Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059

Ethnic slurs

Could someone please review the casual use of ethnic slurs by TheOtter (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints? Specifically [1] [2] [3][4] I'm involved, and to be honest I'm not certain if this kind of "free speech" should be tolerated on Wikipedia, as I've never run across another editor saying the kind of racially insensitive things that TheOtter is. ~Awilley (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the editor doesn't appear willing to abide by site consensus on style-guide manners for MOS:LDS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I've left a message about this on their talk page. My thoughts on this are more complicated than people who know my politics might first think, but they don't really matter. I'll just say I don't think TheOtter needs a block at this time (mostly because they are not being intentionally used as actual pejoratives directed at other people), but I do think a block will be the rather quick result of continuing to casually use ethnic slurs to make a point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Floquenbeam, that is perfect. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I was in Salt Lake City as a tourist 50 years ago and went to the visitor's center at Temple Square and took a tour of the areas that non-Mormons were allowed to enter at that time. The guide used the word "Mormon" dozens if not hundreds of times, and was especially proud of the world famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir which has a famous pipe organ with 11,623 pipes. It used to be on national TV a lot. Current U.S. Senator Mitt Romney has run for public office many times as a self-described Mormon, including his 2012 presidential campaign. His father George Romney, former governor of Michigan, described himself the same way. For much of the 21st century, this church ran a sophisticated advertising campaign called I'm a Mormon that featured dozens of the celebrity members of the church, proudly declaring their Mormon self-identity. All this came to an abrupt end in October, 2018 when the 93 year old head of the church decided that the word "Mormon" was suddenly unacceptable to describe members of this church, relying on "divine revelation" to justify his decision. The word "Mormon" was rapidly stripped from the choir. The advertising campaign was abruptly cancelled and the formerly embraced term was transformed into a slur by edict. This happened less than 29 months ago. Now, we have an editor going around indignantly insisting that "Mormon" is a slur and that all editors must accept the edict. This editor advances their argument by aggressively asserting that "Mormon" is equivalent to actual recognized racial and ethnic slurs, which the editor slings around freely. This argument is equivalent to imposing George Orwell's Newspeak on this encyclopedia. In my view, this is disruptive editing of the highest order, and if it continues, I recommend a topic ban on the LDS Church and "Mormonism", broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that background. I was scratching my head wondering why "Mormon" should be considered a slur, but now I know. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • Anyone who says "Niggers" had it better than "Mormons" in regards to 1800s-1900s American history should get their head checked, read a history book, and be topic banned from editing related to Mormonism. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition to a topic ban on Mormonism, I would also suggest one on race, very broadly construed. CUPIDICAE💕 13:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There's no comparison between using a racial slur that has for well over a century, at least, been a slur, and using a term for a member of a religion that was accepted as a self-description by members of that religion until a couple of years ago. There's nothing wrong with writing any word if the discussion is about the word and it is necessary in context (as not here), but in this case the editor seems to just be looking for as many possible opportunities to use the "N" word. And, I have to wonder, where do black members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fit into this heirarchy? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting point, seeing as black people couldn't be full LDS members until 1978. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban as well. ~ HAL333 20:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the official YouTube site for the Church has the film "Meet the Mormons" up on their channel, is still promoting it and was replying to comments on it as recently as last week and using the word over the last year. So it seems they officially aren't particularly bothered about the use of the word Mormons, even by themselves. In fact just a year ago they posted new videos entitled and logoed as "What Do Mormons Believe About God" and "What Mormons Believe About the Godhead". So to claim it's a slur and that the church doesn't use it is quite blatantly incorrect, and in fact supports the opposite. They even promote it as a commonly used term on their official website. So quite frankly TheOtter is blatantly wrong and the church in fact doesn't seem to care much about using the term Mormons. In fact TheOtter just comes across (appears this way) as an extremist in this matter that isn't supported by the church at large. And if they should continue that line they should just be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Antondimak manipulation of CfD outcomes

User:Antondimak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been moving articles between categories to prevent deletion or merger during and after CfD, and mass reverting deletions of inappropriate categorization.

• Georgios Bogris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dimitris Emmanouilidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ieronymos II of Athens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Giannis Ioannou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kostas Koligiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spyridon Lebesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nicholas the Pilgrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Loukas Papaioannou (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ioannis Patsantaras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kostas Tsanas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• George Zanias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Giannis Chondrogiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Konstantinos Makris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Miltiadis Papaioannou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Panos Paparrigopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Panagiotis Spiliotopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ioannis Paraskevopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#User:Antondimak evasion of CfD outcomes

We have a strong restriction on categorizing by place of birth, unless that was both defining and notable:

1. WP:COP-PLACE: The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
2. WP:CATNAME#Heritage: The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged.
3. WP:CATNAME#Residence: The place of birth is rarely notable.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the discussion. I have been transparent from the very beginning. I have made and maintained most of the categories for more than half a year now, and we are currently restructuring them to better fit with the established model. William Allen Simpson has been removing articles to influence the discussion, as has done before in similar cases (they mass removed articles from similar categories, citing different, often visibly wrong, reasons, and then tagged them for deletion for being empty). If they have a legitimate issue with the way the entirety of biographical categories work in practice in Wikipedia, maybe it would be better to address it as a whole and not target articles in a particular discussion to achieve a result.

I will note that I have generally abstained from "voting" in such discussions, in order to avoid this user from dragging me into situations like this. --Antondimak (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Also just as a note, I too don't categorise based on birth place alone. In every case when a biographical article mentions that someone was born in a place but then soon moved elsewhere, it isn't categorised by birth place. If I had been doing that, the categories would be quite larger. --Antondimak (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently, I'll not need to notify, as there's already several replies.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• "They" in the previous statement likely refers to Marcocapelle, RevelationDirect, Rathfelder, as well as me. We keep trying to fix the articles, citing policy and guidelines, and are promptly reverted.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• "They" is used in the singular and refers to you. I have no problem with any of these people you mention and we have come to an understanding to move forward with the restructuring of the category tree, but you keep trying to make a mess of the nominations. --Antondimak (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In looking at the other editor's talk page (who was not notified, but who has responded), it appears that this is a dispute between two editors who do not like each other. I am not sure what if anything the community can do about that state other than to minimize getting dragged in. I know very little about categories, but this looks like a content dispute that is complicated by stubbornness (which can become conduct) on both sides. Is there a neutral administrator who is knowledgeable about categories who can try to help? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hardly. The hostility is one-way. I've only posted to his Talk once asking him to stop posting lies behind my back. But didn't feel it had yet escalated to needing administrator intervention.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And I have posted to your talk page zero times (if you don't count the notice, which you don't). I should note that this time you told me not to lie, it was over me saying exactly what happened. Namely, an article mentioned "Vrangiana, Karditsa" and you recategorised it to the regional unit of Karditsa in general, saying it "only references Karditsa", which was clearly false. This was during your previous round of targeted edits to empty Greek location categories, using different, usually baseless, claims every time, which I reverted explaining the mistaken reasoning in every single one. You didn't even try to argue the merit of your edits (it wasn't really possible), so you dragged me here the same way you did now. When it come to this case, there was no discussion at all, which I called for. You just immediately headed here, which makes me think you created this situation on purpose. You always seem to be looking for an excuse to bring me to ANI. You always come to me, not the other way around. I always react to my watchlist being flooded with mass targeted edits in Greek location categories. I have no idea where this hostility comes from, but I in no way seek to cause you harm. This whole thing is so stupid, I mean it's a flame war over categories for crying out loud. --Antondimak (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was notified since my username was linked. --Antondimak (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I picked 2 articles and took a closer look:

• 1: Ioannis Patsantaras: Antondimak added the article to Category:People from Arachova, Category:People from Arachova was merged with Category:People from Boeotia per CFD, William Allen Simpson removed the article from Category:People from Boeotia citing WP:COP-PLACE, and Antondimak reverted that edit.
• 2: Miltiadis Papaioannou: No recent CFD changes, Antondimak replaced Category:People from Kalavryta with Category:People from Kleitoria‎, William Allen Simpson replaced Category:People from Kleitoria with Category:People from Athens citing WP:COP-PLACE, and Antondimak reverted that edit.

Clearly the two editors have disagreements both about which categories should exist and they also have a disagreement about how many articles should be under these categories. I don't see any attempt to override CFD consensus here though, but maybe I looked at the wrong two articles or there are category changes that don't show up in the article histories? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) Ioannis Patsantaras has no WP:RS as to any location. There is an unverified passing mention to place of birth, but that is not notable or defining. Serving as an unelected "aide-de-camp" to a national president is not notable under WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Serving as a small town mayor is also not notable under WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. He was included in a recent CfD (Boeotia). Removing "People from" was the very least to do; the whole article should be deleted.

(2) Miltiadis Papaioannou is listed under a current (Achaea) discussion. There is only 1 source. There is an unverified passing mention to place of birth, but that is not notable or defining. Serving as an MP of a national legislature is notable, but that was from Athens. Therefore, my edit was clear: "WP:COP-PLACE place of birth is rarely notable, he was MP from Athens".

Both were used by Antondimak to bolster a manifestly false argument about the need for some small categories. Others were added to the categories during discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess we will need to have this discussion here since you weren't so kind as to use the talk page.

(1) Ioannis Patsantaras: If you think the article should be deleted, and you're not just doing it to empty a category, then nominate it for deletion. Throughout Wikipedia, when biographies are categorised by location, they are categorised by place of birth/residence, if they coincide. If the person in question was only born in a certain location and say moved with his family immediately, he isn't categorised according to the place of birth, because in and of itself it has no significance. The biography is instead categorised to the place where the person moved and spent their life. This is what I have been following when categorising these articles as well. In this case, the person stayed in Boeotia, and served as mayor there. There is no reason to move him to a different category.

(2) Miltiadis Papaioannou: If you knew about Greek politics, you would know that seats are allocated based on an algorithm that takes into account mostly national party proportionality. The region of the seats doesn't really matter, and the region one candidate picks to run is often one they have few connections to. For example, Alexis Tsipras is currently MP for Achaea, Yanis Varoufakis is MP for Thessaloniki I and Kyriakos Velopoulos is MP for Larissa. None of them have any significant connections to these areas. It was simply politically expedient for them to run there. Miltiadis Papaioannou being MP for Athens means very little.

I have been openly working on these categories, both before and during the nominations. I am by far their most significant contributor. If a category happens to pass the threshold during a nomination, I notify the discussants. Currently we have been using the most pessimistic approach, and have been merging categories with under 5 articles, assuming no growth. The argument I have been making is that there are enough possible articles to fill these categories, and in fact are growing quite fast, and therefore we shouldn't merge them now. Thank you for accidentally helping my argument by admitting that they do indeed grow quite fast, thinking that my regular work on these categories was nefarious. --Antondimak (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Disclosures: I participated in some CFDs but don't routinely edit these articles. I generally agree with WAS's view of which categories to merge but am neutral on WP:COP-PLACE claims. I favor sanctioning Antondimak on the other ANI where the issues are quite different. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• ANI? --Antondimak (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is the abbreviation of this forum, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• William Allen Simpson, you mentioned this:

"At least one of them was actually born during the Ottoman Empire in a village that was destroyed and replaced by a Greek-named village in a nearby location, so not even arguably correct."

