup one, but no way I can cleanup all 50+ of their bad plant articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Leo Breman is having a go at working over the remaining ones - apparently they are translations from the Afrikaans WP. So I guess we could let them sit for a while and hope he doesn't run out of steam :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm beginning to suspect that whomever wrote these articles and was blocked, keeps on signing in a new account, makes one edit to these articles and never shows up again. This because the same grammatical mistakes and idiosyncrasies (putting punctuation within wikilinks/mark-up). Beginning to get slightly annoyed, because these edits are actually making these bad articles worse. All accounts are from India, and quite ludicrously claims to be a professor twice. Six instances so far. Leo Breman (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Uncommunicative User:Wiki wolfname

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

Hello administrators,

User:Wiki wolfname has been making problematic edits to Wikipedia for over a month now, and hasn't responded to or even acknowledged any of the many messages on their talk page. They have been creating articles about Japanese films and media personalities, the vast majority of which don't meet the criteria at WP:NFILM, and also violating copyright policies by pasting in large sections of text from either non-free websites or other Creative Commons wikis, plagiarising text from the latter without the required attribution. Virtually all of the articles they have created have either been draftified, redirected or flagged for deletion. In addition, they also earned themselves a one-week block from Commons for repeatedly uploading fair-use images there, and have gone right back to it after their block expired. I have been trying to help them edit better, but they haven't communicated with any other editors, and I am at a loss as to how we can help them. He doesn't appear to have very good English proficiency, but the messages I translated into Japanese haven't gotten a response either.

Thank you, Passengerpigeon (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have indeffed for copyvios, failure to communicate, and disruptive draft creation. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call and spur some meaningful discussion with the editor and we can unblock, but I'm not holding my breath. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Violent Threats Against Me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This editor @Julie Conteh, has just threatened me with African sorcery as seen in this diff should their promo article Draft:Israel Rocklyn which has been deleted & recreated by them severally & has just been marked for a CSDG11 by me, be eventually deleted. I request an indef block as their edit history show they are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather are here for the singular purpose of promoing the subject of their article. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You called their contributions "horse shit". Did you expect them to roll over and be polite? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, you are required to notify the editor that you started a discussion here about them. You can do this by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I deleted it as WP:G11. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we block them for threatening off-wiki magical action? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I blocked indef since it was a very clear threat of violence (whatever we can think of black witchcraft). Not yet sure what the behavior of the other party was, will look at it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, No Ritchie, you seem to misunderstand the timeline of events here. I only used “horseshit threat” in my Edit summary after they had first threatened me with dark magic and suffering not prior. And yes @BlackcurrantTea, you are very much correct, this is my first ANI case so I forgot that part. I’d so now. @Deepfriedokra, now that’s the real question. @Ymblanter, I literally just stopped Wikipedia from being used as a promotional platform.Celestina007 (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Having received threats my self, I have no problem with OP calling this threat a variety of fertilizer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The behavior of Celestina007 is not exemplary here either. If you think the user is evading a block, report block evasion. If you think this is promotional editing, report promotional editing. I have seen people literally attacked by socks for days, and becoming incivil, and at least I see how it may be excused. It does not seem to be the case here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the deletion and block, and would also request Celestina007 refrains from inflaming these sorts of situations in the future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 & Ymblanter, well I guess you are both correct. I’d do better next time. Celestina007 (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor, I think I'd concur with both Celestina007's analysis of the threat and their response; to be honest, anyone threatens another editor with, literallly, any form of suffering loses all good faith priveleges that instant. And the timing's important: had she responded horticulturally to a simple request for clarification overa CSD tag, that would have been poor. But to respond that way after being threatened? Go right ahead. ——Serial ^# 10:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Responded horticulturally? Does that mean, like, responding in a way that cultivates collaboration? EEng 03:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A hamsa, used for protection against the evil eye.

• Not sure how effective a hamsa charm is against West African juju, but in the event that any of you are cursed, I wish to present you with this two-dimensional talisman to ward off evil spirits. Use it wisely. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kurtis, Oh my, I presume just viewing it is supposed to activate its anti sorcery effects, well I have viewed it multiple times & hopefully it saves me from the impending curse that supposedly awaits me. Thanks kurtis, quite thoughtful of you. Celestina007 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Any spell-casting editor should consider the Rule of Three. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

WP is a truly amazing place! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated reversions and evidence of bias by TruthGuardians (at FBI files on Michael Jackson)

Note: Rather than report this user outright for edit warring, I've decided to move it here in the spirit of good faith, but I am using the template for reporting a user.

Page: FBI files on Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TruthGuardians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/966891033

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/966883524
2. Special:Diff/966884490
3. Special:Diff/966884699
4. Special:Diff/966884951
5. Special:Diff/966891033

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/966897110

Comments:
I believe there is evidence of extreme bias within FBI files on Michael Jackson, and within the actions of User:TruthGuardians. Unfortunately it's a complicated issue, so bear with me, if you will.

This WP article is about the FBI Files about Michael Jackson that were released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2009. According to the FBI's own words about these files:

Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases.

— FBI, FBI Records: Michael Jackson, https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson

There are no conclusions in the FBI files, they are merely a collection of evidence and reports used to assist law enforcement agencies (as anyone can see for themselves at the above link). The files are largely comprised of collected newspaper clippings or technical analysis of evidence. However the FBI files on Michael Jackson article has been edited to selectively address various newspaper clippings or allegations within the file.

Consider the following sentence: "Other allegations being tracked by various newspaper clippings included detectives traveling to the Philippines to interview a couple who use to work for Jackson. Due to credibility issues over back pay, their claims were dismissed."

There is no conclusion about the claims within the FBI file, simply a newspaper clipping referring to them.

Or the following paragraph written in response to another newspaper clipping in the file:

In 2003, 10 years after George accused Jackson, he cheerfully recalled his 1979 interview with him in Louis Theroux’s documentary, Louis, Martin & Michael. When asked about the accusation he said “it came out really without my authority” and "it developed from somebody who had a big mouth, basically, one of my close friends who knew about the story." Regarding whether the story was true George told Theroux “parts of it are true yeah...parts of the story are true...I mean I would say the majority is true but papers get their bit and they twist it and they make things a bit sensationalized really."

These comments are not about the FBI file itself, but rather selectively choosing small samples of a 300+ page document (namely accusations relating to Michael Jackson) and attempting to address THEM. In short, this page seems to primarily spend its time selectively referencing specific allegations and attempting to refute them, pushing the narrative of Jackson's innocence.

This apparent bias is supported by TruthGuardians's complaints on the Talk page that the article is being vandalised by users who wish to remove "content that is critical of Jackson’s accusers" (see Special:Diff/962478693).

The page should simply be about the FBI's files, and the public reaction to their release. There is nothing "unbalanced" about the files that needs to be addressed, nor anything critical about Michael Jacksons's accusers that needs to be added. WikiMane11 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I partial blocked both TruthGaurdians and ThunderPeel2001 36 hours for edit warring on that page. This is ThunderPeel's first offense, but it is TruthGaurdian's second (he was warned, but not blocked, for edit warring a month ago), so I would support a longer block on TruthGaurdian. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  I make no judgement on the other claims, beyond saying that both users should have used dispute resolution to solve this content dispute before it became an edit war. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems fair. As stated above, I have begun the dispute process here: Special:Diff/966897110. I believe the page itself has some serious issues that need to be address, however. WikiMane11 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Having recently participated in the talk page discussion for this article, and tweaked the contents a bit, I would suggest that the article should be configured so as to follow what is said in third-party sources, rather than attempting to reflect any editor's judgment about what in the FBI files bears repeating on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 02:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Willing to mediate

A request has been filed at DRN for moderated dispute resolution. I am willing to mediate a discussion to resolve this as an article content dispute if the parties agree that this can be dealt with as a content dispute. As User:BD2412 has said, the article has to reflect what reliable third parties have written about the files, and the discussion has to focus on what the article should say, which should be consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since any dispute resolution process is voluntary, and dispute resolution only takes places in one forum at a time, the parties will have to agree to withdraw any conduct issues at least for now. Do the editors want to engage in moderated dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to that course of action. BD2412 T 00:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have tentatively opened a case at DRN and am waiting to see if editors want to engage in moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary, and if editors don't come to discuss, it will be closed as not really opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Steve Dabliz again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Issue with Steve stuzz is the same as discussed at ANI a few days ago, here. An editor who is technically not the page creator removed the CSD tag so I believe standard practice would be to take it to AfD but I don't have interest in arguing with a paid editor for a week and I think an admin deleting, blocking and salting is appropriate given the significant previous disruption. Pinging ZLEA and El_C as they are familiar with the situation from the previous discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Relevant accounts are Ahmed.ali ibragem, Mahmoudallam15 and Johnaust, all notified as per ANI rules. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I say we salt "Stuzz" as well. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to salt "Dabilz", too. It appears to be a common typo that was used once before. Nevermind, I see that it's already been done. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Creation protected, again. As I recall, someone was gonna add it to the blacklist. El_C 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I added the actor's surname (which this version of the name doesn't include). Looks like I need to extend it, so I will. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick responses. — Bilorv (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ianoswiki

This editor is claiming they (multiple people) are the lawyers for Christian Narkiewich Laine, president of Chicago Athenaeum. With this edit summary they have been stating changes to their site are illegal. Clearly not here, making legal threats, and own.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats. I don't do that often, as I think it tends to be done in an oversensitive way, but that really was an unmistakable legal threat. Bishonen | tålk 15:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

We have already sent a judicial notice to Wikipedia – Gee, a lawyer who doesn't know what the term judicial notice means. How odd. EEng 06:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Truth Digger has made legal threats here. -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Block them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly could, but I'd prefer another admin to take a look: I've already blocked the account for the user on whose talk page the threats were issued. -- The Anome (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scrappy1931

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Scrappy1931 has admitted (or claimed?) on his own user talk page and on mine that the account is compromised, and has also made a legal threat at User talk:David Biddulph#Listen to me right now. This appears to give two grounds for indefinite blocks. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User 梦出一切

梦出一切 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On List of Internet phenomena in China (example edit, the user listed above (who I will refer to as "Dream" after the first hanzi in their name,) has made a series of edits that, based on the number of dead parameters in the references, the amount of unreadably broken English, and the fact that nearly 100,000 bytes of text have been added to the article by Dream in the span of four and a half hours. This leads me to believe that Dream is turning the article into a direct machine translation of the corresponding Chinese-language article without proper copyediting or attribution that it is a cross-Wiki translation, which would be in blatant violation of WP:MACHINETRANSLATION.

If this isn't a violation I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Klohinx^talk 08:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE: After being blocked on zh for creating various meaningless pages, this user continued created scarcely used user boxes and those machine translated content here. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That user should be indeffed by this point. I won't give any excuses (e.g. Bedriczwaleta attacks on me as "Retarded Indonesian" - it's okay because he may have a mental problem to deal with) for that. SMB​99​thx Email! 02:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst you're about it, they've created a bunch of "political" userboxes creating WP:REDNOT categories like Category:Thinking that patriotism does not mean loving the party’s Wiki that could do with nuking. Le Deluge (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User Ms96 civil right-wing POV pushing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ms96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I encountered this user only just recently at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory; I've been active at that page recently but didn't notice their active discussion at the top of the talk page until today. They're one of a seemingly endless string of accounts coming to the page to advocate for including irrelevant demographic statistics to this article on a batshit crazy white supremacist theory that Jews are conspiring with government agents around the world to exterminate the "white race". Since Ms96 opened their version of the discussion on 15 June, they had managed to convince exactly nobody of the merits of including these irrelevant statistics but was still going on about it, so I closed the discussion. They reverted my close (another editor restored it) and then took to my talk page to continue the argument, which I did not engage, just warned them that they had already been advised about AP2 discretionary sanctions. Another editor did engage briefly but Ms96's last comment there was a loose legal threat which I removed. (Not diffed because it probably doesn't meet the WP:NLT threshold, but they're definitely escalating).

Afterwards, I reviewed some more of this user's recent work:

• On Reverse racism, Ms96 made a bold edit to the article's lede stating bluntly that reverse racism is a real social phenomenon, rather than the sourced consensus that it's alleged by conservatives as an attack on affirmative action programs, or the zero-sum white supremacist belief that all societal gains by non-whites come at whites' expense, basing their edit solely on the existence of discriminatory policies against whites in Zimbabwe (Mugabeism). When another editor tried to incorporate some of their useful Mugabeism material into the article in appropriate context, Ms96 reverted to their preferred "reverse racism is real" version. Their edit was later entirely reverted by another editor. Ms96 again started a discussion which failed to convince anyone of their POV.
• On Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (diff) they removed a see-also link to Right-wing terrorism, wondering in their edit summary "how this POV has remained intact so long". The link is not POV: an entire half of the section it heads is devoted to UK right wing entities which have been described as terrorist organizations.
• On Racism in Zimbabwe, the edit summary in this revert speaks for itself: "Your actions in white washing the issue of racism against whites is strikingly alarming."
• On Talk:Black Lives Matter, they're pushing for the organization to be labelled Marxist in Wikipedia's voice. They claim to have sources but what they really have is a novel synthesis based on sources identifying various BLM "leaders" as Marxist. Several editors have rejected this but they're still going as of today.

Furthermore, in response to being warned about edit warring for reverting my close (a warning that was probably not due, to be honest) they responded by attacking the editor who warned them, and others who replied. These attacks contain such gems as:

• "Things won't change as long as the left breeze sweeps through WP ... freedom of non-profit organisations in a Western democracy is a complete hoax ... have fun with your falsehoods."
• "A Tribute to My Left Fellas in the Talk Page of the Carcass of a Canceled Retarded Rural Psychopath" (in a comment directed at a named user, whose name I purposely omitted)

I believe, to put it lightly, that this user should not be near anything having to do with post-1932 American politics, right-wing politics globally, or anything to do with racism or race relations, and propose that they be banned from those topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Their talk page discussion makes it clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and can be expected to be a continuing disruption. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC) O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the source they cited to call BLM Marxist is a hyper-McCarthyian conspiracy theorist work asserting that Marxists have been infiltrating the government and that their influences include FDR's New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and Johnson's War on poverty -- not to mention Black Islam. That alone should result in at least a topic ban from all political articles, if not history and race as well. There's also them bending over backwards to defensively re-interpret someone else's utterly false statement that only a single Guardian article is used "to declare white genocide in South Africa a myth" ^{(that thread quickly closed as NOTHERE pot-stirring)}. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Given the suggestions of topic bans in multiple areas, the clear POV-pushing and conspiracy nonsense, and their cavalier use of slurs and PA's, I have simply indeffed them for WP:NOTHERE. Another admin is welcome to unblock them with a reasonable request and at least a politics topic ban, but I see no need to waste time on this thread and user. They're just another time-sink who wants to right the great wrongs that folks perceive on Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuation

User has continued their diatribe on their talk page, might be time to revoke TPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

They put what can be construed as an appeal on their talk page today [180], two weeks later, but then immediately deleted my response to it [181] on spurious grounds. In my response, I also suggested that TPA should be revoked, since they don't appear to have any understanding whatsoever about why they were blocked. UTRS exists, and they can use it to appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

AbhinavA1694

AbhinavA1694 is a decent editor who generally focuses on Indian films and actors. Generally their edits are good but they have a bad habit of not bothering with sources (see [182], [183] and [184] from the past few days for recent examples). They know how to cite [185] and I've left them a fair number of warnings and a pointed note on their talk page (which they read as they nicely corrected some minor grammatical typos). The WP:OR is still continuing after that note. This area is rife with poorly sourced articles, so adding to it doesn't help. They were blocked a week ago for this problem and have continued. At this point, I think a block until they respond back with an understanding of the problems and a willingness to address them is needed. Ravensfire (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Issues with sourcing and communication are clear-cut and the proposed remedy is the most appropriate action, given the ineffectiveness of formal warnings, personally-written messages, and time-limited blocking. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Gapes MP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mike Gapes MP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has COI issues editing Mike Gapes, however I am posting here due to this threat to call the police. Admin intervention required.--Hippeus (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I very much doubt they are who they say they are. Regardless, I've blocked as very much not here. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is there any guideline for dealing with accounts that are used to impersonate public figures? Maybe rename it just in case? --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• @RaiderAspect:, Wikipedia:Username policy and specific noticeboard Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. When I first ran across them, they were just editing Mike Gapes from a very non-neutral perspective and I WP:AGF they were who they said they were. The subsequent edits made me lose much of that faith.--Hippeus (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• We would normally block an account like that as a misleading username,even if their edits seemed reasonable - to be unblocked, they'd need to provide evidence that they are who they claim to be via OTRS. In this case, with a combination of obvious vandalism, BLP violations, an arguable legal threat and a dubious username, I've just done a NOTHERE block. I'm not aware of any precedent for renaming accounts like that. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crusades

I know that WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am also convinced that enthusiasm of thousands of amateurs (like myself) is the principal driving force behind our community's success. However, a certain level of knowledge is necessary to be able to improve individual articles. An editor who edits an article without actual knowledge about the article's topic can hardly add value, but easily can destroy it. If the same editor is also negligent and unable to make a single edit without spelling mistakes, the problem is multiplied. I visited this noticeboard to report an enthusiastic editor, Norfolkbigfish, who has been editing articles about the crusades for years. I realised that his knowledge about the topic is extremly limited when I read his first remarks on my comments more than eight months ago. Now, I am sure that he has been editing without reading the sources he is citing. Instead, he reads one or two pages, tries to summarize them, but without a deeper knowledge and without understanding the context, his edits always contain a major error. Furthermore, his edits also always contain multiple spelling mistakes. To demonstrate my statements I refer to his following edits (but I can expand the list any time):

• 1. The article contained the following sentence "Raymond lost his life fighting against Nur ad-Din in the Battle of Inab in 1149." Norfolbigfish modified the text, stating that "Raymond II was killed fighting Nur ad-Din at the Battle of Inab." ([186]) After I asked him to refer to the source of his statement ([187]), he stated that the info correct, stating that he added a reference to verify the statement ([188]). The source did not verify the quoted sentence and I again asked him to verify it ([189]). In response, he stated that the sentence about Raymond II's death in the Battle of Inab is verified by the following text from a scholarly work: "Pons was killed and Raymond II captured by Zengi". I had to repeat the question, before he realised that Raymond (I) of Antioch was killed in the Battle of Inab and his death on the battlefield can hardly be verified by a text about the capture of Raymond II of Tripoli in a different battle. The example demonstrates not only Norfolkbigfish's limited knowledge about the crusades, but also his negligence when reading the sources.
• 2. The following edit did not contain a single factual error, but it was filled with typos ([190]). When dealing with him, an edit that only contains typos can be described as an achievement, so I thanked it.
• 3. He could not properly define the term "crusader states" although he had "completed" the article about them ([191], [192], [193]).
• 4. During the review of the article "Crusades" I placed various tags in many sentences that he had written. He did not understand my remarks and collected them and his comments under a separate title on the article's talk page. His comments clearly show he had not read the allegedly cited books or misinterpreted them.

Fixing his errors is an irksome duty. I have to dedicate more than 90% of my time on WP to fix his factual errors and mispellings. I suggested him to try to improve his knowledge about the crusades through editing more specific articles with a limited scope. He ignored my suggestion. After more than eight months I am convinced that articles about the crusades cannot be improved while Norfolkbigfish is allowed to edit them, so I suggest a topic ban for him. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

All my edits have been reliably sourced and cited. I am always willing to discuss on Talk Pages, and acknowledge when I make a mistake through misinterpretation. I am willing to engage in conflict resolution at any time over any of these issues, which are largely content rather than behavioural on my part. I think this is fairly reflected at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusader_states. The Crusader States article was moribund when I picked it up (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusader_states&oldid=900764952). I edited and took it through a successful GAR. Review can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusader_states/GA1. The Crusades article was fairly disorganised when I came to the subject. I took that through a successful GAR ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusades/GA1 ) and a successful Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history ACR ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Crusades ). There followed three attempts at FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive3, it was at the end of the third FAC that I first came across the complainant. FWIW I also picked up the neglected Historiography of the Crusades and took it through a successful GAR Talk:Historiography of the Crusades/GA1, and acknowledged that was as far as my sources and time would allow. At all times this demonstrated good faith, good sourcing and the ability to work with numerous editors. Both articles are summary articles in an area that is incredibably contested, broad and with vast amounts source material. Consensus requires editors to work together, and even then it may be impossible. I think the complaint is unfounded and the request for a topic ban unwarranted. At the same time, as ever I welcome constructive feedback. By way of context there is this quote referring to the complainant from Johnbod at Talk:Crusades In the 4 months since he started editing this page he has added 177,263 bytes in over 300 posts, producing many complaints about bullying etc, and largely changing the subject of the article by stealth. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have had the pleasure of involvement in this question earlier this year. I found Norfolkbigfish to be a hard working editor whose contributions have been overall positive. I was most impressed by his openness to constructive feedback at the FA review and the article Talk page. I found Borsoka to also be a hard working editor whose contributions have been overall positive. However, I found Borsoka to react extremely aggressively to feedback, and it is a real shame to see that his relationship with Norfolkbigfish has still not improved. I am convinced that if Borsoka had not lost his cool early on, this long-running argument would never have happened. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I can say as someone who theoretically should be involved in editing this topic area (it is, after all, closely related to many of my editing areas), I found the tone of the discourse on the various articles to be sub-par. And it's getting worse. Borsoka is occasionally correct on the issues... it is true that sometimes Norfolkbigfish isn't always perfect in understanding a source or creates typos, but I've found NBFish to be quite willing to correct. Borsoka needs to dramatically improve their talk page manner before anyone such as I feel any desire to step into the editing area - right now why by the gods above should I stick my head into a buzzsaw? --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I used to be User:Lingzhi2. Ealdgyth is correct. This thread misses the mark. OneOffUserName (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I also found the discourse on the talkpage one-sided in tone, with Borsoka's tone significantly more problematic, especially in comparison to the willingness of NBF to listen to criticism/feedback and adjust when necessary. This is my field of training (graduate degree in medieval history with a concentration in crusade history), but I generally stay away from the topic on Wikipedia because of the strong feelings it evokes in many editors. In looking over some of Borsoka's objections/critiques, some were valid while others were...petty. One of the archived talkpage threads linked to is titled "vexatious tagging", which I'd call an accurate summary of the ongoing behavior. For an example, one of the diffs Borsoka provides here involves whether the crusader states of Outremer were established before or during the crusades (it's after, by the way), but did so by repeatedly tagging that line as "dubious", as if it were a significant distinction. Similarly, he argues in the talkpage about whether or not historians generally agree 1291 marked the end of the crusading period (they do) because of Cyprus, to which NBF replies that he meant the crusading period in the Holy Land. Borkosa chides him for not explicitly stating that, but the tagged text explicitly stated that. There isn't ANI-worthy bad behavior here by NBF, who is being courteous and collaborative over a lot of aggression regarding generally minor points. I also don't think there's ANI-worthy bad behavior by Borsoka, either, but he does need to tone it down and get a grip; the passive-aggressive "glad I could correct you" or "happy you were able to understand" comments on the article talkpage every time NBF compromises with him are snotty, as are the repeated statements that "we need an expert". Suggest this is closed with a reminder to Borsoka to assume good faith and for NBF to take a moment to proofread his edits for typos before saving. Grandpallama (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, Norfolkbigfish achieved three GAs. Are you sure the articles were actually GAs? I reviewed the article "Crusades" during its FA candidate. It did not reach the level of a GA - or do you think misinterpreted sources, editorial bias and close paraphrasing are necessary to achieve a GA? OneOffUserName strongly supported its promotion as a FA, even sending me messages and pushing me to also support it - @OneOffUserName: do you really think you are in the position to comment on this issue? Norfolkbigfish's second "GA" is the "Crusader states" article. It also contained major errors - or do you think editors who misinterprete the cited sources and ignore major aspects of the topic should be rewarded? His third "GA" is the Historiography of the Crusades. Please read remarks by editors who are actually experts of the topic during the article's A-class review. 2. My communication style is mentioned in all above remarks. I wonder how would you react if you were described as a vandal after starting the review of an article or you were mentioned as an editor with a Catholic Middle European bias while you are reviewing the article? 3. @Ealdgyth:, you do not want to stick your head into a buzsaw, but I can share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. For instance, review his last edit: [194]. I hope you realized that it contains not only mispellings, but also mispresentation of the cited source. I can edit the articles on which you are working in his style, because I am not an expert on your favorite fields of knowledge. Can you promise you will not take me to ANI after eight months? 4. Norfolkbigfish is described as a hard-working editor, but his readiness to manipulatively quote the cited sources is not mentioned. Is this the certain sign of a constructive editor? 5. Yes, I expanded the article about the Crusades. I added sections about the development of crusading ideology, about women's role in the movement, about the financing of the military expedition. I do not know how this changed "the subject of the article by stealth" as @Johnbod: claimed, but he probably can explain it. Neither do I understand Johnbod's reference to my complaints about bullying. 6. @Onceinawhile:, I have completed 70+ GAs (among them 10+ articles closely connected to the crusades) and 2 FAs. All articles were reviewed. Do you really think if I had reacted "extremely aggressively to feedback", those articles could have been promoted? In the closing note of one of the FAC reviews, the coordinater mentioned that "It's always gratifying to see serious concerns discussed in a collegial manner, as has been the case here." Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions. 7. @Grandpallama:, could you refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were created after the First Crusade as your above statement implies? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI is for behavior, not content, but I will say there is a difference between the conquest of territories and laying the foundations of the crusader states and the later establishment of the organized, (ostensibly) unified crusader state that occurred only in the wake of the creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As far as behavior goes here, if you really think you have the high ground, please re-read your preceding statement (Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions) and pay attention to the fact that multiple editors are disputing that view. Not to mention the fact that said quote is indicative of the behavior problems multiple editors are saying you are displaying. The diffs you have provided, and the language which you are using, don't make you look particularly collaborative or collegial. Grandpallama (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes ANI is for behaviour, not content, but you made a statement which cannot be verified by reliable sources. I repeat that Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all consturctive discussions and I also offer you to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. I will edit any articles you are working on in his style if you promise you will not take me to ANI. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Refusing to sidetrack this discussion does not equate to an inability to support a statement that I made. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, hi. I'm completely uninvolved in this, and cannot profess to any deep knowledge about the history of the period. That shouldn't really matter, since we're here to discuss conduct rather than content. Above, I observe however that there are three very experienced and talented editors saying that your conduct in this area is more problematic than that of the person you're here to report. I'd like to ask you whether you have reflected on that, and what conclusions you have drawn, if any? GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I reflected on that above: I offered them to edit articles they are working on in Norfolkbigfish's style for months. If they could fix my endless typos, misinterpretations, biased summaries for a period of eight months without making sarcastic remarks about my abilities, I would be ready to accept their judgement. Borsoka (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I'm afraid that I find it hard to interpret an offer like that as being serious, or as evidence of any genuine reflection.

Let me try to put it another way. Normally in a thread like this, Editor A will start a thread saying that Editor B has been disruptively editing in a topic area, and link to CIR. Editors C, D and E will come along and say variations on the theme of 'Yeah, they're really disruptive, but we should give them some ROPE,' or 'Yeah, damn right, support TBAN this has got to stop.' This thread is unusual in that Editor A has said that Editor B is being disruptive, and Editors C, D and E have come along and said 'Actually, Editor A is really difficult to work with, whereas Editor B, while not perfect, is editing in good faith and has the capacity to take criticism on board'. That's unusual, and I'm not sure what to make of it - I'm inviting you to give your take on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I maintain that an editor who is unable to make edits without 4-5 spelling mistakes, without misinterpretating the cited source at least once per edit should not edit. My offer is serious. Two or three editors expressed that they think I should cooperate with him and I should tone my behaviour down. I offered them to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with them for months. If they are able to cooperate with me for eight months while I am making typos and presenting my obvious misinterpretations of the cited sources, they are right. Please read his latest edit: it is filled with typos ([195]). (And it also contains misinterpretation of the cited source, but you stated you are not an expert.) Which is your favorite article? As soon as you name it, I will begin to edit it and I can offer you 4-5 typos per edits. I can also misinterprete any source, because English is not my first language. Are you ready to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months? I am ready to be ignorant and negligent and you can prove your ability to remain nice and cooperative. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, we're not going to topic ban someone on your say-so. If you think that this is a good line of argument to take to convince people that someone else, rather than yourself, has a problem with collaboration, I don't know what to say to you. If you start damaging articles to make a POINT, you can expect to be blocked, whether or not anyone has taken you up on this ridiculous offer. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

–Yes, my offer is as ridiculous as all remarks above. None of you have whenever tried to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months and none of you is ready to try it. Nevertheless, I am convinced that WP is a healthy community - negligent and ignorant editors cannot survive for long. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the issue - even if I think you are all wrong. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Another "ridiculous remark": You should consider editing in some other areas and leaving the Crusades page alone. Your responses here and refusal to consider the possibility that your words and behavior are less than ideal are worrisome, and as I look through the diffs, so is your insistence that only your understanding of the content is correct. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's examine the core of your first remark sentence by sentence. 1. "This is my field of training (graduate degree in medieval history with a concentration in crusade history), but I generally stay away from the topic on Wikipedia because of the strong feelings it evokes in many editors." Do you really think it is relevant in this context? I have never met an editor to refer to their real life experience or degree, because most editors understand what the statement "WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means. 2. "For an example, one of the diffs Borsoka provides here involves whether the crusader states of Outremer were established before or during the crusades (it's after, by the way), but did so by repeatedly tagging that line as "dubious", as if it were a significant distinction." You are proposing a topic ban, but you have so far failed to refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were established during the aftermath of the First Crusade. Just for uninvolved editors my remark on the Talk page was the following: "The first sentence of the article is not verified in the main text. (Actually, it contradicts the main text, which says that the crusader states were established as a consequence of the First Crusade)." - interestingly Norfolkbigfish accepted it after three unsuccessful attempt to define the crusader states. 3. "Similarly, he argues in the talkpage about whether or not historians generally agree 1291 marked the end of the crusading period (they do) because of Cyprus, to which NBF replies that he meant the crusading period in the Holy Land. Borkosa chides him for not explicitly stating that, but the tagged text explicitly stated that." The problem is that I did not argue that 1291 marked the end of the crusading period or not and the tagged text explicitly does not say anything about the end of the crusading period. @Grandpallama: sorry but I still think your remarks were ridiculous: you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us, you made a statement about the crusader states without referring to a single reliable source and you challenged a statement that I never made. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Apart from this thread, you have another open on the talk page, and another from last month where Iridescent warned you about the bombardment with warnings and personal comments from you I see on User talk:Norfolkbigfish. Perhaps a one-way IBan would help? ——Serial ^# 15:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what "a one-way IBan" means. I rarely take other editors to ANI. If "a one-wy IBan" means that I will be banned from editing for ever, I will accept it. I have become more and more convinced that WP is alien to me. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may offer some unsolicited advice, you're escalating quite quickly here and it might do well to take a deep breath. On Wikipedia, we are called upon to tolerate those with whom we disagree, those whom we think are less adept editors, and yes, even typos. Article improvement is not a straight line; but even setbacks can ultimately lead to a better final product. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us Are you fucking kidding me? You're the one who has repeatedly called in his edit summaries for experts to weigh in at the article talkpage. Then I identify my background (for the first time in over a decade on Wikipedia, in fact) in order to explain why I'm weighing in at ANI, and because you don't like what I say, my background is irrelevant? I also didn't propose a topic ban, and your characterizations of your own statements on the article talkpage are factually incorrect (i.e., the diff to the "vexatious tagging" discussion that you provided explicitly shows you arguing about 1291 and the Holy Land as if you hadn't even read the text you tagged); I'm starting to think I should propose a TBAN based on what seems to increasingly be reading comprehension difficulties, whether because of WP:IDHT or because of some other issue, both at the article and at ANI. Walk away and drop the stick, Borsoka. I'm already prepared to support any one-way IBAN proposal regarding NBF, as Serial Number suggested, based upon your demonstrated battleground mentality here and your refusal to even consider you might be the issue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think an "expert" in WP is an editor with an academic degree, I think we do not understand each other. I still maintain that you misinterprete my statement about 1291. However, I will gladly accept any ban. Although I still do not know what a "one-way IBan" or "one-way IBAN" means, but I am sure you have been convinced that I have to be punished for my sins. Just another question, can I receive a badge or similar about my one-way IBan or IBAN to place it on my User page? Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