It'd be good to explain what exactly you mean, and know where you saw it, so that we know you're not making stories up to embellish your narrative, because I for one have no idea what you are talking about. --Antondimak (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• (I am heavily involved in CFDs but not regularly editing these articles.) Question: have the two editors been using the article talk pages for discussion about specific articles? If so, could you please provide the links to those discussions? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately not. The other user just mass-removed the articles from targeted categories without discussion again. I reverted and called for a general solution in the discussion, as the motivation described in the edit summaries was essentially a repudiation of "People from" categorisation in general (as well as some other (seemingly at least) false claims like the story I mention above). In response the other user dragged us here again. --Antondimak (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I must say that my interaction with William Allen Simpson was unpleasant: In this discussion they were unnecessarily combattive, tried to show up as somebody who contributed a lot in established Wikipedia policies (in contrast to me, as if I have no relation to them), whereas a close inspection invariably shows that they are unfamiliar with the policies — either putting their statements about their role in Wikipedia development in doubt, or showing it is too rusty to be useful. They of course did not accept the idea that they could be at least partially at fault and suggested that "take the rogue administrator to the administrator incidents to be reviewed by the Bureaucrats and Steward".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That was a very procedurally challenging relisting, as evidenced by the retroactive template addition and the many duplicate !votes. That doesn't mean it's not fair to mention here, but I just wanted to point out it's not a typical CFD discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, and my recommendation at a recent DRV on the topic stands: an RFC should be held to make clear to both participants how Greek biographies should be categorized. If this disruption continues, BOTH should be topic-banned from categorizing Greek biographies. The specific complaint here isn't actionable outside of the continued disruption from both editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would genuinely appreciate an explanation of how I'm disrupting. If there is something I do that the community finds disruptive I will just stop doing it. The process of restructuring with Marcocapelle's nominations was going smoothly before the other user started this thing. --Antondimak (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive ip 74.215.109.132

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

Hi, I've been working with Twinkle reverting vandalism, and came across this user who is not really vandalizing, but they are removing various tags from articles like Eli Cohen, Roman Republic, Thracians, and Dacians. They have numerous disruption warnings on their talk page for the past 3 months from, JMHamo, LuK3, Babegriev, Meters, and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. They have also done other disruptive editing such as calling other people "moron" in edit summary. I don't have anything else to add or contribute to the discussion as this is not a dispute, but strictly for reporting purposes only, and I have faith admins will handle this accordingly. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia and Debate constantly closed despite consensus has not been reached

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.

---

Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia Hello. I'm forced to report SevenSpheresCelestia for persistent disruptive editing. He keeps closing a debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone&oldid=1007344958 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01) where consensus has not been reached. Another editor (non-admin) had recently closed the debate without checking that consensus had not been reached (about a page that was actually protected from further disruptive editing from SevenSpheresCelestia). This user (SevenSpheresCelestia) is likely to continue closing the debate, so I would appreciate if an admin could please revert his last edit and protect the talkpage. Considering that the debate has lasted several months, many editors involved, and consensus has only been reached in 3 out of the 4 mergers requested, I would appreciate if an administrator closes the debate as consensus reached in those 3 out of 4 merger requests. Thank you. Cheers. ExoEditor 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is HERE, thanks. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No. That's a different issue that you started. Cheers. ExoEditor 19:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of WP:BOOMERANG applying here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We are just telling SevenSpheresCelestia that no consensus has been reached in 100% of his 4 merger requests, and that more debate should be done before closing it and merging the 4th merger (KOI-4878.01) for which consensus hasn't been reached. Debate is healthy for Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why the debate should be closed as he insists on (there are several editors in favor of merging that 4th page and several editors against merging it). This could take months but the way I see it is that if there is a page where many editors have participated and spent their time improving it (which is by itself a sign that the page doesn't necessarily have to be removed), it's nice that the other editors respect the work done (especially when multiple secondary sources cover the object at hand, and when no consensus has been reached on merging it). The best 2 options I see are: 1) continuing the debate with more editors involved and, if no consensus is reached, then make a votation, or 2) which I think it's the less time-consuming: close the debate as consensus reached for most of his requests. SevenSpheresCelestia seems to be havig a bit of a childish behaviour because he wants all his requests accepted. I am saying that we would appreciate if he could respect the work we have done. If it was obvious that the article has to be merged, then yes, but not only it's not obvious, but also all the contributions to the page made by many editors make clear to me that there is no reason to merge it. I see merging it (which is like deleting it imo) as a total lack of respect. In any case, as said in his ANI, I won't further read his comments. I honestly think it's a total waste of time and that he should be (possibly permanently) banned for current and previous disruptive behaviour. Cheers. ExoEditor 20:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As said in the other thread, your refusal to accept the consensus (as determined by uninvolved editor User:Onetwothreeip and agreed upon by User:Headbomb) is an example of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We have different definitions for consensus I'm afraid. Check this out and you will see no consensus has been achieved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01

Don't waste your time replying me honestly. Time is priceless. I won't read you anymore. Bye bye. ExoEditor 21:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Debate constantly closed despite consensus has not been reached

This is not an accusation to any editor. A debate is simply taking place in two separate talkpages (something I discouraged from the beginning), and an editor has closed the debate in one of them possibly without realizing that no overall consensus has been reached in both talkpages.

The debate is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal

Consensus has been reached to merge KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01, but not KOI-4878.01.

I would appreciate if an administrator please opens the debate again or closes the debate as consensus reached to merge all the pages except KOI-4878.01.

KOI-4878.01 is a page where many experienced editors have worked on, it's currently protected from edition, and the editor who wants it merged is under a sockpuppet investigation for allegedly using friends to unbalance debate/reverts outcomes.

Thank you, cheers. ExoEditor 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Administratura: no "cheers" required. This a continuation of the other two as-yet unclosed ANI reports^^^ (User:ExoEditor and User:Kepler-1229b and Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia). Both started by ExoEditor against SevenSpheresCelestial. Way to weaponize ANI (anymore than it is already). ——Serial

I didn't start both ANI's, please check again. I'm asking for administration intervention about a debate being disruptively closed when no consensus has been reached, check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01

Won't comment anymore on this sorry. Cheers. ExoEditor 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see you only opened the retaliatory one. Apologies for that. ——Serial 16:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly not. The first one was against a specific editor currently investigated by sockpuppetry. The second one is about a debate. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:10, 18 February 2021 (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.

ANI against Magnus Dominus

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.

---

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

Magnus Dominus, been "suddenly" obstructing MMA pages from further changes and try use this ANI to goes his way. Edits from Oct 2020 to Feb 1 2021...looks like random edits. Strangely it something do with this RFC. This is almost like reopening same case over and over again..... Targeting same 3 person over and over again @Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Cassiopeia: @NEDOCHAN:. I want a review on Magnus Dominus behavior please. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing behavior

1. Magnus Dominus doing WP:FILIBUSTER too much in mma pages. Special:Contributions/Magnus_Dominus Kent Bargo (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Magnus Dominus used SPI to once again targeting the same editor (sorta harassing with wild "wall of texts"). SPI Kent Bargo (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Went soo low targeting anyone who question user edit or behavior. Kent Bargo (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Attempting to pay for services. HERE Kent Bargo (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
5. This disruption maybe related diff diff 2 Kent Bargo (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for SPI experts/Admin for assistance (Confirmed SOCK)

The user targeting & disagreements are getting out of control. I reported user for roadblocking articles and concern may do it on other page. I did not notice the person also being investigated for WP:Sock in the Lordpermaximum SPI case. "Wild wall of texts" length are similar. I like to request these SPI cases to be fast forwarded if possible.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lordpermaximum <-- in this SPI - Magnus Dominus accuses Admin @Girth Summit: for some favoritism? (might not be the right word)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NEDOCHAN <- targeting again

Kent Bargo (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC) The user is a WP:SOCK via Confirmed-nc. This explains the unacceptable wall of text and behavior.

Post Behavior (Threat)

WP:SOCK Possible threat towards fellow editor @Squared.Circle.Boxing: Kent Bargo (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can @El C: or other admin closed this resolved cased. User abusive behavior has been restricted and case resolved! Kent Bargo (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Post Closure

@El C: @Squared.Circle.Boxing: and @RoySmith: Do not want go through it again, but the Lordpermaximum (100 dollars for it) is back with "wall of text" under El_C Talkpage? diff Kent Bargo (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My talk page aka Grand Central Station! El_C 07:32, 10 February 2021 (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 Return

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.

---

@El C, RoySmith, and Squared.Circle.Boxing: I am here to reopen this case after the same obvious user returning doing same thing. He knows how to link WP:Ignore in edit summary. User is using some special new tech to evade? It was caught by square circle boxing.

• Might be unrelated - Comment redacted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magnus_Dominus#(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Bargo (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.190.171.50

Kent Bargo (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2021 (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.

Off-wiki attacks by BLP subject Alexa O'Brien

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.

---

• Alexa O'Brien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NedFausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Adobrien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 11 February 2021, BLP subject Alexa O'Brien tweeted from her verified Twitter account that "the obsessive who took over my Wikipedia page" was guilty of stalking her, "bordering on harassment." In a pair of follow-up tweets, she identified me as the editor in question.

On 13 February 2021, Shushugah—who three days later disclosed his WP:COI, "because I have met the subject of this article before"—removed the following content (which I had contributed, sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF, on 21 February 2020) from O'Brien's BLP relating to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange:

By mid-February 2020, however, O'Brien had turned against Assange. "He is a mother f*cker," she tweeted from her verified account, "and deserves ridicule for being a self-centered narcissist clown, IMO." Two days later, she tweeted that although she'd been approached by agents over the last decade to write a book on Manning or her work, she was glad she had not done so. "If I ever write it," she joked, "title will be Useful Idiot, an autobiography."

The expunged content did not contain the word hostile nor did the word then appear elsewhere on the page.

Yet in a series of tweets commencing February 14, 2021, O'Brien denounced "an attempt to harass me via Wikipedia." In particular, she fixated on the words hostile and hostility, each of which she used in seven separate tweets, in response to a comment by an editor at her BLP's talk page. Earlier that day, user Burrobert had written: She is very hostile both to Wikileaks and Assange. After O'Brien took issue on the same talk page, Burrobert conceded: Perhaps "hostile" was the wrong word to use and "critical" would have been a better choice. In no instance did I personally use the word hostile.

Nevertheless, O'Brien has publicly charged that I am "making the Wikipedia platform look like a tool to harass ppl he disagrees with that are women." She asks rhetorically, "Would they do this to a man? Less likely."

I have not stalked or harassed Alexa O'Brien. I am not a misogynist. I request that an admin caution O'Brien—who seems to have posted both as User Adobrien and IP 69.200.229.184—against violating WP:AGF and advise her to stop attacking me off-wiki. NedFausa (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The foundation and anyone reading this board cannot do anything to make external forces stop tweeting about you or anyone else. WP:NPA is an internal policy and applies to editors. CUPIDICAE💕 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I recommend that you acquaint yourself with WP:OWH. By contributing to Wikipedia talk pages both as User Adobrien and IP 69.200.229.184, O'Brien has established herself as an editor. NedFausa (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia did she attack you? CUPIDICAE💕 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: You either did not read WP:OWH or refuse to understand it. I will respond to other editors. NedFausa (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I am well acquainted. You're trying to weaponize Wikipedia to fight a Twitter battle with someone who disagrees with you. I see nothing threatening, objectionable or actionable. Just a discussion by someone who thinks your Wikipedia editing is poor. ANI isn't the place to hash out some personal off-wiki beef with a subject and editor who, as far as I can tell, hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies. But you keep doing you, Ned. Maybe someone will listen one day, but it won't be here. CUPIDICAE💕 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I originally opened a Request for Comment, but as I was tagged, I am happy to continue it over ANI, which is probably more appropriate. The subject of the article, User Adobrien only made comments on the talk page about herself, which is what Wikipedia recommends when people have a concern about how they're portrayed. The way the article is written now, it's not surprising she is questioning why her tweets are valid, but not her essays. I would argue, that both likely should be removed, as bulk the article is composed of original material, interviews and other material closely tied to the subject.

Without getting into whether User Nedfausa's behaviour constitutes stalking or not, I would certainly argue it's 'original research' or at best, journalistic work, which is not what Wikipedia is for. User Nedfausa has made number of edits within the article, that constitute WP:Original research whether it's using self published tweets, or blog posts written by the subject. I pointed out this concern, that Wikipedia is comprised of WP:TERTIARY sources.

I see this is not the first time User Nedfausa had trouble with editing WP:BLP especially around American politics after 1992. Shushugah (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Without getting into whether User Nedfausa's behaviour constitutes stalking or not—that's what this ANI section is about! Why are you evading the issue? NedFausa (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The conduct/behaviour of a reporter on WP:ANI is also subject to scrutiny. My first comment, and others' address your concern about Adorbien's behaviour as well. Shushugah (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, let me state that this is not, as someone mischaracterized it above, about a "Twitter battle" with someone who disagrees with me. It's about an editor at this website using Twitter to attack a fellow editor here. I have never tweeted to Alexa O'Brien and have no intention of engaging her on that platform. This is solely about my activity as an editor of her Wikipedia BLP and her personal off-wiki attacks against me, which violate WP:OWH. It's as simple as that. NedFausa (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Which Tweet is an attack not simply a disagreement or statement of the issues? And further, which of those tweets violates any Wikipedia policy? Sorry, Ned, but if someone wants to call you an asshole on Twitter, there's nothing Wikipedia or Wikipedians can do about it. Perhaps you should read up on meta:Trust and safety or contact Twitter because right now it just looks like you're still trying to get Wikipedia/Wikipedians to fight some silly battle for you while grossly mistating things. CUPIDICAE💕 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, you must not write a biography by cherry-picking from primary sources written by the subject, let alone their social media posts and particularly on controversial topics. There is a reason we use secondary, independent reliable sources. The subject of an article complaining about edits on social media and on the talk page is, I think, something you have to manage by engagement and negotiation, not locking horns with the article subject and trying to get them sanctioned. However, you may be getting in too deep to be able to edit objectively and I advise you let other editors handle this. Fences&Windows 01:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, agreed. I will make no further edits at the Alexa O'Brien BLP, although I reserve the right to respond to attacks against me at the associated talk page. Thanks for your advice. NedFausa (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did not try to get O'Brien sanctioned. I requested that an admin caution her against violating WP:AGF and advise her to stop attacking me off-wiki. If you feel that's too much to ask, so be it. NedFausa (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, Adobrien is in no real sense a real "Wikipedia editor" but rather the subject of a BLP who is unhappy with how you are shaping and curating her biography. All nine of her edits have been to that talk page. She is not harassing you; rather, she is criticizing your edits about her. I agree with Fences and windows. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I must continue to be her punching bag on Twitter. Wikipedia cannot help me. I misinterpreted the rules. I withdraw this ANI request. NedFausa (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm rather concerned here, but let me first address the complaint: we can't expect Wikipedians to abide by our conduct policies off-wiki. And O'Brien's comments don't come anywhere near to harassment.

I'm much more bothered by this: the content that Shushugah edited is inadequately sourced negative content on a BLP. Content like that should have been removed from a BLP promptly, and it isn't inappropriate from someone with a COI to remove a BLP violation. What really bothers me is O'Brien's claim that the content of the article may have cost her a job. If it was based on that BLP-violating SYNTH, we have a real problem. This is why the BLP policy exists - because poorly-substantiate content can do real-world harm. I feel like the community is obligated to act here. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, this is my sole edit on the page, and indeed, despite my WP:COI I took swift action, because of the (potential) BLP violation. I also, immediately opened a section on the talk page to discuss it, in case it was the wrong move. In Retrospect, I should have disclosed my relation with the subject sooner that instant and not a few days after, but I would not have changed my actions otherwise. Shushugah (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Nowhere at Talk:Alexa O'Brien does she claim that the content of the article may have cost her a job. On Twitter, she wrote, "The obsessive who took over my Wikipedia page probably just cost me a job interview." It seems to me that costing someone a job and costing them a job interview are two quite different things. Moreover, she did not specify which part of her Wikipedia page caused her prospective employer to abruptly withdraw a job related interview. Before the Wikipedia community acts, might it not be a good idea to ascertain what triggered such sudden rejection? Perhaps if you asked her, she would clarify. Or even better, if her prospective employer could explain precisely what turned him off, it would give the Wikipedia community solid ground on which to proceed. Otherwise we're dealing in conjecture. NedFausa (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting someone here should contact O'Brien to ask with whom she was interviewing, and then contact that prospective employer to ask why they withdrew their invitation? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm seriously suggesting someone here should get the facts straight before proceeding to community action. NedFausa (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be an absolutely wild invasion of privacy, and the suggestion is frankly concerning. Please keep in mind that O'Brien is quite possibly reading this discussion. If I was in her position, I imagine I would find the suggestion that a bunch of internet strangers (with whom I'd clearly already had poor interactions) might be reaching out to my prospective employers quite alarming.

I think there's really no way to know for sure whether an interview invitation was withdrawn, or why, or based on which portion of her Wikipedia page (if at all)—from her tweet it sounds like she's not even sure that was the cause. But we can see the edits to the page, which in my view were quite out of line for a BLP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you! That's all I was looking for: There's really no way to know for sure whether an interview invitation was withdrawn, or why, or based on which portion of her Wikipedia page (if at all)—from her tweet it sounds like she's not even sure that was the cause. If that forms the basis for community action, then I'll leave you to it. NedFausa (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from the sentence immediately after where you ended your quote, it would presumably be the on-wiki violations of the BLP policy that could lead to community action, not the possible fallout from said BLP vios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and Windows has already partly dealt with this, but I feel I should point out that O'Brien's concerns aside, since Assange is a living person, a statement which says '"He is a mother f*cker," she tweeted from her verified account, "and deserves ridicule for being a self-centered narcissist clown' is clearly not the sort of material intended to be covered by ABOUTSELF since it does involve claims about third parties. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I was wrong to cite that. I construed it as a statement about self in the sense that she was expressing how she felt, but I failed to think it through—you are right, she was of course making a claim about a third party. As such, it failed to meet the WP:TWITTER exception and should not have been included. I apologize for my mistake. NedFausa (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I am pleased to report that GorillaWarfare has now done a thorough housecleaning and the BLP Alexa O'Brien should no longer offend its subject. NedFausa (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

To be honest though, in my world, if somebody tweets about a public person calling him a motherfucker, and then does not get a job, and needs to blame somebody for this, they should start with themselves, and only if that fails consider other options.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not a very helpful perspective, Ymblanter. We should focus on our actions and role: "It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Fences&Windows 11:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. This is why it is entirely irrelevant whether or not the subject of the article was denied a job due to her Wikipedia article (as far as this has not been reported in reliable sources). What is relevant is that we keep our article in compliance with WP:BLP (I also have some notability concerns, but this is a completely different issue). It does not matter whether the subject likes it or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: to clarify where I was coming from when I brought that it - it was meant as a good reminder of the potential harm an article that doesn't comply with BLP can do. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

O'Brien addressed this exact argument on Twitter after she apparently saw it made at Wikipediocracy: "To the guy talking about my tweets. Wikipedia profile ranks 1 with my name as a search term. My tweets do not rank anywhere on the index like that-- and if someone reads them they are in context. Ned has selectively edited that context out-- by design." However, as I've already said, it is likely more productive for us to focus on the BLP issues on-wiki rather than trying to determine what may have happened as a result of them off-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping that NedFausa got the point here, but this post suggests strongly that they did not. I'm starting to think that they shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa said I have never tweeted to Alexa O'Brien and have no intention of engaging her on that platform. While he may not have directly addressed a tweet to her, he did tweet about her:

• On February 15, after O'Brien complained via twitter about the article, NedFausa tweeted:

  For anyone who believes I have been abusive or harmful to Alexa O'Brien on Twitter please follow instructions here (link redacted because of wp blocklist) For anyone who believes I have been abusive or harmful to Alexa O'Brien at Wikipedia please follow instructions here (link redacted because of wp blocklist)

• NedFausa then replied to his own tweet with a Valentine's Day Lockdown Meltdown 2021 cartoon and this text:

  It's understandable that a woman of a certain age in lockdown without a man on Valentine's Day would have a meltdown. Some do it IRL. Some on Twitter. I actually prefer the ones on Twitter because it's quieter.

He deleted his twitter account a few hours later. The tweet occurred while his user page granted permission to share Wikipedia-related information regarding his twitter activity. I'm concerned that the tweet indicates a lack of objectivity or neutrality toward O'Brien. Schazjmd (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am honestly speechless to see that kind of misogyny, particularly towards a BLP subject who was expressing her (valid) concerns with the Wikipedia article about her. There's certainly a bit of a grey area around what can or should be done about active Wikipedians making inappropriate tweets at or about the subjects of BLPs they've written—certainly Wikipedians are allowed to have personal opinions and express them on Twitter (I know I do). But this would seem to at the very least warrant a formalized ban from editing the O'Brien article, and probably its talk page as well. It was clear from O'Brien's tweets that she believed the poor quality fo her BLP was rooted in misogyny, and although I was originally giving NedFausa some benefit of the doubt because he was a (somewhat) new editor at the time he wrote it, it's clear that he does hold misogynistic views towards her now even if he didn't before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support a tban from all BLP. NedFausa has not indicated that he understands why his editing was problematic (namely WP:Original research and cherry picking primary sources), instead he chooses to see his mistake as misreading obscure elements of the WP:TWEET rule. In a BLP article, where he contributed more than half of the edits, the potential for harm is much greater, than in non BLP articles, and or in articles with wider set of eyes. I also found specific behaviour of his creepy on a personal level. I was willing to let it go, but I am concerned this is a pattern, for example he searched my Twitter account (which is publicly linked in my talk page), but using a historic alias/identity of O'Brien, which is not standard practice in the least for researching secondary sources. Rather than accepting he made some mistakes (who hasn't), he's trying to make himself the victim in this very ANI thread and get O'Brien repudiated by the community. Shushugah (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: did you ever link your twitter profile from your Wikipedia account? Or did they dig this link up themselves? Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: See "which is publicly linked in my talk page". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: yes, but the only link I see on that page is by NedFausa. I'm not saying that this was a super-secret identity that was revealed, but there seems to be a general agreement not to dig into people's off-wiki identities, so it would be worth giving NedFausa a heads-up that this kind of thing isn't ok. Maybe not the best time (I'm sure they're feeling very defensive right now) but certainly something that an editor who gets into controversial topics should be aware of. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I'm pretty sure they just misspoke and meant user page. They've had their Twitter account linked there since May 2018. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. My mistake. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's understandable that a woman of a certain age in lockdown without a man on Valentine's Day would have a meltdown. That's disgusting. So much for I am not a misogynist.… Robby.is.on (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa sanctioned (AE action)

Please note that I have indefinitely topic banned NedFausa from the WP:AP2 topic area, broadly construed, as an AE (WP:ACDS) action — a prohibition which also encompasses any living persons therein, American and otherwise. My log entry is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#American_politics_2. My sanction notification to them is here: permanent link. El_C 17:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to also note that I experienced an almost equal internal struggle between issuing this topic ban and imposing an indefinite block. I guess leniency won, again, despite my best efforts to the contrary (diff). I guess I just gotta try harder to be harsher.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• El C I'd say this also warrants a BLP ban as well, not just American politics. On the other hand, as a woman, I am disgusted with his comments above and especially his attempt to play a victim after such vile comments and would go as far as supporting a site ban but I realize I am probably in a minority here. CUPIDICAE💕 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Praxidicae, though praise be to WP:NOTBURO, I did notice that Ned's BLP DS alert was placed on their talk page after the fact. And I cannot really indef them now, either. But I think a lot of their BLP contributions are Assange or Manning -related, anyway, which are already strictly prohibited by the (WP:BROADLY) AP2 ban itself. Am open to any further suggestions, though, of course. El_C 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Praxidicae, whoa! Sorry, reading comprehension failure x2 on my part! You are not in the minority (re: vile comments), I suspect. I'll be drafting a proposal for a community-imposed siteban monetarily momentarily. El_C 19:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa siteban proposal

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.