How is the view from up there these days? Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, a one-way iBan means that you are not permitted to interact with, or comment on, the other editor named in the ban - that would extend to reverting their edits. It would perhaps give you a degree of freedom from what you seem to perceive as your duty to correct what you see as mistakes in their editing - if such mistakes occur, you would not be permitted to address them, that would be down to others. You can see more at WP:IBAN. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. Now I understand what will be my punishment for my sins. In the region of the world where I live, we are informed about the nature of the punishment before we receive it. I would really enjoy this punishmen. It would give me a place in WP heaven. Can I place a last message on Norfolkbigfish's Talk page before receiving my IBAN? I would like to suggest him to approach the editors who vote for my IBAN, because they would like to experience the joy of cooperating with him for months. He should not deprive them of this joy. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I generally agree with the comments above of Onceinawhile, Ealdgyth, OneOffUserName, Girth Summit, Grandpallama and others. I've been amazed at Norfolkbigfish's patience & restraint under a long-term barrage of abuse. I had lots of comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1 his first FAC run in 2017, which rather stalled & was archived without passing. The 2nd one in June 19 is currently mostly invisible from a template lurgy now fixed - thanks Choess! - Ealdgyth, anyone? I think I contributed [actually I see I hardly did]. The Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Crusades/archive3#Johnbod third one also stalled before I'd completed comments. I think this was the first time Borsoka reviewed - interesting to see that he began "I think this is an excellent article, summarizing most important aspects of the crusades", and later "No, I am not an expert [on the Crusades]". I think this review was the point where things began to go wrong. I've always found Norfolkbigfish polite & pleasant, if inclined to let things drag on. Frankly I don't know why he persists with this article under these conditions. I haven't delved into my books on the recent issues (they are in boxes somewhere), & no doubt Borsoka is often right on points of detail. He had his particular angle in the FAC, but now seems to be attacking everything Norfolkbigfish does, which I doubt is right. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think your comment is the first one properly summarizing the case. 1. Yes, for the first time I went through the article very quickly and I was impressed by Norfolkbigfish's style. However, it was also obvious that the article does not cover crusading privileges properly. I raised the issue and Norfolkbigfish answered that they are mentioned seven times - which was true: they were mentioned randomly, but they were not mentioned in the context of the First Crusade or its background. Everybody knows the importance of crusading privileges - so Norfolkbigfish's response rang my bell. ([196], [197]) 2. His answers about the political crusades also convinced me that his knowledge about the crusades is very limited. For instance, he said that the Aragonese crusade (proclaimed in favor of Charles I of Anjou) was mentioned together with Louis IX's crusade because Charles I of Anjou was Louis IX's brother (link to the whole issue: [198]). 3. I started a more thorough review and I realized that the article contains plenty of errors and stated that I oppose its promotion ([199]). Do you think FAC is the proper place to write a FA? 4. I also realized that his methods are not always fair. He stated that my statement about three unverified sentences in the article was untrue - after he deleted one of the sentences and added citations to the remaining two sentences ([200]). Later he went as far as quoting a truncated text (describing the situation in Anatolia after 1070) to verify his statement covering 8th-11th-century Palestine ([201]). 5. He also stated on my Talk page that my edits are close to vandalism. 6. Yes, it was my first review. And I was totally astonished that there are editors who obviously had no knowledge about the crusades, but they are reviewing an FAC about the crusades and are pushing me to promote it - I refer to Lingzhi2 who also commented on this issue above after Norfolkbigfish approached him for "a kind word". 7. I am not an expert. What is the difference between myself and Norfolkbigfish that I have read dozens of books about the crusades before starting to edit on this field. 8. Nevertheless, an IBAN would be the heaven for me - I do not want to deprive other editors of cooperating closely with the talented Mr Norfolkbigfish. 9. @Johnbod: just a last question, because you actually studied his edits - I am convinced that he had a strong pro-Turkish and a less obvious anti-Armenian bias. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember being conscious of either, and would rather doubt it frankly. It might be some of his sources. He is at the least based in England, and until recently mainly wrote on English medieval history - I may first have encountered him in 2013, when I was (rather fatally) an opposer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1. Johnbod (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. No, his sources are not biased. Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Borsoka: serious question, because I'm finding it difficult to tell whether you are being serious in some of the statements you've made above. You've said more than once that you would welcome a one-way IBAN with NBF - are you being ironic, or was that said in earnest? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have been always serious. Yes, I could accept any ban, IBAN, TBAN or what you think is a proper punishment. If I were not banned, sooner or later I would start to fix Norfolkbigfish's edits. I am sure I would make dozens of sarcastic comments about them and this is a deadly sin in our community. Can you answer my previous question? Can I receive a badge or something similar about the ban? I would like to place it on the top of my User page because I will always be proud of my punishment. Thank you all for this experience. I really enjoyed it. Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Borsoka, we're not talking about punishment - we're talking about preventing disruption. Sarcastic comments are not a 'deadly sin' here, they are unfortunately commonplace (despite their being an ineffective way to communicate in a text-only environment populated by editors with significant differences in culture and levels of fluency in English). Your sin, if you have one, has been an apparent failure to even consider the possibility that, when half a dozen people disagree with you and nobody seems to agree with you, you might not be entirely in the right.

  Once again, I find myself wondering how much of your statement is in earnest, and how much is ironic - since I genuinely can't tell, I'll answer the question about a badge as if it were serious: no, of course you couldn't have a banner celebrating an IBAN. You would not be able to comment on the other person in any way whatsoever. No userboxen, no topicon, nothing. It would be logged here, and you would just have to remember to abide by it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Please believe me I am always serious. Can I celebrate my IBAN or whatever ban at the top of my user page? Can I link this thread to it? Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I thought I just answered that - no, you wouldn't be able to 'celebrate' an IBAN on your userpage. I will propose that the IBAN be enacted below. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: this is my very own private IBAN. Why could I not mention it at the top of my User page? For instance, "Hereby I announce that I am under an IBAN. I am really proud of it." Could you refer to a WP policy forbidding me to celebrate my IBAN? I am serious. Borsoka (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest that the community impose a one-way IBAN on Borsoka with regards to Norfolkbigfish. Borsoka seems to want one, it would perhaps help them feel like they don't have to be the one to address any perceived issues with NBF's editing, or feel the need to repeatedly open threads at various venues about them. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand the following part of the text: ", or feel the need to repeatedly open threads at various venues about them". This is my very first thread. I raised a theoretical question twice - it was not me, who revealed that I may refer to Norfolkbigfish. Please do not suggest that I took him to ANI several times. Yes, I know I should have taken him to ANI months ago, but I failed. Borsoka (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I was referring to the discussions that SN mentioned in his earlier post - that's why I said 'at various venues'. If you think the wording of the proposal is unfair, I'll be happy to amend it. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, I raised a theoretical/technical question twice, without mentioning Norfolkbigfish. Am I reasponsible for the words of administrators who did not answer my question, but began to investigate the (still not existing) case? If I am not responsible for their words, I would like to ask you to delete the part of the text I quoted above. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka: struck per your request. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It is OK for me, provided my limited knowledge about the crusades and my disability to understand basic information in English do not require a more severe sanction. May I ask a last favor? Could you answer my question above, I would like to know which WP policy forbades me to celebrate my IBAN/TBAN/whatever ban on my Talk page? Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I don't understand your statement about having a disability - I'm not sure what you're trying to convey there. The answer to the second question is found at WP:IBAN - specifically, you would not be permitted to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly - a reference to an IBAN would be an indirect reference to the editor that the IBAN is with, and hence not permitted. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am not a native speaker, so I easily misunderstand English sentences - as two administrators and Norfolkbigfish has (!!!) explained to me. OK, this is a secret punishment which actually is not a punishment, but it is a secret. Thank you for the clarification. I more and more enjoy this procedure - we are in the Roman Age. Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in the thread. However, Girth Summit, it's not clear to me that Borsoka fully understands the IBAN or what it's going to entail, or that we've fully thought through the likely outcome here. From looking through the article history, NBF's work on the article is so extensive and regular that an IBAN is going to work out to a de facto page ban for Borsoka (which I wouldn't be opposed to, but which I'm not sure he realizes); it's not absolute, but pretty significant. I also suspect Borsoka hasn't realized that a one-way IBAN means he can't touch and/or comment on NBF's edits to that page (or others), but that the same restriction is not placed on NBF. From what I've seen, it's not going to be pretty the first time NBF tweaks a Borsoka edit. The repeated accusations of bad faith, the self-imposed need to "police" NBF, the request to put one last message on NBF's talkpage, the speculation about NBF's nationality, etc., all suggest to me that the nature of the IBAN needs to be clearly laid out to Borsoka and that admins need to be pretty unforgiving in enforcing it. Grandpallama (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think the Crusades are pretty much the only area where their editing interests meet, so he may just have to stop editing on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to drive at. This IBAN is, in effect, likely a TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that I cannot interact with him at any area. I also understand that Grandpallama want to achieve a TBAN against me. I was considering to create new timelines about the crusader states and the crusades, but I and the comunnity can live wirhout my new articles. I really enjoy Grandpallama's comments - he is a main reason I am proud of any ban. I waited more than eight months to take Norfolkbigfish to ANI after he called me a vandal and referred to my country of origin and to my (assumed) religion in a negative context. Grandpallama is ready to expel me from any territory a day after I stated that his statements are funny or baseless (although I demonstrated above that at least three of his statements are funny or baseless). Grandpallama please suggest a TBAN for me. I promise I will never ask you to refer to a reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were established after the First Crusade.Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: for the record, as long as its a IBan and not a TBan, you can create any article you like (subject to the usual), and if you do it in your userspace, no-one else should touch it either. So it doesn't restrict you from writing new articles: just from interacting with another editor once they're in mainspace. See what I mean? ——Serial ^# 14:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. Grandpallama (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I perfectly understood it. Borsoka (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Nevertheless, if any administrator proposes a TBAN I will also accept it. Grandpallama, you have already concluded that my knowledge and language skills prevent me from adding value to the community in this area (crusades). Make your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I may be wrong, because I cannot understand basic English sentences, but I think this thread has reached a stalemate. 1. I am still convinced that Norfolkbigfish should not edit articles about the crusades, because his knowledge on the subject is limited, his edits are always extremly negligent and often biased. 2. I am still sure that none of the administrators who have made comments during this procedure were able to cooperate with Norfolkbigfish even for a month if he began to make regular edits in articles on which they had previously worked heavily. 3. On the other hand, I must acknowledge that I have been unable to convince a single administrator that Norfolkbigfish should be "rewarded" with a TBAN. (I was taught that a ban should not be mentioned as a punishment.) 4. I also must admit that I adopted a stronger language when communicating with Norfolkbigfish than it is usually expected in our community. Based on the previous statements, A) I am ready to refrain from making ad personam remarks on Norfolkbigfish; B) I am ready not to edit the articles Crusades, Crusader states and Historiography of the Crusades; C) I am ready to refrain from taking Norfolkbigfish to ANI for whatever reason, save edit warring or vandalism; however, D) I claim the right to review the three articles, but without opposing their promotion as a FA/GA; E) I claim the right to revert or comment Norfolkbigfish's edits in articles that I created or I proposed to be a GA/FA. I emphasize if the administrators decide that I should be "rewarded" with a IBAN or TBAN, I am still ready to accept their decision, because anything is better than fixing his edits. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

D) I claim the right to review the three articles, but without opposing their promotion as a FA/GA; E) I claim the right to revert or comment Norfolkbigfish's edits in articles that I created or I proposed to be a GA/FA.

With an IBAN in place, you would not be allowed to do those things, as they would involve interacting with NBF. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. My above comment contained an alternative. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

One which I am certain the community will not accept, as it does nothing to solve the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What problem? Norfolkbigfish's edits? Yes, he can edit any articles without any restrictions. My ad personam remarks? They will disappear. However, I emphasize I will accept any ban. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

On that note then, I Support imposing an IBAN per Borsoka's acceptance above, and encourage an admin to close this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor deleting material from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi saying that "Sources which are associated with groups militarily active against Zarqawi/ISIS are not reliable."

The subject of the article is a well-known terrorist, but User:Nuruddin Zengi is deleting anything that suggests that, ignoring the sources, eg [202] here. User:TheTimesAreAChanging and I have reverted. In the normal course of events I might block, but I'm in a content dispute with him over his use of primary sources (OR). Another of his edit summaries says "Opinions of people who you are at war with would be biased, also about 99% of references here about a Muslim, Arab person is from non-Muslim, non-Arabs. You should probably check that." Doug Weller talk 18:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for edit warring across multiple articles. I have a feeling that block will become indefinite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yup,  Confirmed to a case I'll create in a minute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Jersey Crabs help

Hi there. I was looking through the log of Draft:Jersey Crabs and it was deleted through G5 and G6. Recently, Jersey Crabs was created [203], albeit in user space and looks like a fully developed article at the time of it's creation, including some draft templates. Could someone possibly look to see if the deleted draft version matches that version of the article? If it does, it probably needs a histmerge. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 18:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's identical, and the draft should have been histmerged. I'll take care of it. Thanks for the heads up! @Ged UK: FYI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruption by George Al-Shami at Paul Anka and Najeeb Halaby

• Paul Anka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Najeeb Halaby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• George Al-Shami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is adding his original research to the high qualities sources I have brought to both Halaby's and Anka's articles (biographies, oral recordings and high quality secondary sources from experts in genealogy) by merging sentences that are separate in the sources I brought to implicate something that contradicts the first sentence, by publishing information from those sources that has been questioned by experts therefore not totally proven even if said in those primary sources, by adding things that have not been really said in the sources such as Bab Touma being the old District of Damascus and then adding less notable sources and deleting the more reliable higher quality ones to support his violations to Wikipedia guidelines.

On top of that this user wikihounded to try to discredit my well sourced edits accusing me of having an agenda to get away with his violations. Back when he violated Wikpedia guidelines in the Halaby article I left it alone and didnt continue the argument in the Talk Page but he has decided then to wikihound me and reversed my edit on the Maronites article where he added or kept an outdated source and now wikihounded me to my Paul Anka edit and violate the Wikipedia guidelines there as well and keep disrupting me. I have tried to reach consensus with you a 2nd time without any progress as can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview

Now he is back after not reaching the consensus for a 2nd time and makes a long edit that is not concise and with excessive wording to keep confusing readers implying origins about the personality that the personality has never mentioned or implied himself.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Chris O' Hare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making unfair and false allegations. I have cited what the source specifically says. In the case of Najeeb Halaby, in the memoir source Chris O' Hare uses, Najeeb maintains that his family is from Aleppo; and that's what I added. Here's the proof https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=960795238&oldid=960757668. I invite any administrative editor to check the sources I used for Paul Anka; here's the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&type=revision&diff=964389958&oldid=964386424.

Please look at what Chris O' Hare has done here..

1) On March 24 he adds a New York Times source to Najeeb Halaby's article that states he is Lebanese/Syrian and adds the nationalistic designation "Lebanese", which I don't object to, because it's referenced with a credible source, the NYT.

Here's the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=947160336&oldid=913707962.

2) Then on March 26, 2020 after seeing that no one objected to his addition of "Lebanese" and his NYT source which refers to Halaby as "Lebanese/Syrian", he removes the national designation "Syrian"; even though that's what his chosen source states; this will clearly show that the said editor is not making edits in good faith.

::Here's the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=958972497&oldid=953674217. 

3) With regards to Paul Anka, I am directly quoting him from the source Chris is using. With regards to the Maronite page that used to be on my watchlist, until I removed it. Chris is deliberately being untruthful here. After a lengthy discussion with the said editor there was no consensus reached; again he is being untruthful. George Al-Shami (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, not being abke to reach a consensus is not a behavioral issue. Follow the procedures at WP:DR. This should be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon this is not about not being able to reach a consensus, dont be distracted by editor Al-Shami's claim of false allegations and please take a look at his disruptive ways.