---

For their many instances of egregious misconduct that, as a whole (and in part, it may be argued), constitute harassment, NedFausa is subject to an indefinite community-imposed siteban (WP:CBAN). El_C 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. El_C 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as offender. NedFausa (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you mean. Are you not interested in editing Wikipedia anymore? Then you can just stop editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support NedFausa has consistently shown marked disregard, inability and unwillingness to edit by Wikipedia norms or policy for his short tenure here. Further, his egregious and vile attacks on other editors and as noted above, subjects of articles, make this an unsafe and hostile environment. Ned has also ignored WP:BLP over and over to insert his preferred narrative into articles despite being fully aware of our core policies. This demonstrates that both his contributions and presence overall are a net negative. Add to that his almost trollish support above, this is a great example of why this ban is necessary.CUPIDICAE💕 19:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blatant, flagrant, obvious, and mindboggling breaches of base Wikipedia tenets. There is no more clear grounds for community sanction than that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Unambiguous (weaponising Wikpedia against a person). Britishfinance (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There should be no place in the Wikipedia for behavior like this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, since the subject agrees. We really don't need anyone editing here who doesn't really want to edit here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Prax, and the details Schazjmd added above. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've had run-ins with people on Twitter from my work on Wikipedia (The SSR fans alone were nuts enough). Nothing however justifies the behavior seen here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support We can never tolerate the most active editor of a BLP engaging in misogynistic mocking of the subject of the article. Reprehensible behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'm not involved in this at all (other than watching from the sidelines), but I'm speaking up now because I abhor combative, troll-like behavior, and think it has no place here. Beyond that, the misogynistic behavior is absolutely unacceptable, IMHO. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Atrocious behaviour is an understatement. As noted above behaviour like this should have no place on this project whatsoever. Civility is one thing, BLPVIOs and subject-mockery is another!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This behavior is beyond the pale and cannot be tolerated on the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The creeping conversion of the Alexa O'Brien article into a petty gossipy hack job was bad enough (and thanks to GW for getting it back into something more respectable), and the temerity behind him coming here to complain about her is cause for an intake of breath, but that misogynistic Twitter attack is beyond disgusting. Show him the door, and then brick up the opening after him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- I would have had more to say here about my interactions with Ned and the warnings that have been given to him, but the personal attacks render those unnecessary. That behavior can never be accepted in the WP community. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I've blocked NedFausta indefinitely for trolling (repeatedly using the "thanks" feature for all those who support a siteban, even when User:barkeep49 asked him not to). This is not enactment of a siteban; that discussion has to go on for like 3 days, but is a normal admin action. Blocking disables the "thanks" feature. If they have something they want to add to this discussion, they can post a request on their talk page, and use {{helpme}} to get it posted here. However, if they ping anyone on their talk page, then talk page access will also be removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rats, it turns out I'm wrong, and blocking doesn't prevent using "thanks". I've removed talk page access, as they're obviously in full troll mode now, but to avoid being thanked you'll apparently have to turn of notifications from him. Sorry, that seems suboptimal, but the software is what the software is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Just to fix my error for posterity so I'm not helping propagate fake news: A blocked user can't thank others for edits made on pages they're blocked from editing. After blocking, NF thanked me for an edit to his talk page; removal of talk page access fixed that. So everyone does not need to add NF to their mute list after all. Sorry, my mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per all of the above. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sad about this. NedFausa is a talented writer. I think if they'd come into WP interested in writing about anything besides American politics, broadly construed, they probably could have been a really useful contributor. —valereee (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The tweets sent by NedFausa about the subject were unacceptable and coupled with their use of poor sourcing and their OP here make clear they lack the judgment needed to edit. Fences&Windows 00:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Using editing privileges as a weapon can never be tolerated on Wikipedia. —Nnadigoodluck███ 03:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Just wow. --Jorm (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is... unexpected. And they just kept piling on. Since NedFausa doesn't seem to want to edit here anymore, except with the intention of antagonizing other editors, might as well make this official, and [de facto] 'permanent'. This is completely unacceptable behaviour. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. NedFausa's tweets about O'Brien, per above, together with lying about it here ("I have never tweeted to Alexa O'Brien and have no intention of engaging her on that platform" [5]) after deleting his Twitter account, are for the connaisseur of disgusting behavior. Now I suppose I'd better disable alerts from him, since the software is what it is. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support beyond any shadow of a doubt as a result of the Twitter ugliness. Grandpallama (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support for the behavior displayed, plus the misogyny and the troll-like "thanking" of each supporting vote here. —El Millo (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Facu-el Millo Can you tell me how to access the "thanking" records of an editor, both outgoing and incoming? Also notifications. I'm pretty sure there's a way to do it, but I've never been able to find it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, I don't know either. I was referring to Floquenbeam's comment slightly above. —El Millo (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Beyond My Ken Go to their contribs page. Click "logs" at the top of the page. Choose "Thanks log" from the dropdown (you can choose "Performer" or "Target"). Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks BK, you're too fast to compete with. Only other note is that there's an option for "all public logs", and you would think that they show up there too, but they don't... Oh and one last note is you can't tell which edit they're thanking the person for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Another way is the general thanks log where you can filter by thankers as well as thankees. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you all very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I support. The combination of crass misogyny, deception, and just plain meanness give me no other option. I think this is the first time I've !voted for site-banning someone. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw, special thanks to Schazjmd. Your finding didn't make me happy, but I'm very glad you posted it! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I've seen NedFausa try to go on Twitter to fight over a controversial subject-matter related to India (I forget the exact topic) which was highly inappropriate, and harassing. So this is more of the same. BlueSapphires (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2021 (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 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.

Unhelpful edits by Animaljamfan123

• Animaljamfan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User is ignoring Talk page notifications indicating a strong pattern of unhelpful editing. Not all of the edits are unhelpful, but the user does not seem to be trying to learn from the advice they have been given. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

BarrelProof, you gave this editor a vandalism warning for their edit to Quotation mark. Can you please explain how that edit constitutes vandalism? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

They seem to have gotten some very BITE-y warnings. There's no way MOS:LQ warrants a Level 3 disruptive editing template, and this edit to Church & Dwight is just adding the existing Feline Pine information to the lead. I don't think their talk page notifications demonstrate "a strong pattern of unhelpful editing". DanCherek (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about the warning I gave the user, that was not a matter of MOS:LQ. I agree that the edits are not so clearly vandalism. My template message was intended to get their attention, as they have been ignoring warnings, never providing edit summaries, and most of their edits have not seemed helpful. I agree they aren't really clear vandalism, and perhaps my choice of template was ill-advised. I acknowledged above in my original remarks that not all of the edits are unhelpful, and that's part of why I opened a discussion here instead of WP:AIV. However, the user has been rapidly accumulating lots of warnings, and most of their edits don't seem to be improvements. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

BarrelProof, just to clarify, I wasn't focusing on your message to them—I was mostly concerned that they had been hit with a block-threatening template a few posts above yours for MOS:LQ (which is one of the least obvious parts of Wikipedia's MoS). Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nationalist POV pushing from Pavlosmeta

Pavlosmeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to believe the term Northern Cyprus is somehow biased and prefers the wildly POV term "occupied Cyprus", and despite the discussion at User talk:Pavlosmeta#February 2021 has made this edit repeatedly changing "Northern Cyprus" to "occupied Cyprus" (they've made numerous similar changes in the past, see this, this, this, this, this, this and this. FDW777 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I was never a Nationalist dear friend. My edit was according to United Nations terms. If you think that United Nations are nationalists then ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlosmeta (talk • contribs) 09:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter how the UN calls Northern Cyprus. It is definitely relevant and should be reflected in the article, but it does not dictate us what the name of the page is, or how we refer to Northern Cyprus in other articles. If we blindly followed the UN everywhere, our article on Taiwan had no title.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ymblanter, they are two very different situations. Cyprus and Turkey are talking to solve the problem. Turkey recognized that the problem exists. They invaded in Cyprus in 1974 and they still have troops, so is clearly occupation of Cyprus Republic. Finally, I don't want to change the article "Northern Cyprus". My edits was ONLY in "Cyprus Economy" article. As a user of Wikipedia for many years i wish that Wikipedia will be a place to give correct information to the users. Turkey now is occupying and controlling Northern Syria, we should create an article "Northern Syria-the country"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlosmeta (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I just saw an article with the title "Turkish occupation of northern Syria", then why not "Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlosmeta (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Northern Syria AFAIK does not claim to be a sovereign country; Northern Cyprus does claim to be a sovereign country, and has authorized and supports the presence of Turkish troops. As such we describe things as how most independent reliable sources do. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a subtle grammar distinction between Northern Cyprus (An official name according to some) and northern Cyprus, which is describing a region within Cyprus (while implicitly stating it's part of the country Cyprus). Shushugah (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the user has chosen to continue [6] even after having participated in this discussion, I blocked the account for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

New range of IPs for old genre warrior from South Portland, Maine

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.

---

• 2603:7081:3843:7400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Persistent genre-warring case from South Portland, Maine, US. The person adds or removes music genres at their own whim.[7][8] The range Special:Contributions/2603:7081:3843:7400:0:0:0:0/64 has been active for almost two months. They are from the same location and are doing the same things as the range Special:Contributions/2604:6000:80C1:A700:0:0:0:0/64 which was blocked by Widr for three months citing long-term abuse.

The case goes back at least to 2017 when the IP6 range popped up while I was fighting other IP4s from the same location: genre warring such as this from September 2017 to February 2018 in the ranges Special:Contributions/141.114.155.0/21 and Special:Contributions/141.114.9.0/21. Special:Contributions/141.114.9.205 was blocked twice in late 2017. The recent activity is the same person. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Remember to notify all parties to the discussion with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I notified one of the IPs here, which was the most recently active IP at the time. In an IP6 /64 range there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible numbers, so I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not expect all of the IPs to be notified. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This person is still active, adding unreferenced genres and the like. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2021 (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.