I have put hard work researching and bringing 5 high quality reliable non-biased sources to these two articles and adhering to wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the past this user has violated many policies by merging sentences that are separate in the sources I brought to implicate something that contradicts the first sentence and by publishing information from those sources that has been questioned by experts such as american genealogist Henry Louis Gates in the Halaby article and therefore not totally proven even if said in those primary sources I have brought.

He has also added things that have not been really said in the sources such as Bab Touma being the old District of Damascus when the author has said the Bab Touma his grandfather emigrated from was a small town and then adding less notable sources and deleting the more reliable higher quality ones to support his violations to Wikipedia guidelines.

On top of that please see that this user has been wikihounding me in order to disrupt my work and to try to discredit my well sourced edits accusing me of having an agenda to get away with his violations. Back when he violated Wikpedia guidelines in the Halaby article I left it alone and didnt continue the argument in the Talk Page but he has decided then to wikihound me after into two different articles as you can see how after I left the Halaby discussion he reversed my edit on the Maronites article where he added or kept an outdated source and now has wikihounded me to my Paul Anka edit and violate the Wikipedia guidelines there as well and keep disrupting me.

After leaving the consensus building in the Talk Page the user has come back to add a new disruptive edit where he has relocated all 4 sources and placed them at the end of his unnecessarily long quote as to make it seem all four sources say the same thing and support this long quote which is not the case.

Again, this is not about inability to reach consensus but about an user that keeps being disruptive and violating policies.Chris O' Hare (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly you are at an impass. But you haven't pointed to anyplace anyone had violated any policy. Succinctly please, provide evidence abd leave all the essay behind. Like this:
  • in (x diff) he violated (A policy)
  • in (y diff) he violated (B policy)
  • etc
  • For these violations, I'd like to see him (topic banned), (interaction banned), (blocked), (sitebanned), (executed at sunrise).

• It may be you have a legit complaint, but I cannot see it, and I'd guess that's why no one else has responded. This is a busy board. It doesn't deal with content disputes. Verbose complaints regularly get ignored. If you want action, help yourself and present something that can be easily acted upon. John from Idegon (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon he has no legit complaint, I've been a registered user since 2006 and I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies, however Chris is fairly new to this project and he is using this board to intimidate me and prevent me from reverting his violation of WP:NPOV. Please look at the evidence, he's deliberately trying to confuse and distract everyoone on this noticeboard and is very untruthful; none of his allegations are backed by the evidence. I'm using the same memoir source he is using. The problem is that he wants to keep one line on the same page that subscribes to his POV, but ignore and then change the following line that doesn't subscribe to his POV. Chris has done that on more than one article that was on my watchlist. He mentions that I'm wikihounding, again, that's another false accusation. In order to stay NPOV and neutral I placed a direct source of what the author says in his memoir.

There is a pattern to his behavior where he hits the articles on Syrian/Lebanese people and he removes the reference to the Syrian ancestry. He purports to be following Wiki polices, but he misuses them to keep his POV in the article.

Here's the evidence.

• The author in his memoir says this My parents were of Lebanese Christian descent and the name Anka itself had an almost folkloric history attached to it. It means noose in "Arabic" and it came about in this way: In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from- a man raped a young girl of thirteen.Chris in the beginning totally ignored the second line, after a lengthy discussion he added that his grandfather immigrated to Canada from Damascus, Syria; however Chris violates WP:OR as the source says that he has ancestors/ancestry from Bab Touma, Syria. Adding Damascus, is not the issue because Bab Touma is in Damascus (it's a geographic fact) however none of the sources says that his grandfather immigrated to Canada from Damascus, Syria, therefore I want to keep both - per source- however Chris is changing it to conceal/hide the fact that the subject has ancestries from both countries and thereby violates WP:NPOV.

• In a 1960 Life magazine article, the article says The only place Paul was not an immediate international success was with his Syrian father, Andrew Anka, whose parents came from Damascus; this backs the memoir source, which shows that subject's father has ancestry in Syria, but again Chris violates WP:NPOV and reverts any mention of the "Syrian ancestry" part even though it's backed by these two sources, here's the diff #[204].

• On the Najeeb Halaby article he removed reference to his Syrian ancestry that his own source backed up: Here's the diff #[205] he violated WP:NPOV by dropping what the second sentence said in main memoir source he is using and in what is presented in other sources. After a lengthy discussion and after I presented a number of primary and secondary sources he backed off.

• On Paul Anka article he again, like clockwork, removes the reference to Syrian ancestry. here's the diff #[206] he violated WP:NPOV even though the memoir source he is using has a contradiction where the author mentions "Lebanese descent" and then on the following line the author mentions "Ancestors from Bab Touma, Syria". To stay NPOV I wanted to keep both, but in our lengthy discussion the author kept coming up with baseless arguments just not include the contradiction and stay NPOV.

• On his charge that I'm Wikihounding him, that's not true. The diff will show that I was editing this article long before the said editor became a registered user. #[207].

• For this, and since Chris is a fairly new editor, I would like a warning to be sent to Chris O'Hare about the need to include the sourced contradictions to stay in compliance with WP:NPOV.

• An ip editor adds a news outlet source, here's the diff #[208], but since the source doesn't support Chris's POV, he keeps deleting it. Here's the diff *[209], which shows his deletion of the ip editor's source and the removal of my additions where I add a direct source so that there's no deception or misrepresentation of the source.

• So when using the Paul Anka memoir source, when Paul Anka backs Chris's POV, Chris uses it, but when Paul Anka says his ancestors are from Damascus, Syria..in the following line, he second-guesses the author and removes the second line about second ancestry. Is that acceptable behavior here on Wikipedia?

• Furthermore, as of this writing, the said editor has reverted to his POV. In order to avoid getting into an edit war with the said editor and since consensus was not reached, I kindly ask someone to revert Chris's edit to on June 24 and restore the version before he started removing reference to Syrian ancestry. (Here's the diff #[210])George Al-Shami (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• And I'll tell you the same thing I told him. If you want action on your complaint, succinctly state what policy he violated in what diff and what you want done. No one is going to read either your, nor his, diarrhea of the keyboard. Have respect for your fellow editors. We're volunteers too. If you want action succinctly state what the policy violation is, provide diffs for it, and request what action you want. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject. If you cannot summarize your own thoughts, how do you expect to successfully edit here? John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I provided 3 diffs above and the policies he violated. My apologies for not being succinct enough.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&diff=959107360&oldid=958996232 commits WP:VAND by deleting the highest quality most reliable non-biased source that can be added to a bio article which is his/her autobiography, where it says his father was from Zahle, Lebanon. His WP:VAND also deleted the highest quality secondary source out there which is a book by Henry Louis Gates which states that eventhough Halaby states his grandparents were from Aleppo that they might also be from Zahle, Beirut or Damascus since his last name Halaby doesnt necessarily means they came from Aleppo but adopted the surname many generations back.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&diff=960795238&oldid=960757668 he comes back and publishes the unproven or questioned by Gates information about his grandparents and states it as a fact and violates WP:SECONDARY by not adding a second sentence saying that this has been put to question by Henry Louis Gates as a sourced secondary source as per wikipedia policies in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Strengths_and_weaknesses. By failing to do this he is also violating The Association of Professional Genealogists's Code of Ethics which states "do not publish unproven information as proven" as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy#Ethical_guidelines As I understand if something is not proven its either left out or the secondary sources need to be mentioned. I tried explaining him this is a violation of the guidelines but after I long discussion he fails to understand his violation as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins. I decided to move on eventhough his edit violated the guidelines.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maronites&diff=960408942&oldid=960397246 he violates WP:HOUND after he got away with his previous disruption and wikihounds me to my edition on another article to continue disrupting my editing and reverts my edition of a poorly sourced (outdated sources) with plain false statements and unexplained deletions and reverses it to the previous poorly sourced and disruptive edit again committing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&diff=964302145&oldid=964228845 after I fixed the previous source with updated sources he violates WP:HOUND again and follows me to my new edit and violates WP:SYN by merging two sentences of the source to contradict what the first sentence said as to imply something that is not stated in the autobiography which I brought to this bio as the most reliable source about Anka's descent. He also violates WP:OR by linking Paul Anka's Bab Touma, which he claims in his bio is a SMALL TOWN, to an old District of Damascus claiming Anka is not learned about his origins and made a mistake in his statement which is WP:OR and goes against evidence I presented him in the Talk Page but he keeps ignoring it violating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette .

After a long discussion and failing to making him see that he is violating policies and making disruptive edits as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview he decides to leave the consensus building talk and disappears showing his inability to understand the policies and to reach consensus violating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&diff=967734108&oldid=967721716 after disappearing for 10 days from the consensus building discussion he comes back and violates WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by completely removing what was tentatively agreed upon before he disappeared as per my last proposal in the talk page and adds all the 4 sources at the end of a unnecessarily long quote as to imply they all say the same thing as stated in the long quote which they dont violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and in a way also a kind of WP:SYN . He also keeps linking the small town of Bab Touma to the Old District on Damascus again violating WP:OR which I am willing to compromise as you can see in my last edit in order to reach consensus.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, Holocaust denying IP editor

66.194.149.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:NOTHERE IP editor who is using original research to promote Holocaust denial on Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust[211][212][213][214] I think Holocaust deniers should be blocked on sight. (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like he's already been blocked for 12 hours. I'll keep an eye on the article for when his unblock comes. — Czello 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Materialscientist has blocked for a mere 12 hours. I would have blocked for longer, but then Materialscientist is clever with IPs and I'm stupid with IPs. I've asked on his page. Bishonen | tålk 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

Same IP appears to be back at 2601:982:380:1480:7885:252c:420c:ec16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suggest extended confirmed protection on the affected article, Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust, which is covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Antisemitism_in_Poland:_Motion_(May_2020)? (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We haven't tried semi yet; I think that ought to work. Semiprotected for three months. Bishonen | tålk 00:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

103.149.52.73 (talk · contribs) impersonating Kevin Gorman

• 103.149.52.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Diff 1
• Diff 2

Quite weird, this. Some IP based in Bhagalpur, India is impersonating Kevin Gorman, who sadly passed away in 2016. IP also seems fairly familiar with some terms and mentions a "hidden account" which uses RedWarn, so it may be worthwhile for a CU to look into this too. Ed6767 talk! 12:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

IP is listed at abuseat - it may be likely that the computer is infected with botnet malware, and therefore could be a secret proxy output, or could just be a computer infected with malware. Only a CU can make sure that this is the case by checking for associated user accounts. Ed6767 talk! 13:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's likely the latter, as abuseat hasn't logged anything in the last 24 hours, the period in which these edits were made. Ed6767 talk! 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, This is an ip hopping lta whose schtick is writing fan fictions about Gorman; I don’t think CheckUser will be help here. Best to just revert, block, and ignore em.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 13:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this LTA is a perennial problem. Best to continue to WP:DENY. El_C 13:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's liable to be based anywhere. Just WP:RBI. Bishonen | tålk 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

POV Editing at The Daily Stormer

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

Soibangla recently added a quote from Andrew Anglin, the founder of the White Supremacist website The Daily Stormer, describing Tucker Carlson as "literally our greatest ally," adding that Tucker Carlson Tonight "is basically 'Daily Stormer: The Show'. Other than the language used, he is covering all of our talking points."[215] The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed here. I subsequently reverted the edit here citing BLP, UNDUE and NPOV. Soibangla questioned my reversion in a talk page discussion which can be found here.

Soibangla's initial edit, and the cited source, appear to be a fairly transparent attempt to paint Mr. Carlson, a controversial political talk show host, as being an ally of White Supremacists. The fact the source is a naked attack piece from a website that has been frequently the subject of criticism at WP:RSN, and is without supporting coverage from other sources is also highly problematic. The talk page discussion suggests that Soibangla does not grasp some of our more important policies that deal with posting highly negative claims about persons who are protected by BLP. Under even the most benevolent interpretation of their edit and the subsequent discussion, I believe serious concerns exist regarding their general competence to be editing subjects of a highly sensitive and controversial nature and am seriously considering calling for a topic ban from American Politics (post 1932). -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, both the WP:AWARE criteria of BLP and AP2 have been satisfied. You, as a single admin, may topic ban them accordingly for any length you see fit, including indefinitely, as an AE action. El_C 01:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I am aware of that. However, out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting input from experienced editors before taking any direct action. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Aware of AWARE, you say? Anyway, has there been similar issues like these with this user? Because if so, a topic ban is probably due. El_C 01:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El C I don't think I have ever interacted with this editor before tonight. However an extremely cursory glance at their talk page and recent history is not showing anything quite this brazen. Though they do seem to take pride in their reputation for POV editing when it has been raised on their talk page. But in fairness, if RT was saying bad things about me, I might take a little guilty pleasure as well. My problem here is that I was content to let this go with a formal caution after I reverted their edit. But everything that followed in the talk page discussion has sent up all kinds of red flags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the article talk page does signal a bunch of red flags. It does not appear the user understands that their edit was inappropriate. Hopefully, that is something they will come to terms with rather than face sanctions. El_C 01:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

to take pride in their reputation for POV editing when it has been raised on their talk page is flatly false. In no way have I ever come even close to doing that. I displayed my amusement when a Putin propaganda outlet characterized me as "a known quantity" on AP2, and falsely accused me of making POV edits, as well as my amusement at a troll on r/The_Donald falsely accusing me of POV edits in an apparent effort to rally a MAGA troll army to come at me. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. BuzzFeed News, which Soibangla cited in his edit, is generally considered a reliable source by the community (see its entry at WP:RSP). There's no BLP violation in this edit; it accurately reflects the content of a reliable source. Soibangla calmly made that point to Ad Orientem on the article talk page, but Ad Orientem immediately escalated here to discuss a topic ban while mistakenly describing the source as unreliable. We don't usually topic-ban people for making accurate edits with a supporting reliable source. (Of course, the material may or may not belong in the article—that's a matter for discussion—but Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability.) The usual sequence is WP:BRD, not BRAN/I.