Failing to drop the stick and other disruption at Talk:Wright Flyer

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

Hi everyone! I'm here to discuss the editing behavior of Wright Stuf and the user's failure to drop the stick on Talk:Wright Flyer, as well as their continued disruption on the page. This issue was first brought to my attention on my user talk page here by BilCat. Wright Stuf and other editors have been engaging in discussion on the article's talk page here, but it has quickly turned into finger-pointing, incivility, and other drama - and I believe this to be mostly caused by Wright Stuf. If you see their user talk page here, it is littered full of warnings, requests to drop the stick, and requests for the user to stop their disruption there. It hasn't stopped, and I believe that action is required in order to put a stop to the disruption. I'm not sure exactly how I should go about handling this properly, so I'm turning to the community for input. Should this user be partially blocked from the article's talk page? But then, in my mind, the discussion and finger-pointing will just move elsewhere. If I fully-block the user, I fear that it'll just continue after the block expires, and will only set them off and make them cause further disruption. How should I go about handling this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

He's way over 3RR. Far too invested in his own notions to collaborate. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing that case can clearly see that I Dropped the Stick and walked away 3 times. Each time in my absence, my posts were tampered with. It is my GREATEST DESIRE to exit that page. Exit cleanly. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wright Stuf - ...But you came back after others removed the discussion, restored it, and continued to edit war over it. Why? Dropping the stick means that you move on, and you clearly haven't done so. As evidenced by your responses here and here (among others), you clearly haven't discussed the issue peacefully, and you're continuing to push your thoughts when others have indicated that it's time to move on. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I committed to staying away for the remainder of 2021. I hope that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue. Among other WP violations I've flagged.

As for 3RR, I never once did more than 3 reverts on anything. Binksternet's claim is a distortion.

And you'll all see that the MUCH BIGGER ISSUE at the root of the entire discussion is lack of Policy. This entire mess could have been easily avoided if WP:Colorization existed. But it doesn't. LOTS needing to be fixed here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: pushing my thoughts...

The part I have been insistent on since I walked away the first time days ago is simply that my posts remain unmolested in my absence. I see this to be perfectly reasonable. Especially since I was the one conforming to long established consensus. Established in 2014. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure: I'm the editor who first reverted Wright Stuf's addition of their colorized photo and their simultaneous deletion of the historic black & white photo of the first flight in two articles: Wright brothers and Wright Flyer. Their argument is based on the fallacy that consensus about photo colorization among editors in another article (Ilia Chavchavadze) compels the same result in these two articles. That's what they are referring to when harping on the idea "that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue", "established in 2014". (Postscript: someone just swapped the colorized photo back to b&w in the Chavchavadze article, so the "consensus" there is not as certain as WS believes.) DonFB (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You FAIL to grasp the concept of Consensus. The rationale presented (here) for removing the colorized image for this new b&w image was that it was a "better quality photo". Notice that in SIX AND A HALF YEARS, absolutely no one has posted any rebuttal whatsoever to Centpacrr's excellent rationale for using the colorized image:

Talk:Ilia_Chavchavadze#fake_photograph

Consensus from 2014 remains standing to this very day. Swapping to a higher quality image which happens to be b&w does not change the long established Consensus on the proper use of colorization. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

3RR violation at Talk:Wright Flyer

Wright Stuf reverted many times at Talk:Wright Flyer.

• Feb 11, 12:28 UTC – reverted cot template
• Feb 11, 15:01 UTC – reverted cot template
• Feb 11, 15:21 UTC – reverted cot template
• Feb 12, 05:55 UTC – reverted hat template
• Feb 12, 06:53 UTC – reverted hat template
• Feb 12, 07:05 UTC – reverted hat template
• Feb 12, 19:26 UTC – reverted deletion of trolling post
• Feb 12, 19:50 UTC – reverted deletion of one line break (intended as a null edit, to continue argument in edit summaries)
• Feb 12, 20:18 UTC – reverted deletion of trolling post
• Feb 12, 20:24 UTC – reverted deletion of trolling post

I count six reverts in 24 hours, or seven if you count the null edit which was technically a manual reversion. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

By my eye, those look like SEPARATE ISSUES. Never more than 3 on any.

Furthermore...

Permissible reverts on VANDALISM is unlimited. I made multiple requests for anyone to explain why my posts being repeatedly tampered with was not vandalism. My requests were repeatedly ignored. By Binksternet, among others. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The WP:3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Your argument is invalid, that you were attending to "separate issues". And if you read the policy page at Wikipedia:Vandalism you will not see any support for your second argument. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wp:VANDALISM is very clear on what constitutes vandalism. What happened on the talk page for Wright Flyer does not meet the criteria for vandalism. WP:3RR is very clear on how many reverts an editor may perform to a page outside of vandalism. 3RR applies to any page on the encyclopaedia, not just article pages. 3RR is also quite clear on the exceptions allowed, and the reversions on Talk:Wright Flyer do not fall into those exemptions. 3RR has quite clearly been exceeded even after the editor was warned. Yesterday Wright Stuf even posted the policies on 3RR exemptions on their talk page, so it's clear that they had read them. They have chosen to interpret that policy in a way no one else is interpreting it and continue to double down in their disruptive editing to push their editing preferences (preferences which are clearly against consensus on that talk page and are in my opinion violations of WP:OR, colourising an image is original research to determine what the colours were, their hue etc.) I think it's quite clear what needs to be done here so I have done it. They keep claiming they wish to walk away from it, if the editor returns to editing after the block it may be an idea to block them from the Wright Flyer article and talk page if disruption continues. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail - Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail - I concur. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Expressing an opinion which runs counter to Consensus does not change that Consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You keep talking about a consensus, yet there is no such consensus on the talk page for the Wright Flyer. Please point out where a consensus is for using a colorized picture on the Wright Flyer article. Anyway I'm not concerned with consensus (which having read the talk page of Wright Flyer extremely clearly exists and the consensus is to NOT have a colorized image), that is a content issue on the page. When I blocked you I did not ignore consensus as you have claimed on your talk page, I simply acted due to edit warring and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 02:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

After a 24-hour block, Wright Stuf is back with a disruptive edit to the same talk page. I have tried, along with other editors, to encourage them to move on (on that talk page and on their user talk), but all we get is very long indignant speeches and no improvement to the actual article. I would like to propose they are blocked from editing on Wright Flyer and the article talk page. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

My return to that Talk was after I found key policy guidance which I had hoped would shed light. It was not to discuss. It was intended to illuminate, and then I leave for the remainder of the year. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your "key policy guidance" is still based on your totally unfounded idea that a previous consensus was established. There was no previous consensus for what you want to do at the Wright Flyer page. The more you insist there was previous consensus, the deeper you dig your hole. Let it go... Start to work on a new consensus, or work to establish project-wide guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I announce that I leave for all of 2021, and people cry here, telling me to let it go. I have. I have no plans to return there. I added no "very long indignant speech" whatsoever. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

At this point I honestly think you're just trolling now. At this point it's becoming apparently clear you are fast approaching being unable and unwilling to collaborate with other editors. It appears that you're only interested in making demands and hurling around accusations that people are ignoring a non-existent consensus and are approaching Wikipedia editing as it being a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you continue to accuse or mention to other editors again that a consensus exists, that they're ignoring a precedent or consensus, or continue to make demands you will be blocked. If you wish to discuss with other editors in a civilized manner to see if you can amicably resolve your differences and maybe make some traction on pushing forward a solution that involves colorized images on Wikipedia, then great. However if you continue to bang on about some consensus for Wright Flyer that quite clearly at this point only exists in your mind, and continue your combative approach to this, on any page space be it talk, mainspace or user, then it's clear that you're no longer compatible with this project and you will be blocked indefinitely. Canterbury Tail talk 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• So, the impression I get is that WS is willing to walk away if they have their way? I think they need help in walking away and staying away. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Site ban proposal

Just a glance over the editor's behavior is appalling, and after taking some time to analyze the editor's responses to the accusations levied against them, the behavior that is on display both in this thread and on the editor's talk page is a flagrant violation of the most basic expectations of conduct on this site. For example, [9] "Either that, or you don't know how to count to FOUR." This is clearly unnecessary, and in my view, at least, borders on a personal attack. Somehow, the editor has additionally accused other editors of "gaslighting" for telling the editor to stop their problematic edit-warring behavior. [10] Accusations of "gaslighting" should not be flying around, and are clearly incivil and unnecessary. After being given a short block, they have continually attempted to light more fires, and, as far as I can tell, have not made any significant contributions to the project, but instead, have taken the time to write attacks against other editors, sometimes lengthy, sometimes short.

And it is because of this clear pattern of behavior that I propose that the editor be indefinitely site-banned. The editor is likely to just continue on their talk page, however, so I would also place as a provision of this site ban, that their talk page access be revoked, and that an appeal to the community be sent through email to an administrator, or through UTRS. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn in favor of the below proposal. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Meh. UTRS ain't all it's cracked up to be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose User has only been blocked once and that was for this. Moving to a site ban seems precipitous, given lesser remedies having not been tried. WS seems emotionally engaged with his whole colorization thing and is not thinking clearly. Perhaps time away from the subject will help them clear their mind. Oh. Need to amend my TBAN proposal to include colorized images. @Wright Stuf: is there some non wiki reason you are so het up/emotionally invested in colorization that it is affecting your judgment? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal TBAN on Wright Flyer for WS

Let's not be overly hasty and fly off the handle. Six month TBAN on Wright Flyer, enforced by partial blocks, with the understanding that WS edit constructively and collaboratively on other subjects. Understanding that further disruption or incivility will result in further blocking. With the understanding that the TBAN applies Wikipedia wide, including their talk page. To be reviewed after six months. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Amending above to include image colorization uploads. Seems to be stuck in WS's craw. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Much better idea than the site ban proposal I made above. My support of this is for the same reasoning as the striked out portion in the above section. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to support because I am unable to confirm the so-called consensus they refer to. That is tendentious IMO & worthy of break from the topic for the benefit of WP. But the wording is confusing. What if they do not violate the TBAN re: the article, but they are uncivil or uncollaborative elsewhere; would the article TBAN be lifted but the other restrictions remain? Why not just partial block from the article now, and if they don't violate the other requirements, then lift after 6 months? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my notice above. --Ariadacapo (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Having looked over the history, the overall problem appears to be that WS is trying to exercise ownership of the page, which is why they came back to it after saying that they were leaving it and were satisfied (but then someone else edited it). The more specific problem is the edit-warring over the colorized image. A topic-ban, enforced by partial blocks, is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