  Separately, El_C, surely you realize that Ad Orientem can't actually "topic ban [Soibangla] for any length you see fit"—an admin can't revert someone's edit as part of a content dispute and then topic ban the other editor. This is WP:INVOLVED 101. MastCell ^Talk 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• If it's a BLP violation, which I believe to to be, then Ad Orientem had a duty to revert it. That does not make him invovled. As far as I am aware, Ad Orientem is an uninvolved admin in this matter. Anyway, we cannot malign someone (Tucker) by association. I don't believe we've sank that low to editorialize like that. El_C 02:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur. There is no doubt in my mind it is a BLP vio. The sole source is a naked attack piece that makes Fox News look like the NY Times in their moderation and balance. It was used in a transparent attempt to tag Carlson as an ally of these vile people. That kind of insinuation is absolutely not allowed w/o very serious reliable source evidence, typically multiple sources. And no, I don't consider that piece to in any way pass WP:RS. My reversion was done in my capacity as an admin. I thought I made that clear in the talk page discussion when I stated I was in the process of writing a formal caution for Soibangla's talk page. That said, I do tend to favor getting additional input in cases like this before imposing sanctions. There is no immediate rush or threat to the project that would require quick and decisive intervention. And I am prepared to defer if there is a consensus against such a step. But the edit in question was a serious no no that did cross multiple lines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. MastCell ^Talk 06:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. However, I wouldn't have included the quote in Carlson's article, because I believe it's probably UNDUE. The Buzzfeed article has a quite-easily confirmable fact that Carlson is the TV host most quoted (by an order of magnitude) in the Daily Stormer's pages, so you could have a discussion about that, as long as it isn't being SYNTHed to accuse Carlson of racism. To paraphrase the Buzzfeed article itself "Carlson may not be a racist, but this bunch of racists are convinced that he is" - and that's not the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The source for the description of Carlson was the Daily Stormer/Anglin. That's not an RS for opinions about him. This edit was a serious BLP violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But the source in the edit is a RS, not Stormer. They are reporting on what Anglin said, and it's cited in the same fashion as in innumerable other edits on Wikipedia. Millions, perhaps. It's just that in this case the reported quotes come from a particularly heinous man. Are we now going to draw lines as to when someone's quote is acceptable and when it isn't? soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, imagine that a Holocaust-denial site wrote of a mainstream Holocaust historian: "He is covering all our talking points! Have you noticed how his numbers are always lower than everyone else's? He is literally our greatest ally!" You are arguing that we ought to add that view to Wikipedia, in the article about the Holocaust-denial site or to the historian's BLP, if we can find a minimally reliable source that repeats it. But of course we would never do that. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• There would be all kinds of problems to have this on Tucker Carson's page. I'm less sure here. If that coverage isn't WP:UNDUE, and I suspect it is, then it would be reasonable for it to be quoted (if say this was one of the main things the Daily Stormer was known for). As far as sources, there are other, sources that might be more acceptable for similar information ([216], [217], [218]). What this article from Buzzfeed News seems to have is an analysis of coverage of Fox news folks which makes it a bit more useful IMO. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, well, maybe - but if Andrew Anglin is that keen on the show (and there is no evidence the social media screenshots are fake) then that is a pretty big deal. Guy (help!) 12:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Even as someone who views Tucker Carlson as an ally to white nationalists (just going off of his rhetoric), I am surprised that the community sees Buzzfeed as a reliable source given their history of clickbaiting and racebaiting. Consensus is consensus I guess, but I do not think that treating buzzfeed as reliable will accomplish much other than giving the "Wikipedia is liberal propaganda" people ammunition. Darkknight2149 09:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Darkknight2149, some of us view it as BLP violation of the first order: as pure editorializing. El_C 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree with the use of Buzzfeed in this way (although the easily proved fact that Carlson is the most-quoted TV host by the Daily Stormer is not in the slightest unreliable), the people who think that "Wikipedia is liberal progaganda" aren't going to stop saying it unless we end up looking like Conservapedia (i.e. a complete work of fiction). In the post-truth era, when you've got at least three right-wing leaders of major countries who pump out easily-debunkable nonsense (i.e. lies) on an almost daily basis, this is always going to be a problem, because some people believe them quite vehemently. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, to your point, WP:RSP makes a distinction between BuzzFeed proper (a dubious, clickbaity source at best) and BuzzFeed News (which is viewed as generally reliable). The piece cited by Soibangla came from BuzzFeed News. In general, I agree with you that neither is an ideal source—I don't think I've ever used either one as a source for an edit here. But as an editor and admin, I can't just substitute my own opinion for community consensus about the source's reliability—which is what Ad Orientem and El_C did. That's my concern. I think it's fine if editors decide, through discussion, that inclusion of this material would constitute undue weight. I just think it's wrong that an editor was immediately hauled to AN/I for making a single, appropriately-sourced edit, and then calmly discussing the edit when it was reverted. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that in October 2018 an RfC about including praise of Carlson's show by white supremacists was opened. It was closed with a "no", saying it constituted undue weight. I participated in it and agreed with the result, as it was a blatant attempt to make Carlson look like a white supremacist. Soibangla participated too, and quoted this same Daily Stormer material. - DoubleCross (‡) 10:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised that the community sees Buzzfeed as a reliable source given their history of clickbaiting and racebaiting

Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News are different entities. Buzzfeed, yes, is a clickbait cesspit. However, Buzzfeed News has earned a reputation as a legitimate source of journalism. The problem is that folks see "Buzzfeed" and automatically associate it with the clickbait, before the "News" in the name registers. They'd have been better off changing names for the news entity a long time ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that folks see "Buzzfeed" and automatically associate it with the clickbait, before the "News" in the name registers was the trigger causing this ANI topic to be illegitimately opened in the first place. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think Soibangla's edit has any place in The Daily Stormer; if anywhere, it goes in the Tucker Carson bio, though there is clearly some doubt about that as well. But Soibangla is not IMO a disruptive editor, now nor did he act disruptively here, but went to talk when he was reverted. I believe he showed somewhat poor judgment in adding the material in the first place, per WP:UNDUE, but that alone, from a constructive editor, is far from being cause for a topic ban or indeed any kind of sanction. And if, hypothetically, it were, I don't think Ad Orientem should revert and then sanction, so I'm not in agreement with El C there. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

  Bishonen, right. Ad Orientem and others see a naked attack piece, I see robust criticism which cites its sources and shows its working. Whether or not it constitutes WP:UNDUE is another matter, but it's certainly not a BLP violation, because Buzzfeed News is a reliable source and the reporting, whose accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute, is legitimately troubling.

  This is investigative journalism, albeit of a somewhat facile kind. BuzzFeed News is an American news website published by BuzzFeed. It has published a number of high-profile scoops, including the Trump–Russia dossier, for which it was heavily criticized.[1][2][3] During its relatively short tenure, it has won the George Polk Award, Sidney Award, National Magazine Award and National Press Foundation award, as well as being a finalist for Pulitzer Prizes. This won't win any awards, but neither is it clickbait or yellow journalism. Tabloidish, at worst.

  Does Andrew Anglin love Tucker Carlson's show? Hell yes, and anyone can go and repeat the work documented in the article and verify its accuracy. Is Carlson a racist? I don't know, but the racists certainly think he is. And that is the problem we always have: how to distinguish conservative voices that are actually racist from those who are merely sufficiently unconcerned about racism that they are OK with repeating dog-whistles and racist tropes. I have no clue how to fix that.

  Including praise of Carlson by white supremacists from primary sources is clearly unacceptable, but this is a secondary source - and that in and of itself would legitimately call into question whether an RfC based on primary sources is still a valid consensus (cf. the Joe Biden sexual assault allegations, which were included after secondary sources reported). Is it undue? Likely, but it's not so obvious that it merits a sanction. We don't sanction people for boldly adding material that's later decided to be undue, unless they do it constantly or egregiously. This would need to go to AE, I think, with evidence of a systemic problem, not just a single incident. Guy (help!) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bishonen, did you mean "nor did he act"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Jo, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, nog är det så alltid. Bishånen | tålk 14:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

• I guess I'm in the minority here in seeing it as an egregious BLP violation by virtue of it being so UNDUE. I can accept that. But Guy raises some fine points, too, so I value his (mostly) excellent analysis. El_C 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, heh! If faint praise is all I can get, I'll take it, my friend :-) Guy (help!) 13:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this seems to be mudslinging for reasons the BLP subjects can't themselves decide. Similarly, there is an Associated Press article (credited to a Washington Times journalist) that the former KKK leader David Duke supports Ilhan Omar for her comments about Israel. I also think pushing for including that in the Omar article would be negative POV-pushing. And importantly, as the Daily Stormer article states, the site is involved in trolling. Connecting their more or less trollish comments to others is highly problematic for BLP reasons. --Pudeo (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Folks, there's genuine content disagreement here, over which reasonable people can have differing opinions. Whether the material should be included, and if so where, is a valid topic for consensus-seeking discussion, and the place for that is not here. Whether User:Soibangla should be sanctioned is a valid question here, and I'm not seeing justification for it - there's an UNDUE (content) discussion to be had, but I'm not seeing a violation of BLP or American Politics sanctions, as those sanctions do not prohibit the inclusion of negative material supported by reliable sources (and it's a source generally considered reliable). Also, I definitely agree that an admin taking part in what is actually a content disagreement should not be the one to impose sanctions in the event sanctions were considered appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. And the fact that there's "genuine content disagreement here" means, in my view, that this wasn't a clear-cut BLP violation that should result in a block of any kind. Grandpallama (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• There was already an RfC about this and that settles the issue until a new RfC. Not only is it a blp violation and undue but making that edit was circumventing consensus. [219] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, it's not a BLP violation because it's reliably sourced. It may be UNDUE. Guy (help!) 13:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, it can be two things. El_C 13:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, it can be, but it isn't, because it is factually accurate and a RS. Also, and at least as disturbing, see this from today: https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/1281061199728312320?s=20

As I said above, I do not know if Tucker Carlson is a racist, but the racists sure as hell think he is. Guy (help!) 13:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What can I say? That's hard to argue against. El_C 13:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it's reliably sourced; the Buzzfeednews tech column, and the NBC and Esquire opinion pieces, aren't RSes for suggesting a living person is an ally of white supremacists, and I don't see that the GQ article supports the edits in question. I guess count me in the minority. My barometer is that if it's a controversial statement that is not sourced to multiple, high quality sources, then it's a BLP violation. I get that from "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This counts, to me, as contentious material that is poorly sourced. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, Buzzfeed is a perfectly reliable source for this. It's in their wheelhouse, and they have won awards for investigative journalism. Guy (help!) 19:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this now, with a suggestion that the editors return to the article talk page to discuss any remaining DUE WEIGHT issues? SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Having read through the comments that have appeared since last night, I see a rough consensus that no BLP vio occurred, a rough consensus that there are questions of UNDUE and a rough consensus against any sanctions. While I don't agree with the first conclusion, I bow to what appears to be the general take among my collegues as expressed in their comments. In light of which I will not take any further administrative action and will be satisfied that the edit in question, or anything similar, shall not be reinstated w/o clear talk page consensus supporting it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am striking my above comment. Based on subsequent comments and discussion it appears to have been premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• The edit is a brazen BLP violation as far as I can see. This is a pretty alarming condemnation that should only come from the most reliable sources. I wouldn't allow this kind of derogatory BLP violating nonsense in an article about Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow with this flimsy level of referencing. Whatever happened to the efforts to approach BLPs with diligence and na effort to "do no harm"? When editors make it their mission to only add the negative (and use less then substantive references) and little to "edit for the opposition", one wonders how we can defend them as here for the general good?--MONGO (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  And the person in question seems to think this is just fine [220]. Sad.--MONGO (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

LOL! guffawed the person in question soibangla (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Taking a victory lap at Talk:The Daily Stormer--before this thread is even closed--makes me concerned about continued editing in BLP and AP2 topic areas. WP:Battleground statements like I'm pretty sure that, as an admin, Ad Orientem knows the right thing to do here now. The only question is whether he will demonstrate a modicum of courage and integrity to do it. do not give me confidence in an editor's ability to communicate with other editors in these very fraught topic areas. If what soibangla takes from this discussion is "I was right", I fear we are going to have problems in the future. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

As I am the subject of this topic, I will not presume to close it, but I recommnend someone do it, as the individual who opened it effectively closed it. soibangla (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• BLP vio plus disregarding consensus to keep it out. I would support a 6 mos. t-ban. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't imagine why people might associate Carlson with racists. Another story breaking from RS about this issue. Grandpallama (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I will explain my link here, since Ad Orientem suggested it was both a BLP and NOTFORUM violation; I'll strike the snark from my comment as potentially inappropriate, but I consider the rest of what Ad Orientem wrote on my talkpage to be a deliberate attempt to chill criticism of his attempt to push sanctions through on a good-faith editor. As far as NOTFORUM goes, the link is certainly relevant to what is being discussed here, because reliable sources continuously and regularly associate Tucker Carlson with white supremacists and racist language. The whole discussion here revolves around whether an editor adding a reliably sourced (and it's disturbing that Ad Orientem repeatedly calls Buzzfeed News anything other than a RS, as the community has established consensus that it is) statement should be sanctioned for his edit. Most everyone, myself included, agrees that the edit doesn't belong in the article and that it attempts to establish guilt by association in an inappropriate manner. But the further argument, that soibangla committed some gross violation by calmly discussing the reversion of his edit at the talkpage, or that it was unreasonable to think reliable sources regularly writing about connections between racist/supremacist groups and Carlson might merit a mention, ignores the reality of what RS are publishing on this subject. By all means, nothing should go on Carlson's or The Daily Stormer page that violates consensus or Wikipedia policies, but as recently as today, stories are breaking about Carlson's associations. To implement a punitive block on an editor (because the fact that he has made no attempt to force in his edit means you can't possibly call this preventative) for thinking the article should address this topic is highly troubling. Grandpallama (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, Thanks for your comment and as I noted elsewhere, your entitled to your view. I will make just one point though. AFAIK nobody was considering a block. I certainly wasn't. The only sanction I considered was a TBan. That is under discussion below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct--slip of the tongue on my part and the fault of editing late on a Friday night. That said, I find everything I argued equally applicable to the notion of a TBAN on the editor for this one edit. Grandpallama (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, did you intend to leave this “parent” record open while closing its “child” records? soibangla (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for 6 mos. t-ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Soibangla added a quote in violation of BLP, UNDUE and NPOV and disregarded WP:Consensus that was against adding such material; noncompliance with consensus is a violation of policy.

• Support for the reasons stated. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Adding - this ArbCom Principle which I included below after a bit more research in an effort to validate or dismiss the BLP vios argued by Ad Orientem, Levivich and others, myself included. I'm of the mind that the following principle stands out like a sore thumb in this case, and unequivocally validates the BLP argument. (my bold underline):