HDB Financial Services

I have just blocked Arjun.Pansare (talk · contribs) from editing this article after they have repeatedly edit-warred away my closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDB Financial Services, along with leaving a note on their talk page explaining why, and advising them to file a deletion review if they wish to challenge it. I have no opinion on the article or its AfD and have only acted in an administrative role here, but I appreciate that from a superficial level, reverting a user twice and blocking them looks like a textbook case of admin abuse, so I am bringing these actions here to review. Comments welcome. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• If it's textbook anything it's textbook restraint in the scope & duration of the block. Should anyone object to your prior involvement I'll happily reblock to overcome that issue. Cabayi (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• What Cabayi said. You weren't edit warring over content, they were attempting to overturn your administrative action. Random thought: should redirects that have been put in place as the outcome of a properly closed deletion discussion be protected, to prevent this kind of thing? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• No issue with your actions (and Arjun.Pansare is almost certainly a WP:UPE editor). The AfD, which was closed correctly, highlights the shortcomings of WP:NCORP. We have articles in Wikipedia on bar staff who happened to have an interview in a mid-level RS (which I have no problem with, btw), However, we have corporations (like HDBFS), with thousands of employees, and thousands of branches, but because nobody wanted to do a piece on them (let's face it, nobody wants to read an article on HDBFS, the bartender is probably more entertaining), they fail NCORP. I have even had to defend listed corporations at AfD. There is no question that HDBFS is notable in its country (far more than any comparative nearby bar staff). I think that Arjun's frustration is with NCORP, which we need to amend to be more like NPROF (i.e. specific criteria that over-ride GNG such as market capitalization, # of employees, $ of revenue, etc.). Sorry for the rant? Britishfinance (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#NPROF-type criteria for NCORP. Britishfinance (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• This article deletion isn't a poster child for a wrongful decision, Britishfinance. The article could have easily been speedily deleted as promotional, with a primary source title inviting people to apply to a loan (possible SEO) and referring to the business as "strong and reliable" and an "esteemed donor". Nobody tried that hard to find sources (e.g. there was coverage of sackings last year), so the creator could work on a draft and then go to DRV. Fences&Windows 13:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• But I clarified that it was validly deleted under our current NCORP rules (I didn't see the article, just the AfD, so I didn't see its possible CSD status). My issue is that NCORP is deleting large notable businesses that probably should have Wikipedia articles. We made the right changes in NPROF (many notable academics also don't have GNG status), but not in NCORP (i.e journalists don't like writing in-dept pieces on boring regional banks or finance companies, but they are known by millions of people). Britishfinance (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I understand you point, but in this case the redirect is a correct decision because the notability is being inherited. Actually Housing Development Finance Corporation is the parent company, of which HDFC Bank is a notable subsidary. HDB Financial Services is a further subsidiary of HDFC bank. Currently it can be adequately mentioned in the HDFC Bank article, so this is more of an editorial decision.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I don't see any problem with your actions blocking them from editing the page. If I was an admin, if they did that, I would have instead blocked them from editing for a short period of time (48 hours or less), but I don't see anything wrong with your block, since they were edit warring and ignoring the policy, in a situation where Ignore all rules doesn't apply. 4D4850 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I am not an admin, but this is OK (even though Ritchie333 is the closing admin here). The block is a temporary block of 24 hours and from what I see, the user might not be familiar with how to use the talk page. In this case, a temporary block might be useful to get them to notice their talk page and to just stop the disruption.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hursh Joen blanking the reliable sources noticeboard

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.

---

Hursh Joen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is currently blanking parts of the WP:RSN. None of their edits are constructive, and they continued vandalism after I gave them a warning. Can I request a speedy indef block? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also posted at AIV Slywriter (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. -- Hoary (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2021 (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.

Vandalism on SS Mauna Loa

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.

---

• SS Mauna Loa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After SS Mauna Loa has posted as Today's Featured Article (TFA), nearly all edits that i see are vandalism or reverts, with little good faith editors on it. Please semi-protect the article in order to prevent any serious damage due to vandalism at this TFA. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2021 (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.

Shaanvisuresh and article moves

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.

---

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

It appears that user:Shaanvisuresh (after having Draft:Adityaram declined three times) simply overwrote Help:URL with the same content, and then moved it into article space as Adityaram. Similarly, the talk page Help talk:URL was overwritten and then moved to talk:Adityaram. I think we need an admin (or maybe just someone with page mover privileges) to undo this mess. We may need to salt the article title. Meters (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The versions that have the original content are [11] for the page, and [12] for the talk page. Meters (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Handled by user:Johnuniq. Now that I can see the many previous deletion and the AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adityaram I don't think there's any "may" about the need to salt. Meters (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've got Help:URL on my watchlist and so tried to repair the problem before seeing this. Relevant pages: Draft:Adityaram + Draft:Draft:Adityaram (double draft) + Adityaram. I wondered whether to create-protect one or more of these. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this was an intentional attempt to recreate the article without having it showing up on the new pages patrol, rather than a mistake. Meters (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User is now socking as Sharinisuresh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). —Wasell^(T) 07:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Shaanvisuresh got to a final warning, violated WP:DRAFTNOCAT once more, and then immediately created the new account to continue Shaanvisuresh's attempts to remove the previously declined article creation notices. Meters (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Master + sock blocked indefinitely. I have also semiprotected the draft for six months. Move damage repaired (I think). Let's see if that would be the end of that (though I likely just jinxed it!). El_C 13:32, 19 February 2021 (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.

Carmine Carbone(Founder of Garden Foods)

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.

---

Now at AFD after being deleted multiple times. WP:COI accounts removing AFD template to subvert discussion. Please delete and salt this in its many forms, and block the disruptive accounts. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2021 (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.

ZRS2012 evading block and doing disruptive 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.

---

Despite three warnings, ZRS2012 is continuing to vandalise the Variants of SARS-CoV-2 article ([13], [14], [15]). Furthermore, the user is a sockpuppet of Theusernameistaken (which is currently blocked indefinitely, as confirmed by the former. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:02, 19 February 2021 (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.

Vandalism on Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian

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.

---

• Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please semi-protect this article, because there is high level of IP vandalism after it was posted as TFA. It has already requested at WP:RFPP. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2021 (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.

Debate constantly closed despite consensus has not been reached

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 not an accusation to any editor. A debate is simply taking place in two separate talkpages (something I discouraged from the beginning), and an editor has closed the debate in one of them possibly without realizing that no overall consensus has been reached in both talkpages.

The debate is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal

Consensus has been reached to merge KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01, but not KOI-4878.01.

I would appreciate if an administrator please opens the debate again or closes the debate as consensus reached to merge all the pages except KOI-4878.01.

KOI-4878.01 is a page where many experienced editors have worked on, it's currently protected from edition, and the editor who wants it merged is under a sockpuppet investigation for allegedly using friends to unbalance debate/reverts outcomes.

Thank you, cheers. ExoEditor 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Administratura: no "cheers" required. This a continuation of the other two as-yet unclosed ANI reports^^^ (User:ExoEditor and User:Kepler-1229b and Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia). Both started by ExoEditor against SevenSpheresCelestial. Way to weaponize ANI (anymore than it is already). ——Serial

I didn't start both ANI's, please check again. I'm asking for administration intervention about a debate being disruptively closed when no consensus has been reached, check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01

Won't comment anymore on this sorry. Cheers. ExoEditor 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see you only opened the retaliatory one. Apologies for that. ——Serial 16:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly not. The first ANI is about a specific editor. This ANI is just about a debate. Cheers. ExoEditor 17:16, 18 February 2021 (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.

Sockpuppet abusing multiple accounts

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 sockpuppet that edits sports related articles has been abusing the usage of multiple accounts. The original account is Cool_a123. That account was blocked in December, but multiple accounts have been created by this editor. (Elijah12354, Cooper_123465, Poolson1029) With the latest one being Roots29102, which hasn't been blocked. Is there anything that can be done about this situation? In case if my message on Roots29102's talk page gets reverted, here is the diff of that edit [16]. Yowashi (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by Zzuuzz. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2021 (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.

Devlet Geray

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.

---

}

Devlet Geray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is making a range of WP:TENDENTIOUS by attempting to Turkify several articles. At Template:Turkic topics he has added loads of non-Turkic entities, most notably First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria, which he claims to be "Turkic" (were not they Turkic? think twice). He has refused to take his concerns to the talk page and instead has resorted to edit warring.

He has already been reported here before [17], and by the looks of it, this conduct of his already got him banned in the Russian Wikipedia.

More WP:TENDENTIOUS here;

[18]

[19]

Not to mention he isn't shy of casting WP:ASPERSIONS/making personal attacks;

Hello. Please refrain from ethnic vandalism and historical revisionism on English Wikipedia.

tendentious pro-Iran nationalist vandalism

simple vandalism

Your revisionism is amazing

(f***, are you so sick that you still keep track of my contributions? i know that this page is not in your watchlist

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The topic-starter tries to violate neutrality based, as I understand it, on his pro-Iranian position. For instance, here [20] he removed a huge text with sources only because he didn't like it. Here a removal of a large text [21] based on his attempts of historical revisionism. He claims that First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria weren't Turkic (apparently Iranian). Let's see. Here is the information from the First Bulgarian Empire article The First Bulgarian Empire (Old Bulgarian: ц︢рьство бл︢гарское, ts'rstvo bl'garskoe[12]) was a medieval Bulgar-Slavic and later Bulgarian state that existed in Southeastern Europe. Let's see the article Bulgars: The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Now let's see Old Great Bulgaria article: Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Medieval Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Voulgaría), also often known by the Latin names Magna Bulgaria[3] and Patria Onoguria ("Onogur land"),[4] was a 7th-century Nomadic empire formed by the Onogur Bulgars on the western Pontic–Caspian steppe and It is generally believed to derive from the Turkic verb bulğha (to "stir", "mix", "disturb", "confuse"),[9] possibly suggesting that other Turkic peoples regarded the Bulgars as a "mixed" people[10] or as "rebellious". Devlet Geray (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

When did I claim that they were Iranian? Please show revisions for this. I am not "pro-Iranian" either. And no, I did not remove anything "because I didn't like it" or because of "historical revionism" - I literally stated why. More WP:ASPERSIONS/personal attacks and whatnot. I guess you forgot to add the part from the article where it literally says that the Bulgars were eventually Slavicized? Claiming that the two Bulgarian dynasties were Turkic would be like claiming modern-day Bulgarians are as well, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Pinging admin @Ymblanter: (I assume this isn't canvassing?) as he seems to be more knowledgeable of your past actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I repeat it again: think twice. 1. I didn't add/mention/write about modern Slavic Bulgarians, I wrote about historical Turkic Bulgars. 2. I didn't write that you claimed that they were Iranian, I wrote "apparently Iranian". Devlet Geray (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is useless, I'll let the admins deal with you, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning First Bulgarian empire, it could have been moved to Turco-Slavic (or Slavo-Turkic) states section (it could have been created, as already done with Turco-Mongol states or Turko-Persian states. It's clear that I'm not against it. The previous section doesn't mention that the state was completely Tukic either, it's just the state that is related to Turkic history, that's all), but this does not seem to be the appropriate reason for reverting everything. As for your pro-Iranian position, you mentioned it on your page "this user is proud to be Iranian" and I especially say "as I understand it", but I may have been mistaken (you on the contrary say that I attempt to "Turkify several articles", which is not true at all) Devlet Geray (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just taking a random example above [22], the user does not see a difference between his personal position and encyclopedic material. I propose a topic ban from everything related to Eastern Europe and Turkey, broadly construed. For EE, it could be arbitration enforcement. I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Taking into account Ymblanter's cross-wikipedia persecution and attacking me [23], this "I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past" sounds at least inappropriate Devlet Geray (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For those who can not read Russian, the above "persecution and attacking" was in fact removal of copyrighted material (a text of a poem). When Devlet Geray restored it claiming it is fair use, I removed it again and said that the fair use policy must be adopted forst on that wiki.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was the previous instance Devlet Geray was featured here, though I could have missed something.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• the fact that you was looking through my contributions to Crimean Tatar wiki shows that it was a clear persecution. Your taking part in the previous discussion on the noticeboard and your mentioning about my contributions to RuWiki, which is unrelated to this Wiki, proves it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I joined the Crimean-Tatar wiki when it was still in Incubator (I was in fact one of the people who helped to get it out of the Incubator) and have been editing it every day ever since. I check all edits on that project, but, indeed, before your edit I have never detected any copyright violations, not mentioning that I had to edit-war to remove copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saw that topic-starter was involved in the conflict on the same topic (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tarik289) just two days before, which seems to me like he creates conflict situations, preventing the editing of articles in a direction - towards a neutral presentation - that does not coincide with his views. As for Ymblanter and Каракорум who previously mentioned me on this noticeboard, they are both from Russian Wikipedia and both harrass me cross-wiki Devlet Geray (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not from the Russian Wikipedia. The last user who had pleasure to call me a "Russian admin" and would not stop against my objections, was recently site-banned by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And, well, to claim I am not an active English Wikipedia user is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, I didn't say anything about your activity on English Wikipedia and I didn't call you a Russian admin. Devlet Geray (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment When I recently added a WP:RS source by the Encyclopedia Iranica to the further reading section of the Crimean Tatars article, user:Devlet Geray reverted my edit and called it "propaganda".[24] Looking at the compelling evidence, there are definitely WP:CIR issues in relation to user:Devlet Geray's editorial conduct. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• He was right to remove the link to Encyclopedia Iranica in the article. Encyclopedia Iranica is an encyclopedia with a focus on Iran (and may be a RS for Iranian history), but it's coverage of topics outside it's purview is subpar, to put it mildly. The specific article linked to in question was absolute monstrosity of misinformation, steryotypes, misconseptions, distortions, and generalizations, - all contradictory to the text of the Wikipedia article itself - and ergo should not have been linked to. Removing it was the appropriate action.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Encyclopedia Iranica is known for forgeries and inaccurate presentation of information. It's not me who says it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I know you didn't even bother to read the article that PDF was referencing, so here it is [25]. At no point does it state any accusations of forgeries or inaccurate presentation of info. All it states is that Yarshater being Baha'i and its description of pre-Islamic Iran means it's opposed by elements of the Iranian government. Your false presentation of news is yet another example of disruptive editing. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• refrain from your agressive style [26] of talking with people who are not Iranian --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world for Devlet Geray. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is way too mild. It should be an indefinite topic ban or even a long-term block. The issues have been ongoing for several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was willing to hand out a final straw of WP:GF, but, looking at his final response in relation to my comment above, I believe this won't change anytime soon. User:Devlet Geray is indeed not here to build this encyclopedia, and thus, I will support a block as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with this. LouisAragon was involved in conflict with me (knowing that Iranica was accused of being propaganda, I deleted it - but when it was returned I didn't revert it again), Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki and is clearly prejudiced against me, Каракорум (the user who created the first notice on this page) harrasses me cross-wiki, these are Ukrainian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata. I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia and always acted with sources (see my reverted edit). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The statements "I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia" and "Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki" are demonstratably false.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have already shown an example here, the same situation is here - [27], but Ymblanter didn't delete it (though he says that he checks "all edits", so this claim seems to be false, not mine). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• After the indefinite blocking on the Russian Wikipedia, it was Devlet Geray who began to harass me in Commons and on the English Wikipedia, canceling my edits without explanation, like this [28]. He began corny to take revenge on me for the fact that I dared to resist his pushing on the Russian Wikipedia. Therefore, Devlet Geray is lying again. Каракорум (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, I see that Devlet Geray is obviously not interested in addressing his own behavior and tries to excuse his year-long disruptive editing that other users "keep track" of his contributions. Could an admin please just block him, preferrably indef. Last ANI thread was closed because the general sentiment was that someone is importing conflicts here from other wiki; in this thread it is clear that Devlet Geray is disruptive on the English Wikipedia, and in addition he tries to import real or imaginary conflicts from elsewhere. Thos thread should not go forever, there is enough proof given here that he is not capable of editing Wikipedia in an appropriate manner.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• What "my own behavior"? Adding information with many authoritative sources and then just got it reverted with one click? Yes, I reacted slightly emotionally on this mass-deletion of what I added, I shouldn't have done it and I'm sorry for that. All other conflicts were solved long ago. I edit conflicting topics, it is obvious that it may cause far more conflicts than if I were editing articles about nature, this should also be taken into account Devlet Geray (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support a block: Looking over this users contributions it's clear they're not interested in reliable sources. They're not interested in amicable discussions. They're not interested in a neutral representation or the widely accepted interpretations. They are just pushing their view, and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. They are simply not compatible with a collaborative project. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Provide at least several proofs to your claims, without them it is like your point of view. Thank you Devlet Geray (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole section is proof your actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support indef (topic) ban: Per WP:NOT HERE, WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPA, lack of WP:COMPETENCE.. I could go on. The fact Devlet accuses me (among other things) that I like to "create conflict situations" because I reported a editor for whose disruptive actions he got banned [29] really says it all. It's almost as if he can't see anything wrong with the banned users actions, which would explain his own conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are a topic-starter, it's clear that you are for my block. As for your claim, it's a simple falsifications/forgery of my words (not for the first time). I said, quote: "seems to me [I even stressed it] like [=as if] he creates conflict situations", I didn't say that you "like to create conflict situations". I leave now. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I started this topic indeed; because you were unable to behave accordingly. Okay, I accidentally added "like", my bad. But you do realize there's ultimately no difference between the two? Both are equally inappropriate. The fact that you can't see that says it all. It's a even bigger wonder you haven't been blocked yet after all the accusations and attacks you've made towards me in this noticeboard alone. I hope someone is taking notice of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No topic ban, but a brief block for incivility could be appropriate. The block should be brief because this is a long-term contributor without prior blocks. But he definitely needs a wikibreak. Sorry man, I know how you feel. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But some his edits (like that) do look highly opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Temporary block. The user is problematic and mean as proven by the diffs provided, however, they made overall helpful edits to the project in the past. So, I feel like a temporary block can help the editor take some time to cool off. If they continue their behaviour again after the temporary block, then a permanent block or topic ban would be appropriate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Some editors can not productively edit some topics. If they're here to build an encyclopedia, they can find other areas where they can edit without contention. BD2412 T 19:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• support indef topic ban per HistoryofIran, as well as a forced "vacation". - Kevo327 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's unrelated to this, but probably you voted for my block because I added Turkic origin to Safavids (then probably i'm "pro-Turkic", if I'm "pro-Turkic" I can start adding anti-Armenian information/propaganda to wikipedia - so just to be on the safe side you supported my indef block - it's your option). But, fyi, I renamed article about Armenian Genocide from "Fake Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide" and removed all propaganda from it, which wasn't done by Ymblanter who claims that he "checks all the edits" there (another proof of what I said above). So, don't be that prejudiced about people, if everything I wrote is true. If not, I'm sorry Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  For those who think that Devlet Geray can edit "unproblematically" may I please note that this is the second time in this thread he implies that I am lying. Without having any credible reasons for that. I am sure if he escapes with a topic ban he is going to be back here soon because of his unacceptable behavior (casting aspersions and personal attacks).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is the second time i give proofs that I'm not lying, not that you are lying. I'm not interested in attacking you, I'm interested in defending myself from attacks (as any person here) Devlet Geray (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Doubling down again.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, English is not my native language, and it may cause some problems, something may sound like doubling down. For instance, here, which was "a random example above" of my violations mentioned by Ymblanter. So, i didn't mean that these "republics" are fiction or something like this I meant that these are puppet states (марионеточные государства) (Crimea unrecognized not only by Ukraine but by the whole world. And de-facto it's a part of Russia - we cannot say that Crimea is of the same status as this republics, as they were not annexed by Russia - we should differ them, don't we?) and the word fictitious (фиктивный) was the first to come to my mind (To understand more what I meant there is such collocation as фиктивный брак which means legal registration of marriage without the intention of starting a family, but for other purposes, for example, obtaining citizenship, benefits from state or municipal services. This is close to what I meant). I agree that this is my fault that I didn't find a better word, but I just want to show that I didn't assume bad-faith Devlet Geray (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DNR and LNR belong to Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. Crimea is currently [annexed territory].My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban. (after edit-conflict). Devlet Geray's editorial behaviour is uncivil if you ask me. He reverts edits without looking if some of them are helpful or not and his edit summaries are too hostile. This suppresses useful activities of other editors and creates unnecessary conflict situations. Even here in the discussion, his comments reflect his attitude towards other editors.--Renat (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Reading what Devlet Geray has written here has violated most, if not all, of Wikipedia's pillars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ban. On the Russian Wikipedia, where he was blocked indefinitely, here on the English Wikipedia, at Wikimedia Commons, Devlet Geray is behaving aggressively, pushing the Crimean Tatar POV. You can be sure that in case of blocking, he will create sockpuppets, as it regularly does in Russian Wikipedia. So you need to monitor it to avoid damage. Каракорум (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• I didn't see any proof of the endless stream of accusations (such as "he's not interested in reliable sources" or "pushing Crimean Tatar POV" — attempts of removing soviet anti-Tatar propaganda/adding another well-sourced point of view to maintain a balanced presentation may seem "Crimean Tatar pov-pushing" on Russian Wikipedia, but I have a patroller status on Ukrainian Wikipedia). Second, it was RenatUK who deleted sourced information adding his information and after revert, instead of going to the talk-page and discuss, he decided to start an edit-war (though it was not a conflict situation at all before he started to bring the RuWiki, which was completely and for sure unrelated to the discussed topic). I agree with the fact that I shouldn't have accussed the topic-starter of vandalism/revisonism because of a mass-text deletion and had to go to the talk-page and discuss everything (as I see now he is not a vandal (as I mistakenly thought then) and has more than 50 thousand edits) Devlet Geray (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a piece of advice. Continually replying to everyone and posting isn't going to help you, in fact it's much more likely to hinder your cause and is considered bludgeoning. Also ultimately what happens on other Wikipedias is not relevant here, we're only interested in behaviour on the English language Wikipedia. If there's evidence of issues on other languages it may be taken into consideration, but it's about edits here that people are concerned about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• ok Devlet Geray (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban After communicating in this topic: Talk:Crimean Tatars/Archive 1#Devlet Geray edits--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "there the opinion of one Vozgrin, a member of the Mejlis. This is a partisan source, at best". To make it clear, Valery Vozgrin is a Russian professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences who worked at Saint Petersburg State University, the Russian-leading university, until his death. Saying that phrase at the beginning of a peaceful dicusion doesn't seem to be an intent of a constructive dicussion. Moreover, there is a whole article (Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe), fully dedicated to this topic, there is no need to repeat all these again and again in the aricle about a modern people Devlet Geray (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vozgrin is a specialist in the Scandinavic countries. His works on the Crimean Tatars are tendentious and were criticized by specialized specialists. For example, the Russian Wikipedia carried out an analysis, and after that they refused to use Vozgrin's works on the history of Crimea. Каракорум (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban Having a look over the diffs, and looking over the talk pages involved, the editor in question is clearly incapable of conversing in a civil manner at the moment. Of course, as with all bans, it should be made clear that they are welcome to request that the topic ban be lifted, if and when they are able to communicate in an effective manner, rather than continuing the incivility and edit warring. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban The provided evidences show obvious signs of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV. Plus I support additional definite block as a serious/final warning because the reported user's comments prove that he still thinks he did nothing wrong. Wario-Man ^talk 11:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Outcome

Looks like there is a consensus on this issue. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the result? Каракорум (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't go to the archive without a solution. Каракорум (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, can some uninvolved administrator look at the above fairly supporting info and make a call on this one please. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty embarrassing if this doesn't get a outcome. Can a admin please step up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

??? Каракорум (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

To prevent this from archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not closing as such, but I am providing a summary of the opinions expressed so far in the ban/block thread about Devlet Geray:

• LouisAragon — block, in addition to a six month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world.
• Ymblanter — indefinite topic ban or long-term block
• Canterbury Tail - support a block
• HistoryofIran - support indef (topic) ban
• My very best wishes - No topic ban but a brief block for incivility
• CuriousGolden - temporary block
• BD2412 - support topic ban
• Kevo327 - support indef topic ban per HistoryofIran as well as a forced “vacation”
• Renat - support ban
• Kansas Bear - support topic ban
• Каракорум  - support indef ban
• Nicoljaus - support topic ban
• EggRoll97 - support indef topic ban
• Wario-Man - support indef topic ban

Summary: Fourteen editors expressed an opinion of some kind:

• 10 favored a topic ban, 1 opposed a topic ban.
• 5 favored a block of some duration. Nobody expressed opposition to a block.
  