Quotation of material from an unreliable source
8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as there is obvious consensus after discussion that there was no BLP violation. Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive, and no evidence has been provided that soibangla requires a TBAN in order to prevent disruption; on the contrary, he has followed BRD. Grandpallama (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a point that I find weighty. There is not a current consensus on the question of a BLP vio. Opinions are divided rather sharply. However, we do have a broad agreement that the edit was inappropriate and UNDUE. But Soibangla has not attempted to reinstate the edit. Nor, a few snarky comments aside, have they suggested that they would do so. As the OP I am INVOLVED so I am not going to close the discussion. But, I will suggest that if Soibangla acknowledges the consensus that the edit was inappropriate and that they understand why, I would be fine if someone closed this on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, let's make a deal: I will acknowledge that my original edit was inappropriate, with a pledge to be more careful in the future, if you acknowledge you bypassed BRD — perhaps the most overarching principle of Wikipedia — to inappropriately open this topic. With the concurrence of other admins that our mutual agreement obviates further discussion here, we can close this topic and everyone can resume constructive editing. Deal? soibangla (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: No deal. I opened this discussion in lieu of unilaterally imposing a TBan on the basis of what I believed (and still believe) to have been a flagrant BLP vio and POV edit. Your general response to this discussion continues to cause me grave concern. Either you understand that your edit was seriously inappropriate, or you don't. That is not, and should not be a subject of some kind of quid pro quo negotiation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Their last 50-100 contribs raise broader concerns:
  • "this is not Carlson's BLP" makes me question if they understand BLP applies everywhere
  • Using Raw Story as a source to associate Michael Flynn [221] with QAnon [222] (Raw Story has the same owners and editors as AlterNet, which is red at WP:RSP); Raw Story is not listed.). Using Mother Jones for the same thing, without attribution (see WP:RSP, MJ requires may require attribution for politics and, in my opinion, does require attribution for an edit linking Flynn with QAnon) [223]. I'm not sure why WaPo is included in the references in that last edit; the WaPo article doesn't mention QAnon or Flynn.
  • Using Media Matters (yellow at WP:RSP, requires attribution) without attribution for negative information about a directly competing, ideologically-opposed watchdog group Judicial Watch [224]
  • Using CNN (a direct commercial competitor) as a source for negative information about Fox News [225]
  • "Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences" sourced to WaPo, except the article doesn't say that in its own voice; it attributes the accusation. Specifically, it says critics of Obama said he adopted a scolding tone towards black audiences. Yet it's included in our article in Wikivoice. [226] Also the article is 2013. It's WP:RECENTISM, it's almost a primary source as a contemporary news source. At this point, there is such better (academic) sourcing available for Obama and black audiences. It really feels like we found an obscure article from years ago just so we can say what we want to say.
  • Same article, this edit is inserting politics into the section about policy. The first two sentences are sourced to WaPo and Politico, but then Mediaite is included and that's RSP yellow. The sentence Obama praised police officers throughout his presidency is sourced to a bunch of examples of Obama praising cops. It's WP:SYNTH. Then we add a cherry-picked quote [227], which is WP:PUFFERY.
  • Kind of misrepresenting a source to make a point: [228]. The source doesn't say "falsely", it says "out of context", which is, sure, a type of falsehood, but stepping back, "political candidate quotes opponent out of context" is hardly the kind of significant information that should be included in the candidate's campaign article. An article about a campaign should summarize the campaign, not catalogue every tit-for-tat. See also: this WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions [229] and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here.
  • The history of Rudy Giuliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Giuliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring" edit warring at Rudy Giuliani), including comments like [230] [231] [232] [233]
  • Their responses to this thread: [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239]
  • I noticed at User talk:Soibangla, from last year, this comment: "@Doug Weller: I am aware that some partisan editors use this alert in an attempt to intimidate others into silence. Unless you have a specific complaint about my edits, I suggest you refrain from sending generic alerts without cause". Battleground.
  • Admittedly the last 50-100 edits is a small sample size, but I can't help but notice that every single one is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals. I find this ironic in light of their reference to "my amusement at a false reputation projected upon me by brazen hyperpartisans" [240].
  • Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. (Note I edited many of the above articles to address my concerns.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • A number of these analyses are misleading.
      • Mother Jones is green at WP:RSP, and statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed (emphasis mine), which is a far cry from ""requires attribution".
      • There is no policy stating that a group cannot criticize another competing group. At most, the Media Matters critique of Judicial Watch requires attribution, but we are not barred from using one group to critique another group.
      • See above on the claim that sourcing a critique of Fox to CNN is somehow problematic. No policy backing, and according to this reasoning, who would be allowed to critique Fox? CNN is a RS, period.
      • There is a misrepresentation of the scolding comment on the Obama page. The title of the article is "To critics, Obama’s scolding tone with black audiences is getting old", but the full text of what soibangla wrote is Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences, admonishing black men to be more responsible to their families and communities., which primarily comes directly from the second paragraph of the article in WaPo's own voice: During the speech, Obama admonished black men to take care of their families and their communities and told the graduates that despite the lingering legacies of slavery and discrimination, "we’ve got no time for excuses."
      • The concern of "falsely" vs. "out of context" is undermined by the conclusion reached by the CNN fact-check article: Clearly, the "enemy" comment was not some sort of general assessment of police officers or even a statement about how police officers are generally seen by communities. It was specifically about perceptions of police who use particular equipment in particular circumstances. Using the word "falsely" in light of that summation is perfectly acceptable and in no way a misrepresentation of the CNN article or its claims. Also, the argument that a campaign page shouldn't document every "tit-for-tat" is questionable in this context; the article breaks down the presidential campaign by month, with sections for each, and includes this as part of the July section. Considering the national unrest and conversations about policing in summer 2020, candidate statements and claims about police and police actions are reasonable additions.
      • The mention of the Rudy Giuliani talkpage is frustratingly misleading. It fails to mention that after MelanieN told both soibangla and the other editor to stop edit warring, she very clearly articulated that the other editor was failing to follow BRD and admonished them (but not soibangla) to do so; she also confirmed that the other editor was engaging in borderline personal attacks, but again, did not mention soibangla. It also fails to mention that soibangla disengaged.
      • The observation that "I can't help but notice that every single [edit] is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals" seems to suggest that this isn't permitted. If you want to argue that soibangla needs to tone down battleground verbiage, that's one thing, but what else are you implying? Most editors, including a fair number in this very discussion, edit positively about one party and negatively about another. That's not against policy, as long as they're not being disruptive.
      • This is warning-worthy behavior, not immediate TBAN behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Levivich,
      • RSN is silent on Raw Story. It's fair game.
      • Media Matters: don't they provide "attribution" to the source documents? As I've explained previously elsewhere, I've never used Media Matters for their opinions, and I actually removed[[241]] such a cited use by another editor just days ago. I use it exclusively for the videos, transcripts and documents they provide, which are objectively indisputable. I use it as a secondary source simply to convey what would otherwise be primary sources.
      • Mediate: it's yellow, not red. Proceed with caution, not stop. And I proceeded with caution, using it only for the video/transcript of a Fox News host claiming "anti-police rhetoric"
      • Obama police speeches: I don't think it's SYNTH. One might assert two of the sources (CSPAN videos) are primary, but "Primary" does not mean "bad"}} soibangla (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      • WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions It's not UNDUE, that section contains several similar short anecdotes, and the Sessions quote in my edit is from an exclusive interview with the NYT soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here which we are apparently expected to believe simply because you say it's so. Kindly be specific. soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Soibangla, I assume you mean RSP, not RSN, because there are half a dozen threads at RSN about Raw Story, going back over ten years. When you say things like: because a source is not listed on RSP (or RSN, if that were the case), "it's fair game", it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed from AP2 and BLP. It's very much not the case that a source that is unlisted on our noticeboards is "fair game". In fact, many, many... the overwhelming majority... of unreliable sources are not listed at RSP and never discussed at RSN. You need to make an independent determination as an editor as to whether the source you are using meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and our other policies and guidelines.
          Now, if your attitude was one of, "Oh, I didn't know Raw Story is an unreliable source", or even "I disagree with Levivich and I think Raw Story is a reliable source because [reasons relating to what our policies say about what makes a source reliable or not]", I wouldn't think of a TBAN. But instead, your response is to suggest that Raw Story is "fair game", even after I told you why I thought it was unreliable (because of its ownership and editors). But you don't respond to the "meat" of my argument -- to whether Raw Story is reliable or not -- and instead, you play a "gotcha game" of "RSN is silent ... It's fair game". This is not an approach that we can tolerate in DS areas. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
          • If you want to argue it's not reliable, you can do that on RSP, or in the edit, or note that someone challenged it in the edit, but I don't think it makes much sense to come here now and unilaterally assert it's not reliable, especially since you haven't specified exactly what in the reference you deem questionable. it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed Perhaps you've noticed, just in this one thread alone, that a good number of admins have difficulty agreeing on major policies that have been hammered-out since forever. Should they all be banned, too? soibangla (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Per Levivich's comprehensive analysis. El_C 07:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, I note that you, Springee and DoubleCross voted on the basis of this “comprehensive” analysis, before grandpallama and Aquillion critiqued it to reveal numerous significant weaknesses, which I may add to. I encourage you to consider those critiques. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  OK, I'll add some examples of my own interactions with you [[242]]. From that link we have two examples. Here you suggest editors on Wikipedia who disagree with you are liars [[243]]. In this case[[244]] you say, "I get the sense you don't like me very much. I take that as a compliment of my work. ". How is that not a BATTLEGROUND mentality towards editors who disagree with you? So in addition to the other issues I have BATTLEGROUND examples from my own interactions with you. Springee (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, I did not call you or other editors a liar, I was referring to well-organized groups.

  You innappropriately pinged me here, when you should've come to my Talk page, then took a gratuitous swipe at me that "This isn't something to be proud of," referring to my amusement at an r/The_Donald troll brazenly lying about me in an apparent attempt to rally a MAGA troll army to come after me. And now you're here to pile-on in vengeance. Can you credibily say now that I don't have good reason for my ""sense you don't like me very much?" That's enough, just drop it.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_6_mos._t-ban soibangla (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Your comment about liars was clearly directed at people here, "I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here.". Note the "including here" part. I don't recall pinging you here at all so I'm not sure how I could have done it inappropriately. It certainly doesn't justify an out of the blue comment like linked above. Springee (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Soibangla, I'm happy with 3 months, too, but the point is that you need a not insignificant break from the topic area to reassess. El_C 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich's analysis as well. Springee (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich. - DoubleCross (‡) 14:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While soibangla could stand to be more cautious, most of Levivich's arguments are breathtakingly wrong. Mother Jones is a high-quality source; yellow sources, like Media Matters, are use-carefully and not ones I would rely on, but it's baffling to suggest such a broad six-month topic-ban based on that. But by far the most shocking part (and the one that compelled me to comment) is the argument that we cannot cite CNN about Fox, an argument without the slightest sliver of grounding in policy and one I would expect to see more from a POV-pushing IP than an established editor. By that argument, no article on a news channel could ever have any citations to news, no article on a publisher or writer could ever have any citations to books, and no article on academia (or even topics within academia) could ever have any citations to other academics within their field. Given the importance of this, I'm going to take this to WP:RSN, since it's absolutely not an interpretation we can have floating around. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Note discussion was already underway at Talk:Fox News#Using biased sources and competitors as sources before the CNN-criticizing-Fox edits were made. (And that discussion isn't about CNN, it's about other journalistic sources.) I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to use CNN as a source for criticism of Fox, any more than it would be reasonable to use Fox as a source for criticism of CNN. They're the two largest cable news networks, both for profit, on opposite ideological sides. They're direct competitors with a financial incentive for making the other network look bad. This is like using Coca-Cola as a source for negative information about Pepsi, or using a political candidate as a source for negative information about their opponent. And of course this doesn't translate to academia... because it's not a for-profit company. And it doesn't extend to all media, either. You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post, and vice versa, but you can use NYT as a source for negative information about CNN or Fox because they're not direct competitors--not even in the same media. If you need an all caps blue blink, see WP:COMMONSENSE. Also WP:NPOV though. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post. Of course you can. The NYT is one of the most reputable sources in the world; suggesting that they would be unable to write impartially about the New York Post - or that CNN is unable to write impartially about Fox - is laughable to the point that it raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are not high-quality news sources with sterling reputations; CNN and the New York Times are, and throwing that reputation into doubt requires more than just "they're both news stations and disagree on stuff." I have and will continue to cite them in that context, will always restore such cites when I see them removed, and would naturally add them when absent, since such high-quality sources with an expertise in the field are some of the best to cite in this context. Not only is CNN citeable when it comes to Fox, it is a high-quality source worth adding, and using it in that context is commendable; I find the fact that you are doubling down on such a plainly inaccurate and groundless objection to be baffling. You have some (weak) points about other areas where soibangla could be more cautious, but by trying to push through this absurd and indefensible position you are undermining your entire argument. Also, I'll note that you described Fox and CNN as being on opposite ideological sides, which is inaccurate; Fox brands itself ideologically, but CNN does not. It is possible that this fundamental misunderstanding of the American media landscape contributes to your error here, though I'm still baffled that anyone could seriously suggest that Fox's status as a cable news company makes it immune to criticism from the entire cable news spectrum. (As an aside, Fox is owned by New Corp, which owns several newspapers - how does your logic not extend to immunizing it from newspapers as well?) --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha... CNN is not a "high quality source" like The New York Times. They're not even in the same league. You can't compare cable news to the US's paper of record. But even the US's paper of record is not an appropriate source for negative information about its direct financial competitors. And, Aquillion, believe me, as much as you say you think my position is "indefensible", I think yours is laughable. So what? That's what content disputes are about. Anyway, the place to discuss this is the RSN post you started, not here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that this isn't a content dispute. This is you invoking a non-existent policy about RS as part of a justification for imposing a TBAN on an editor, and then doubling down when shocked Wikipedians point out how "breathtakingly wrong" that justification is. Whether or not you like that CNN is a RS for reporting on Fox (or any other subject) can be taken up elsewhere, but imaginary policies can't be used to censure editors. Grandpallama (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, please do not put words in my mouth. I invoked no policy whatsoever - I never said anything even close to that there is a policy or a guideline or even an essay. Further, I did not say he should be TBANed for it. My last bullet point is clear that I, like you, think these are only warnable offenses, and my last bullet point explained why, and under what conditions I supported a TBAN. I think I was exceptionally clear and you are completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've written. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Your last bullet point states I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN, after specifically saying you don't think a warning suffices in this context; please don't play games and claim you opposed the TBAN after just voting to support it. As for CNN, you didn't call it a policy or a guideline or even an essay...and yet it's a partial justification for the TBAN you supported. But it's something people can't do. But it's not a policy. Gimme a break, Levivich--the only misrepresentation in your bullets came from you. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I've made my point(s), repeatedly, in this discussion, so I plan to refrain from commenting further unless pinged with a direct question. I don't want my commenting to turn into a bludgeon. Plus, I have bookshelves to build! Grandpallama (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how you find this unclear: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. That means I don't think these kinds of edits are TBANable, rather I think the attitude and not interested in learning how to improve are the reasons (for as long as that remains the case) that I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Hope this clears up your confusion about the reason I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Improper/questionable sourcing does matter when determining a t-ban and the problem is consistent. For the record, Mother Jones is not "high quality" - it is a generally reliable source with caveats per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Mother Jones. Next, Media Matters, questionable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Matters_for_America, and all the cited competitor sources fall under COI. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

While I didn't cite any policy, the policy is WP:V, footnote 9, which advises against using articles by any media group that ... discredits its competitors. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Levivich. I cited that same policy just over a week ago at RSN. Atsme exclaims, "My memory is so bad!" Levivich asks, "How bad is it?" She replies, "How bad is what..?" ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear: you supported a TBAN based upon your heavily flawed "analysis" while claiming, somehow, you don't support a TBAN based on your highly flawed "analysis"; if it didn't factor into the decision, why do it? The disingenuousness of this is tiresome. If you're hanging your hat on a footnote at WP:V as an argument that CNN cannot be cited as critiquing Fox, you're not going to make much headway. And I don't care how much people want to quibble about Mother Jones--Wikipedia has determined it's a RS, and the caveats for its use are other than what was presented. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RSP. Grandpallama (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're having such a hard time understanding the concept of "It's not the mistakes, but the refusal to correct the mistakes, that justifies a TBAN." I'm also saddened that you accuse me of doing so many bad things all the time. One of these days, I hope you can disagree with me without calling me a bad editor. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support with regret, based on the analysis by Levivich and the general response of Soibangla, including especially their most recent comment, which suggests that they just don't get it, likely coupled with a bad case of IDHT. Under the circumstances I don't think they should be editing anything related to post 1932 US Politics. We can revisit the subject in six months and see if they have a better understanding of the problematic nature of their edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum I actually would prefer the TBan be indefinite with the possibility of review after six months. I am still not seeing any acknowledgement from them that their edit was seriously inappropriate. And while I concede there is a sharp difference of opinion in this discussion as to whether or not it was a BLP vio, there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE. Until Soibangla acknowledges this, they should not be editing anything dealing with AP2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, the primary reason for your perceived intransigence on my part is your persistent refusal to acknowledge some basic facts of how this topic arose in the first place. For example, in your opening paragraph of this thread, you state The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed, having asserted on the Talk page that it was an op-ed from Buzzfeed, a yellow source, but I showed you there that it was a news report from BuzzfeedNews, a green source. MastCell also showed told you that BuzzfeedNews is a reliable source. Before you struck it, your findings of comments found a rough consensus that no BLP vio occurred, a rough consensus that there are questions of UNDUE and a rough consensus against any sanctions but now you assert there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE (italics mine). And if that's the only offense remaining, that could have been — and should have been — properly handled by standard BRD in Talk, which you precipitously bypassed to seek what is tantamount to a death sentence for me — for one edit out of many thousands. You also continue to assert that you had the unilateral authority to ban me on the spot, even though MastCell correctly pointed out that because you reverted my edit, and we were the only participants in the ensuing Talk discussion, you were the INVOLVED party and should properly recuse yourself from asserting authority to ban me. I again refer to MastCell's comments, which succinctly summarize the core problems with your approach, and to which you have never responded. The fact that you never addressed my points on Talk, precipitously escalated to ANI, and then failed to address MastCell's analysis strongly suggests that you are knowingly, willfully and steadfastly ignoring strongly exculpatory evidence in my favor. You refuse to acknowledge any of this, and instead you insist that I simply won't accept any responsibility and further escalate the matter, now returning to calling for my permanent removal. I am truly at a loss to understand what is motivating this.

Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. — MastCell

Look, I readily concede from the all-hands-on-deck pile-on now occurring that sometimes I demonstrate a bad attitude, and can sometimes even be nasty, and sometimes make sloppy edits. People are telling me to get my act together. I get it. I really do. I will take it to heart and conscientiously endeavor to do better going forward. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Aquillon, and could this please be punted to WP:AE? Nothing is going to be accomplished by page long arguments from involved editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Initially, I was going to oppose this under the condition Soibangla recognized that the edit was UNDUE and agreed to be more careful in the future. But his response to Ad Orientem above where he tried to negotiate with him changed my mind, as did Levivich's post outlining more examples of policy-violating behavior. Though he certainly is the only editor who does it, adding every bit of negative trivial information you can find to an article about a person or organization you don't like is not an appropriate way to edit. Also, Siobangla recently edited the Fox News article with trivial information about Fox cropping a picture of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump using CNN as a source. The edit contained a clear BLP violation that called Epstein a "former Trump associate" (something the CNN article did not say). I reverted his edit with a summary indicating it was both a BLP violation and UNDUE. He then restored a modified version of this original edit.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support and would suggest an indefinite topic ban, as this type of BLP violation has happened before. I suggest an indef ban because Soibangla was unable to understand that "a claim" and "the claim" are not synonymous:

• Soibangla (with support from Aquillion*) used an ambiguous statement in the NYT to make an unambiguous claim at the Jeffrey Epstein page, which constituted a BLP violation for Epstein's main victim, Virginia Giuffre by stating she admitted to having lied about seeing Bill Clinton on Epstein's island.*, *, *
• Soibangla was told by SlimVirgin in the related RS/N that the cited sentence in the NYT was ambiguous and couldn't be used to make the claim Soibangla was making *
• Soibangla never concedes, continues at Sarah's TP, and then doesn't show up to the related RfC to argue his case. For all we know, he still thinks he was right.

This false claim was live on the Epstein page for over a month because I was continually disallowed from correcting it. I'm not sure where an editor with the comprehension difficulties exemplified here belongs, but the American Politics area is troubled enough as it is. petrarchan47คุก 04:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a call to ban Soibangla to settle a personal grievance of yours. If so, I don't think you've shown that your pain rises to the level of a community concern. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not aggrieved by evidence of a BLP violating editor? Why not? petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the publication of excerpts from your diary -- matters that have nothing to do with the question at hand. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla's repeated addition of content was a BLP and WP:V violation. He was told by multiple people that he is wrong to claim there is a trivial difference between "the" and "a"; he used WP:OR to make his edit to the Epstein page, and he was in error. He still to this moment argues that he was right, meaning this RfC, Newslinger, and Slim Virgin (and I) were wrong. This is deeply concerning. My addition here has nothing to do with a petty grievance. My intention is to alert fellow editors to a what I see as a serious problem justifying a ban. (I haven't kept a diary, by the way, since I was 15.) petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I confess that that encounter was among the most exasperating I've had on Wikipedia and I finally had to walk away. Your insistence then, and still now, that "a claim" was unspecified in the NYT article is belied by the fact the sentence clearly stated it was a claim that Clinton had visited Epstein's island, which Giuffre later conceded was false. You latched onto parsing the trivial difference between "the" and "a" while disregarding that the sentence clearly stated what "a claim" was about. My repeated efforts to explain this obvious reality to you proved futile. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So you do still believe you are right. As Newslinger wrote: This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text. Guiffre never conceded it was false, and the NYT doesn't directly say she did. In fact, CNN directly counters she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office. Multiple editors tried to explain that you cannot conflate a nebulous "a claim" with "the [specific] claim", and indeed your doing so resulted in a false statement printed in Wikipedia that smeared a living person as a liar. You stated that The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false is the only way to accurately summarize (from NYT) The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. This should be worrying to all Wikipedians mainly because you don't seem capable of understanding the problem. petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

From the Daily Mail: On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to a dinner which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr Clinton shortly after he left office. But, as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait, nor did he here: Epstein once threw a dinner party at the [Manhattan] house in Mr. Clinton’s honor. The former president never showed, but the magazine reported that the other guests included Mr. Trump. Guiffre never conceded it was false, and the NYT doesn't directly say she did. The NYT unambiguously reported she did, under oath this time, and no amount of parsing "a" versus "the" can change that. What really happened here is that years ago Giuffre made this claim, Clinton haters accepted it as established fact, incorporated it into their belief systems, it became an element in the evolving Pizzagate/Qanon theories, then years later the allegation was debunked and cognitive dissonance prevented the believers from accepting it. It's disgraceful that by removing that NYT article, WIkipedia has been made passively complicit in falsehoods that contribute to the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope editors can see the problems here. Soibangla is quoting the Daily Mail, although he acknowledges here that it is unreliable, he then changes the subject to a dinner party in NYC, and launches into a conspiracy theory. He ignores the result of the [RfC and the fact that Newslinger discovered there is no such claim in the source material (court documents) cited by the Times. Soibangla ignores the fact that Newslinger had to issue a request for correction to the Times. Soibangla instead wishes we hadn't removed the piece. He also ignores:

• Sarah SV: But which claim exactly? ... The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article
• Newslinger: This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text.
• CNN: According to a transcript of a video deposition Giuffre gave in 2016, she disputed aspects of a 2011 story in the Daily Mail that was based on a series of interviews Giuffre had given...she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office.
• There is now a second alleged witness to Clinton's island visit, as seen in the Netflix documentary, per: Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, and Fox: A longtime tech worker on the Caribbean island claims he once saw Clinton with Epstein in the porch area of Epstein’s villa home ... Previously, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims she became Epstein’s “sex slave” at age 17, said she recalled seeing Clinton on the island

petrarchan47คุก 01:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support T-Ban Confess my dealings with Soibangla have been less than pleasant, but, comeon, if the most recent 100 or so edits have been as problematic as the ones shown by Levivich and others above, with that sort of pattern does anyone expect that earlier edits to be any better? While old now, his BLP violating comment here about a WSJ contributing editor "Her opinion ain't worth a bucket of spit. She is notorious for just making stuff up. She is yet another compulsive liar. Period."[245] is not atypical. After I gave him a 3RR reminder he retaliated with [246].--MONGO (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Levivich's analysis, which I found weighted and occasionally bogus. --Calton | Talk 10:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Largely per Levivich which held a lot of weight for me. I honestly was not sure if I was going to give an opinion here. Me and Soibangla have interacted quite a bit and even had fun and joked around, but it is hard to deny the issues when laid out like this. When taken as a whole it seems to come off as a case of Sealioning. Never accepting that there are legitimate issues with the content they are trying to add to articles and attempting to transfer the onus to the person who reverted. Something all to common in the AP topic area and something that should be addressed. As noted above yes when reverted they generally head to the talk page and start a discussion, which is good. Though as I explained that is not where the issue ends. So when taken as a whole there are major disruptions cased by this.

I am also rather disturbed at the debate over the BuzzFeed News article. Yes RSP says generally reliable, but the purpose of RSP is not if something is or is not reliable but if it is generally reliable. That is a distinction that is worth mentioning, it is still a case by case basis. The community has consensus that it is generally reliable, not that it is always reliable. So we have BuzzFeed News with their source being The Daily Stormer attacking a BLP. In this instance I would argue that the BuzzFeed article is not a RS for that info on a BLP. There are also arguments while it is not a BLP vio it is just a UNDUE situation. That is false as well. If it is UNDUE for a BLP it is a BLP vio to push to include it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, anyway. This thread opened with what should've been a non-starter. It's a sourced statement (and not to an op-ed in an unreliable source, as was presented) that relates to an aspect of Tucker Carlson that gets an awful lot of press attention. It's not a BLP violation that needs addressing on a noticeboard. That doesn't mean I think it should be in either the Daily Stormer or the Carlson article (that particular language is probably undue for both), but it was added one time, reverted, and not restored ... it's a content dispute. As for Levivich's list above, I agree with Aquillion about some of it, and there are some things that are minorly concerning. I checked the AN/ANI history for other instances of Soibangla being reported here, assuming that to jump so quickly to a tban proposal there must be some history, but there's none I can find. I see one 3RR block from six years ago and one AE request that was closed as a content dispute without action (as this should've been). Soibangla, if this is closed without action, maybe take it as advice to try to err on the side of caution and discussion a bit more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per Levivich, especially this part: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Without commenting on soibangla’s overall conduct, I’d like to object to User:Levivich’s misleading characterization of the discussion at Talk:Rudy Giuliani, where he seems to imply that I found fault with soibangla at that page. I'd also like to thank User:Grandpallama for correcting and clarifying the situation; without his ping I might not have noticed this thread. In fact I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct; I merely warned him and the other editor for edit warring. My talk page criticisms were directed to the other editor, who was repeatedly disparaging and insulting soibangla. Please disregard that item in Levivich’s list of accusations. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  MelanieN, sorry, what misleading characterization do you see in what I wrote: The history of Rudy Giuliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Giuliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring"), including comments like [94] [95] [96] [97]? I'm not "implying" that you found fault, I'm quoting your explicit finding of fault. Are you saying the two of them were not edit warring on Rudy Giuliani? Looking at the history of the page, it looks to me like they were. Those four diffs are the specific concerns I had at that talk page, and they're all by soiblanga, not by you. I guess I should have just said "edit warring at Rudy Giuliani with another editor" rather than quoting you; I'll do that next time; and it certainly wasn't my intent to mischaracterize you, but I didn't realize that you didn't think they were edit warring? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  I did warn them both for edit warring. My point here is that I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct - which is what was implied by your citing me along with a bunch of links to things soibangla said. If anything, I thought soibangla was remaining commendably calm and content-focused, rather than getting baited into attacking back. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't understand how anyone could perceive that implication in what I wrote. Sorry, it wasn't intended. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Aquillon and Grandpallama. A Tban is way overboard. Curdle (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support largely per Levivich's analysis. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aquillon, Grandpallama, and Rhododendrites laid it out well. Soibangla can be more careful, but I do not see sanctionable content here rising to the level of anything beyond a word of advice. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The initial content dispute should have been discussed further at article talk or possibly BLPN, there was no conduct issue that needed to be escalated to ANI. It's also unclear what "...disregarded WP:Consensus that was against adding such material" in the tban proposal refers to since the material in question doesn't seem to have been previously discussed, perhaps Atsme could clarify?

Regarding the sources, CNN and Buzzfeed News are generally reliable, especially in cases like these where they are giving factual accounts of what took place and quoting those involved. The rest of Levivich's list varies in quality, as others have pointed out, but again there's nothing that can't be resolved through our normal editorial processes. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This request was triggered by an instance in which Soibangla made a single reasonably-sourced edit; the edit was reverted on WP:DUE grounds; and discussion ensued at the talkpage. In other words, a standard WP:BRD cycle. There was no BLP violation, as consensus above has made clear. He made a bold edit; discussion & consensus led to the conclusion that the material didn't belong in the article; and as far as I can tell, Soibangla has accepted that and not tried to reinstate it or to edit-war. I don't really get the efforts to paint this as some sort of abhorrent behavior, nor to compel an apology for it. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: This entire process has been a sham from the getgo, it was predicated on a false pretext, and it should be immediately closed without further consideration. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence, growing by the day, now beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this began with shoddy police work, leading to a fraudulent indictment, followed by prosecutorial misconduct which over time escalated from merely improper to egregious to actually malicious. It opened the door to an angry mob to storm into the courtroom with torches and pitchforks demanding vigilante justice for a variety of unrelated grievances and grudges, often presenting dubious evidence. With increasing intensity, the prosecutor has attempted to coerce me into making a false confession for a crime that did not happen, to take a plea deal for a lighter sentence, but if I don't capitulate to this coercion, I will be sentenced to death — all to make me the fall guy for the spectacular blunder he made that he cannot own up to and must cover up. Because the original charge was bogus, this topic should never have been opened, and the ensuing vote is thereby invalid. This farce has visited a great wrong on me, I am being framed and railroaded, which is needlessly (but not necessarily unintentionally) inflicting enormous and irreparable damage to my reputation, poisoning the well for my future participation on Wikipedia. This is the stuff of a kangaroo court found in totalitarian regimes. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oof. I would gently suggest it's in your best interest to let this play out now based upon all the evidence that's been submitted, because further commenting can only hurt, not help, you. And whatever the validity of the initial claims (which I obviously had serious concerns with), if people feel you're engaging in battleground behavior now in this discussion, that can absolutely be grounds for a sanction. I understand the frustration that would lead to the courtroom rhetoric and the deliberate hyperbole, but I don't think it is to your advantage. Grandpallama (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Jeez. Talk about acute rhetorical excesses which prove why the ban is needed... El_C 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest taking a look at the evidence I provided and the responses from Soibangla; I think it proves a ban is warranted and that some sort of mentorship should be required for Soibangla to continue editing any topic area. There are staggering comprehension issues and I would argue that to ignore them is grossly unfair to other editors. petrarchan47คุก 01:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself here. Several of us have opposed this proposal due to lack of merit in the complaint(s) it's predicated upon, but have expressed concern about [your approach, more or less]. These comments exacerbate those concerns and certainly aren't going to convince any in the support column. My advice: you've made your frustration known; the time now is to take it down a few levels and abstain from commenting unless it's going to be measured and at least somewhat reflective. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Excuse this wall of text, but the support votes are based on Levivich's egregiously deceptive wall-of-text, so it needs rebutting. The support votes are based on a bad and misleading analysis by Levivich who has a track record of posting similarly shoddy analyses to get editors banned whom he disagrees with and who edit against his POV while he similarly skews the facts to unflinchingly defend the most problematic editors on this encyclopedia for the sole reason that they edit content in a way that he personally likes. When Levivich sought to get me banned, he literally cited examples of me edit-warring with white supremacist sockpuppets with 88 in their username, genocide denying IPs and other insanity as an example of my horrible edit-warring ways. This is not an editor who engages in careful nuanced analysis of a situation and weighs evidence accordingly. Instead, he sifts through everything in an editor's past and drowns the discussion with a Gish gallop mixture of bad evidence, straight-up deceptions, and of course the occasional mistake that any editor might make. Some editors are then impressed with what superficially appears to be a thorough and well-formatted, even though it falls apart upon closer examination. Going through Levivich's list of 12 bullet points, only three of them are problematic (and all of them would be fixed by instructing Soibangla of how the attribution rule works precisely and that BLP doesn't just refer to biographies) and the rest of the bullet points contain errors by Levivich or are nothingburgers:

1. "this is not Carlson's BLP" does indicate that the user doesn't fully realize that BLP doesn't merely refer to "biographies" (which is a common mistake that non-veteran editors might make). Now he knows better. Nothingburger.
2. Levivich falsely claims that RSP says that Mother Jones "requires attribution for politics" (it says MoJo "may" neeed attribution). Furthermore, the content that Soibangla added (sourced to Mojo) is blatantly accurate (and confirmed by other RS), meaning that the "may" qualifier doesn't apply in any way whatsoever.[247]
3. Analyses by Media Matters should be attributed, but their analysis is 100% correct and verifiable. Making the editor aware of the attribution requirement (even in cases when content is 100% accurate and verifiable) would solve the issue. Nothingburger.
4. There is nothing in the slightest wrong with citing CNN, a RS, in an article about Fox News[248]. It's embarrassing for someone to actually type this out and present it as a reason to ban someone, but it does not surprise me in the slightest that this is the level that Levivich stoops to.
5. I agree that the Obama content should be attributed[249], but it doesn't seem like a big issue (there is lots of RS content, including academic, on Obama and his rhetoric on race, which has often been characterized as unusually conservative). I saw the edit, and considered reverting it or exploring the sourcing, but decided not to, because I was aware of the existing academic debate on the topic. It's a nothingburger. It also conflicts with your claim that Soibangla has a pro-Democrat bias.
6. There's nothing at all wrong with the content on Obama and police[250], beyond the usual tweaks to language and placement that applies to most content on this encyclopedia. The editor uses multiple secondary RS, which would be sufficient on their own as citations for the content, but also does readers the additional service of adding supplementary primary sources (which are not needed, but are helpful additions). As for picking one particular quote[251] (in addition to all the secondary RS content), our bios on presidents and political figures are filled to the brim with primary sourced quotes. I have a very strict anti-primary source policy (which many other editors do not have, definitely not Levivich), but there's nothing in the slightest sanctionable about this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
7. That Levivich uses this as an example gets to the rotten heart of his case: [252]. It is 100% a verifiable falsehood and the RS clearly identifies it as false. Although it doesn't explicitly use the term "false", it just delineates how it's false. Countless other RS explicitly call it false. Nothingburger.
8. The Rudy Giuliani diffs, which were misrepresented to portray Soibangla as having been scolded by an admin, have been debunked by other editors, including the admin in question. Literally in the same comment by MelanieN that Levivich misleadingly quotes, she says that a particular editor is "the one who keeps trying to change or remove longstanding content, you need to explain and establish your reasons for doing so; you can’t just keep doing it." Was she saying it to Soibangla? No. She was saying it to the editor who Soibangla was tangling with. Levivich doesn't present such context, because it flies completely against the case that he's trying to make. It's infuriating to read such deception, and it saddens me that some lazy editors read Levivich's well-formatted wall of text, take Levivich's argument in good faith, and presume that Soibangla is an extremely troublesome editor on the basis of this deceptive analysis.
9. I checked the first diff: [253]. Who cares? What is this? Nothingburger. Throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if something will stick.
10. It's not nice to respond that way to Doug Weller. Many editors who are engaged in content disputes do not respond well when they get templated or get instructed to follow the rules.
11. In this bullet point, Levivich is whining about how Soibangla is anti-Republican. However, as his diffs have already shown, Soibangla added content to Obama's bio which could clearly be construed as negative. But then again, Soibangla also added content about how Mike Pence brazenly lied and Levivich personally disagrees that it was a lie (which points to Levivich's personal politics), so Soibangla must anti-Republican and so biased that he is not fit for editing.
12. Levivich tries to portray himself as a neutral observer with his "Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits [BUT YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY BAN THEM]" bullet point, yet Levivich has shown a strong bias on these subjects and has already tried to ban editors with a different POV and staunchly defended way more troublesome editors who fit his POV. If someone were to present these diffs as evidence of SashiRolls's troublesome editing, it would rightfully be laughed off this noticeboard and Levivich would be calling for a boomerang on the proposer of the sanction.

• A final note: it's unbelievable to see Levivich present himself as an ardent principled stickler for high-quality sources and consensus when Levivich last year sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying and he could only come up with rubbish op-eds to defend his wanted to juxtapose RS content with misleading pro-Republican talking points of what the article should say), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[254] from the page after it was approved by consensus in a RfC[255]. Nothing that he accuses Soibangla of reaches that level of tendentiousness. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for calling it "well formatted". I appreciate the compliment. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Pure WP:BATTLEFIELD of an indictment, filled with vague innuendo. Accusing Levivich of the very thing being submitted. This account is not matter of fact. It descends the level of debate. Much like with Soibangla's latest statement. Way too much vitriol, which is not conducive to a healthy discussion. El_C 02:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Was that wall of text intended to defend Soibangla or shit on Levivich? PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, all due respect to your concerns about the level of discource, but Pure WP:BATTLEFIELD of an indictment, filled with vague innuendo is a pretty accurate description of the evidence Levivich presented (though it was maybe not so vague). Multiple editors have called bullshit on it, and dissected portions of it; I would think every admin should be alarmed that Melanie, strategically not pinged when she was quoted, felt obligated to come to this discussion just to object to the characterization of her actions and selective quotation of her statements. And every editor (including admins) should be alarmed at the "CNN is fake news" dog whistle in this discussion; arguing that CNN is not a high quality (i.e., reliable) source is the domain of WP:NOTHERE SPAs. There's an understandable focus on Levivich's diffs and claims because they have served as a hinge for many of the support votes. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, arguing that CNN is not a high quality (i.e., reliable) source ... are you kidding? Did you just say "high quality" = "reliable"? That's not true. "Reliable" is like a minimum standard, and "high quality" would be above that. CNN is not a "high quality" sources. That doesn't mean it's fake news. More concerning to me than soiblanga's conduct is how many AP2 editors apparently have ridiculously bad ideas about source quality. It's bad enough that you don't think the original edit was a BLP violation -- it's even worse that you think CNN is a "high quality" source. "High quality" refers to academic sources and the very top tier journalist sources like BBC and NYT. It doesn't cover CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or Buzzfeed News. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said, admins and editors should be alarmed. Grandpallama (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who cannot perceive the difference in quality between CNN and The New York Times should not be editing AP2. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, sorry, but I still don't think derision and battleground rhetoric ought to have any place in this discussion. If editors, of either side, feel so strongly about the subject matter (AP2) to the point that they can't help themselves but to descend to that level of debate, they should probably just not participate in it from the outset. Again, that also includes Soibangla themselves. I am rather firm in that position. El_C 14:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I am not seeing Grandpallama expressing any strong view as to AP2 subject matter. I do see that Grandpallama has expressed concern as to Levivich's conduct, and that conduct has been a significant factor in this thread and discussion. As you may recall, @TonyBallioni: raised similar concerns about Levivich's conduct and participation in community discussions, which were then documented by various editors at a June 2020 ANI thread. Given the unfortunate possibility that some editors on the current thread may rely on Levivich's post largely because it is a well-formatted list of assertions that is onerous to fact-check, I do not think Grandpallama's participation was out of bounds here, where everyone's behavior is potentially on the line. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for calling it "well-formatted". I really appreciate everybody complimenting me on the formatting of my posts. SPECIFICO, do you think our colleagues are so stupid as to simply accept whatever I say without checking it for themselves? Are you willing to go "on record" as claiming that everyone voting "support" has been bamboozled by the formatting of my post? Or do you think our colleagues think for themselves? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, my complaint was never about Grandpallama's behaviour, I think you misunderstood to whom the reference was intended. It was indended toward this comment (incomplete diff) by Snooganssnoogans and this comment by Soibangla. El_C 15:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Levivich, I was just quoting @Snooganssnoogans: that your indictment was "well-formatted". But your quick retort with a silly straw-man rhetorical question is the same kind of unconstructive behavior by you that was discussed at the previous ANI and now this one. For the record: I do not think we have stupid WP edtiors or WP editors who are easily fooled. But, I do think we have editors who are busy IRL and on WP and do not always take the time to do the exhaustive fact-checking of links and their contexts that, in the given your style of argumentation, often reveals misrepresentations such as have been documented by other editors here. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm bummed to hear you don't think it was well-formatted. Do you think that any of the editors !voting "support" have carefully reviewed the evidence, or are you saying that nobody supporting a sanction has carefully reviewed the evidence? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• OpposeYou can’t topic ban someone on the basis of such flimsy evidence. P-K3 (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• ArbCom Principles - It is rather disconcerting that our BLP policy has been so misunderstood, and in some instances dismissed, or at least not understood in compliance with the precedent set by ArbCom in the following case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi#Principles. I have listed the most relevant principals that apply here regarding the defamatory material and the attempt to imply "guilt by association" when the two are not associated at all, which makes the attempt even worse:

  Reliable sources for biographical material

  3) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources requires that any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

  • Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).
  • Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip ask yourself consider if the information is true and if it is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

  Quotation of material from an unreliable source

  8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

  Guilt by association

  10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

• I'd say the above covers it quite well but I will add that WP:REDFLAG also applies here, and so does WP:LABEL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Insufficient evidence of intractable issues: no prior recent sanctions or ANI discussion; the edit in question was discussed but not reinstated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Per Levivich's analysis, which I find very convincing. This edit by Soibangla is not a one-time situation, and it is essential that Wikipedia strictly adheres to NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Someone who cites Levivich's egregiously deceptive analysis at this point in the discussion should have their vote fully disregarded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest Close As the OP I note that this discussion has been open for four full days (+). That is long enough and those who wished to comment have had a reasonable opportunity to do so. I'm not a fan of the never ending debates that just keep going over the same ground one sometimes finds on noticeboards. Perhaps an univolved admin can review the discussion and close it. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I can't see closing a discussion that is ongoing, with additions by editors who are raising new points in response to others. Don't we generally wait until the thread has died down before reaching a conclusion about what's under consideration? SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Have you not seen this close, which led to this review? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions. I do not believe this is a BLP violation so egregious that it deserved to be brought straight to ANI with no intervening BRD process. This entire mess is because people have misunderstood the difference between Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News. Soibangla quoted a legitimate news source, Buzzfeed News, which made the statement. There are legitimate concerns that this might not be DUE as it was applied, but the insistence that it was a blatant BLP violation seems over the top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW, I am not confusing BF with BFN. I think this edit is a BLP violation because it is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY statement without extraordinary sourcing, and that makes it "poorly sourced" within the meaning of WP:BLP. Further, the single source, BFN, is repeating something from The Daily Stormer, and per the Arbcom principle linked above, "Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I'm quite alarmed to see a number of editors say that this edit is an OK edit. It's BFN repeating The Daily Stormer saying someone is a friend of white supremacists. If it said "so-and-so is Jewish", there would be wide agreement that the one source wasn't enough to call the guy Jewish. Cuz we'd need at least a statement of self-identification for that. But somehow a single source repeating a non-RS is enough to say he's a white supremacist. In my book, it's much worse to call someone a white supremacist than to call them Jewish. Our standard of sourcing for "white supremacist" should be at least as rigorous as it is for ethnicity or religion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits, Levivich has again set up a straw man. The analogous statement would, of course, be if it said "X said, 'A said so-and-so is Jewish'" NOT "X said so-and-so is Jewish". The former is easy to verify, which turns out to have been the case here. Note, I am not commenting on whether the initial edit was DUE. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a straw man, it's the heart of it. What alarms me is specifically (no pun intended) that you (and others) think "[white supremacist] said [person] is a white supremacist" is different than "[person] is a white supremacist". The two statements have the same meaning and effect: to suggest to our reader that [person] is a white supremacist. The edit in question exactly follows the format of [white supremacist] said [person] is a white supremacist, and it's only cited to one source, and not even a top-notch source at that (not academic, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has always made a fundamental distinction between in-text attribution and Wikipedia-voice ("According to X, Y is a..." vs. "Y is a..."). In one case, X is making a claim which we report (if it's notable/due-weight/etc), and in the other case Wikipedia is asserting something as fact. That distinction is codified in basic site policy, so it's incorrect to claim that these two statements are equivalent. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Levivich, speaking of attribution, you attribute a view to me that has no basis in anything I have ever done or said on Wikipedia. That's may not rise to a personal attack, but it is disingenuous and couterproductive. Yet another straw man piggybacked on the soft shoulders of the other two stuffed puppets. You repeatedly make arguments, many but not all of which are logically correct, that have no basis in fact and are unsupported by the vague and misrepresented "evidence" you cite. For the record, I don't have any opinion about Daily Stormer, Tucker Carlson, or any other content that's been raised in this dispute. I do think that Levivich's behavior in this thread qualifies him for a TBAN and I would support that if anyone would like to propose it. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  You just love making threats against editors. Anytime you want to have the community review both of our recent AP2 edits, you go ahead and start the thread. I'd welcome it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per MastCell, Snoogans and others. This discussion has gone on long enough, so I won't repeat their arguments again, but suffice to say a topic ban is not warranted here. Calidum 17:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This was a content dispute that should not have been escalated. The WEIGHT issue is irrelevant. Soibangla did not edit war. The purported evidence of other additional or tangential problems has been debunked by several editors. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment(!voted above) : A number of editors who object to the tban do so based on the not unreasonable stance that the single edit to the Daily Stormer article was insufficient to warrant a tban. I think many supporting the tban, myself included, would agree. The issue is this is part of a pattern of both bad editorial choices compounded by BATTLEGROUND behavior when confronted. I gave two examples above from my personal experience with this editor. In one case they were making very POV edits [[256]] which were edit warred into the article after myself and another editor objected. Rather than engage in a good faith discussion Soibangla accused someone of lying. Their statement was vague enough so they could deny that either myself or the other opposing editor was specifically the target of the statement but they refused to identify the editors in question [[257]]. I think a question by an admin prompted their eventual striking of the comment. This pattern of highly questionable edit then hostility towards anyone who questions the edit is a repeating pattern. Here Soibangla casts aspersions (suggesting I don't like them) and then says that is evidence they are doing good work here [[258]]. Right or wrong, how is suggesting another editor "doesn't like you" not BATTLEGROUND? The suggestion that that making an editor "dislike" someone is proof they are improving Wikipedia is really a problem. This certainly isn't behavior reserved for me. Here Awilley tells Soibangla to discuss content, not contributors[[259]]. This was an informal warning before Soibangla discussed me rather than our content disagreement. Soibangla seemed to ignore the warning and was warned just a month later by the same admin[[260]] for this edit summary [[261]]. Looking through Soibangla's edit history and you can find more BATTLEGROUND edit summaries [[262]], [[263]]. None of this improves civility in controversial topic areas. Springee (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

One problem that I and other editors have is that there has been no formal warning given to soibangla. It's not mandatory to receive such before a TBAN is considered, but the problem should be so pervasive and disruptive that it's obvious to all that skipping right past the warning stage is necessary. In this case, not only has there not been any warning, but the TBAN proposal went straight to 6 months. It seems very excessive, especially given that blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative; in a good faith situation, an editor should get that warning first and a chance to demonstrate correction. The question of the proposal isn't whether or not problematic behavior has been demonstrated, but whether the proposed action is suitable in proportion to the behavior, and whether it is necessary to prevent further problematic behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair point. I think Soibangla has previously been warned enough by enough editors that a formal warning isn't required for this tban. However, if consensus doesn't support a Tban I would suggest a warning including strict adherence to CIVIL and rules related to BLP. It's clear many editors see a problem here. Springee (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC) underline edit added for clarification Springee (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a formal warning is probably merited. There seems to have been some disagreement in the discussion before the proposal about whether the edit that prompted this actually constituted a BLP violation, but I think I see fairly clear consensus that battleground language and attitude is present, and should be addressed. Grandpallama (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good summary. I can live with that. I admit that I'm still taken aback by this aggressive comment that soibangla had made right in this very ANI. That does not reveal a lot of self-reflection, I'm sorry to say. Some recognition is due about maintaining nominal decorum. Stressful times, I get it. But let's retain some perspective. El_C 22:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You may be right and even though I would prefer a tban, perhaps its best to go the other way. A warning that states zero tolerance for further battleground behavior, further focusing on the editor rather than the content and failures to follow BLP policies should address the issue. If Soilbangla follows the rules then those of us who supported the tban should be satisfied as the problem will be addressed. If El_C's concerns are correct any admin will be within their discretion to tban for failing to heed the warning. Springee (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, it is an aggressive comment, and it does not reveal much self-reflection. And if it were the inciting incident, I might feel differently. But being brought to ANI is going to make someone angry and defensive, especially after seeing the majority of the admins who had weighed in pre-proposal express skepticism, and so the indignation of that post isn't terribly surprising to me. It's not unlike the raging that you see editors engage in after a block to work their frustration out of their system. It certainly adds weight to the argument that a warning is in order. Grandpallama (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NOPUNISH Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. Soibangla's bahvior demonstrates an understanding and does not require a a TBAN in order to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Because of this fact I was troubled by the No-Deal comment from Ad Orientum. Lightburst (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for an indef t-ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to formalize my suggestion that this user be indefinitely topic banned from American Politics (post 1932) as a repeat WP:BLP offender. To borrow from the OP, I believe serious concerns exist regarding [Soibangla's] general competence to be editing subjects of a highly sensitive and controversial nature.

At the Jeffrey Epstein article, Soibangla inserted a false statement about Virginia Roberts Giuffre, and undid my attempts to remove the BLP violation. Multiple editors and admins attempted to explain the problems with his edits to no avail. There is no reason to believe he would not repeat the same mistake again.

• Aug 12, 2019
• Sept 5
• Sept 7.

His source is a nebulous statement in an August 19, 2019 NYT article: The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. In an early October RS/N, Newslinger * and Sarah SV joined me in saying that the NYT should not be used to support Soibangla's text because it is too ambiguous. Soibangla continues to declare the NYT is unambiguous *, and on Oct 12 removes from the Epstein page an accurate summary of the NYT piece, along with a Forbe's-cited mention of Clinton on the island. Newslinger tries to explain to Soibangla that the claim is unspecified, it is "about", meaning "related to". Soi calls this "insanity". Newslinger tries again but is ignored. The RfC unanimously decided to remove the NYT piece; Newslinger wrote This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text.

Soibangla still believes he was right and we were all wrong, saying on July 13 The NYT unambiguously reported...and no amount of parsing "a" versus "the" can change that. and It's disgraceful that by removing that NYT article, WIkipedia has been made passively complicit in falsehoods that contribute to the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• There's a proposal for a 6 month topic ban that looks unlikely to be closed with action (we'll see, I guess). Now that we're here, you're proposing a more severe sanction ... by introducing diffs from last year? And to look at the subject of the diffs it looks like a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion in which consensus was not in Soibangla's favor and he/she thinks we got it wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. If the edit war were still going on, that would be one thing, but you're bringing up an old dispute and holding up Soibangla's disagreement with the result as a smoking gun? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  More Tales from the Crypt. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, your characterization is entirely correct. Petrarchan47 effectively insisted the NYT reported this:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made was untrue

so Petrarchan47 asserted the NYT did not specify the nature of the claim, when actually they reported this:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue

After my attempts to show the sentence was unambiguous proved futile, I abandoned the matter in exasperation, an RfC was later opened, other editors reached a consensus without my participation, and I have ever since accepted that consensus although I continue to insist it is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.