At present this discussion leans toward both a topic ban and a block. Please let me know of any errors in the above summary of what people said. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It appears your summary is verifiably correct. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2021 (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.

Users who are frequently and incessantly using pejorative language and WP:ATA in deletion discussions

@Carlossuarez46: and @William Allen Simpson: used pejorative terms in a recent CFD ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent ) we were involved with, namely "Delete another useless descent category (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) without any indication that "Lower Yangtze descent" is definable or meaningful. " and "That's because your premise is both absurd and useless. " Upon closer inspection these two users also have a long history of using such terminology in deletion debates even though it is specifically advised against in WP:ATA. As such I find little faith of their ability to participate in CFD with integrity. I'm only posting here because I have spoken directly to both of them about it, and they refused to even strike their offending comments, whereas a third user who used similar language has taken this exact action.

Carlossuarez46 has also indicated he will report me for canvassing and inappropriate talk page usage. I will agree to stop messaging either of them directly about matters related to this issue.

--Prisencolin (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, these highlighted comments are an example of "belittling a fellow editor", see WP:IUC. Please be kinder in your comments. A simple apology would have avoided this escalating. Fences&Windows 22:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I never called him useless; the categories are - and per WP:ATA I described why they were. He/she is personalizing a content dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Also, thanks for advising me about this discussion, because contrary to the instructions the OP did not so notify me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I indicated my intention of bringing the issue to this board to both of you a few days ago, I think that's enough. If it pleases you I have now posted the notice template to both of your talk pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

    @Prisencolin: it's not and never is. When the big box says you must notify, it means around the time you start discussion. (Most people notify immediately after, but it would be fine to post just before.) People shouldn't have to follow your contribs to know if or when you follow through with your plans in a day or two. (Obviously if an editor says something like, thanks, I will follow you contribs, you don't have to notify me again then it's fine to follow that.) And pings aren't enough even after you said you might do it a few days ago for the same reasons they aren't enough if you never said anything. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Those statements are commentary on the contributions, not the editor. Not pleasant to receive but not personal attacks, not "belittling a fellow editor", and certainly not a reason to raise steam at ANI. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that those terms weren't directed ad hominem, but the fact that they are used cast doubts on the motives of these editors.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• I would also like to highlight a larger pattern of these two editors systematically ignoring my evidence (supported by reputed scholars in the field), and relying on their own subjective judgement about a topic they know little to nothing about. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS appears to be at play.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unless you've got some better difs, I can't see this ending any other way besides "Well that wasn't all that nice, but they're not even really personal attacks, let alone anything actionable". Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Those would relate to my second concern which is the fact that they are consistently ignoring whatever reliable sources I put out. I've asked about this issue on IRC and they suggested I take that concern here too.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't know how you think that is heading towards something actionable either. I think you all just need to disengage for a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The more I look through the these users' recent history with CFD (see the sub-section), the more I realize this is actually a small part of a broader issue, which is potentially damaging to the project. I don't know whether it's an issue with the users, the CFD process or something else.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The way I see it, if your argument and sources really destroys the argument of the other two, then the CFD should clearly close in you favour and no major harm done. If the two name editors really persistently add useless comments to CFDs and are always wrong, perhaps we will take action. But we're not going to take action over two or three or even ten CFDs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
          • How would you even go about proving this though? In a discussion a few places above this one, there is a discussion concerning possible sanctions over a user’s obsessive AFD activity. It lists the discussions and outcomes of 30 nominations given by the editor. I personally have little interest in compiling this kind of data, but I do hope that some kind of increased oversight over the CFD process can come out of this notice board request.Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Prisencolin (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
            • I don't understand what you mean by "increased oversight". You've presented zero evidence of an actual problem with CFD. As always, since it's a consensus discussion and not a vote, if someone's arguments are not persuasive e.g. because they ignored sources, then they will largely be ignored. If someone is wasting people's time by making them read an excessive number of useless comments, then perhaps they can be sanctioned e.g. topic banned from CFD. But you will need sufficient evidence that this is a problem, which is either more than 3 discussions, or extremely excessive participation (i.e. a lot of comments) in 3 those 3 discussions. Frankly, having looked more closely inspired by RevelationDirect's comment below, your participation seems to be the bigger problem since you're coming awfully close to WP:Bludgeoning considering you seem to have replied to nearly every !vote. While most of your comments are short, it is unlikely there is something so unique about each comment that you need to repeat yourself 8 times or whatever. So I'm even more perplexed what sort of increased oversight you want. You could just stop posting to that discussion rather than asking for your actions to be restricted. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
              • In the CFD discussions, there is often a healthy tension between subject matter experts in a topic area and those more familiar with the categorization processes and notability generally which I think is what's being described above. Rather than being a negative, those differing but complimentary viewpoints generally produce better results for the encyclopedia's categorization. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
              • @Nil Einne, I had to repeat myself numerous times because the same few editors would make the same remarks that were untrue, and did not bother reading my previous replies to other comments about why they were untrue. Namely, in this discussion, William Simpson made a !vote saying "delete both per nom, not an ethnicity", I then (after a few other comments) presented evidence that it is considered an ethnicity. In the follow up CFD, Simpson reiterated the same sentiment he had before, to which I also correct him with another example, and he does not reply further. This kind of stonewalling is why I'm rather frustrated with this particular user, and if you look at his talk page it appears that others have had issues with him as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Misc. conduct in CFD

To further illustrate examples of questionable conduct at CFD please refer to: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_4#Category:One-thousanders. A user put up an earnest question about a series of technical classifications for mountains used in the sport of mountaineering, and Carlossuarez46 inserted his opinion that they should all be deleted as he believed it to be some arbitrary measure invented by editors. This was apparently done without WP:BEFORE finding out more about the subject matter. I believe admin action should be taken if he continues down this pattern of behavior.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, Prisencolin has been busy posting a WP:VERBOSE attack here overnight, the same as much of her/his "discussion". This is abusive.

1. Obviously, I've A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines; I've been involved in writing them for ~16 years, and am a former developer who was involved in creating Categories for Discussion.
2. Carlos has been active for even longer, and is a long-time administrator.
3. Prisencolin recreated a nearly identical category after deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent, resurrecting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Category:People of Shanghainese descent.
4. That is against WP:CSD#G4 policy.
5. We don't categorize descent of people "by city or region". Descent is a WP:CATNAME#Heritage category. The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged. The place of birth or emigration status of ancestors is even less notable.
6. I was the original editor of the Heritage and WP:CATNAME#Residence subsections of our guideline.
7. Prisencolin is abusing Wikipedia review processes (both here and at CfD) as method of attack, both personal and procedural.

Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I posted the discussion to WP:HELPDESK and another editor suggests that my participation in the discussion is not even particularly long to warrant WP:WALLOFTEXT objections (he did suggest it could be WP:BLUDGEON based on my insistence to reply to everything, but I think that's just a result of my being the only person to defend niche content on an obscure board.

1. Nothing to say, you have both worked on the project for a very long time for sure.
2. --
3. It's clearly not G4 because it's intended to be a much broader category than the first one, a fact that you summarily ignored when I pointed out to you
4. The admins appear to agree at this moment seeing as they G4 categories in CFD all the time. Given that I was the only one to work on the category, I requested WP:G7 deletion, in order to focus on a WP:DRV which was recommended by the closing admin when I spoke to him direclty. It is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING because DRV is a widely used path of negotiation.
5. "We do not classify based on descent of people "by city or region" is literally just a made up policy that you insist on re-stating over and over in these discussions; it does not exist in the guideline you linked (If such a policy exists somewhere I apologize for misunderstanding and will remove this statement). Such categories do actually exist as well, I may add. e.g. Category:People of Catalan descent, Category:Bavarian emigrants to the United States. This classification is also not exclusive to people who's place of birth is Shanghai, so that part doesn't apply. --Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why we're arguing the WP:CFD over here as well. I wish to redirect attention back to the hasty and uninformed deletion of content performed at CFD. Perhaps they have been working at CFD for so long that they have become too accustomed to using their intuition rather than search for answered when a challenge confront them.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Prisencolin is out of line; he or she is posting on CFD participants' talk pages, in their user space, all to forward some agenda that is specifically targeted to anyone who disagrees with him or her at CFD. This has got to stop. Will someone uninvolved talk sense to them before they cause more problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I will attempt to explain my recent talk page messages to the best of my ability as I believe Carlossuarez is conflating a few things, using the chronology I found using the advanced contribution search. The first message I sent in relation to the CFD was an attempt on 28 January to get an explanation from User:Good Olfactory about the closing of Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. Soon after I messaged User:Marcocapelle, who had nominated the CFD, about re-creating the category now that I added more information to a header article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong , Marcocapelle did not directly reply to the new evidence, but stated the CFD had already closed. I then went ahead and created a new category on that same day, and the category was put up for CFD (and not tagged for G4 directly I may add) by Marcocapelle a while later on 5 February. At this point I messaged him about the nomination again, and asked why the new one did not satisfy inclusion criteria even though I had worked extensively on it, and he gave a similar non-response. During the course of the CFD the two users who were mentioned in the initial ANI post made !votes on the CFD, and I took issue with the way they phrased their comments. I messaged both about this issue, and asked that they strike the comment I perceived as uncivil (per WP:RUC) but did not get a reply immediately. On 7 February a third user, User:RevelationDirect, used similar language in their !vote, so I spoke to them about it, and they agreed to strike the comment on that same day, and thanked me for taking it to their talk page, rather than the CFD discussion, thus implying that my course of action was correct. I went to User:Good Olfactory about my intentions to go forward with a DRV. William Allen Simpson replied back on his talk page, choosing not to comply with my request. I informed Carlos Suarez and William Allen Simpson about an impending ANI notice on 8 February, and got a reply from Suarez which I interpret as WP:BAITING ("Go ahead. You will not intimidate me. ") and he suggested that I may be breaking WP:CANVASSing rules. Carlos Suarez alludes to my activity on his userspace, and that regards a message I posted on his essay User talk:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories, in which I express concern over his appearance as an authority on academic disciplines which study ethnic identity and descent, where he doesn't appear to have any credentials in this field. This was not related to any specific discussion, but rather I felt the need to do this because he will often post this essay to CFD threads. Anyone who wants to review my claims can see my contribs filtered by User Talk space. I will also refrain from directly posting to anyone's talk page for at least a week.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In general, it's best to keep the conversation in CFD so we can all follow it. (The one on my talk page was fine since it wasn't on the substantive category discussion.) It looks like you were on every talk page of anyone who !voted, correct? - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There were only 6 !voters and I think I messaged 5 about their wording. To be honest I'm having trouble recalling the events between the two CFD's.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That must have been very frustrating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• (involved editor) This concerns a regular content discussion, it does not belong at ANI at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• (involved editor) I'll add some more context with this discussion on my talk page that I originally thought was from Carlossuarez46 but was from Prisencolin. For background, I was concerned that every !vote at the Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent discussion being met with a lengthy but generic rebuttal from Prisencolin and I made a (since stricken) snarky comment in reply. I remain concerned with overly lengthy posts, as evidenced above, but will defer to others on the ANI. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  If you feel someone is Bludgeoning the discussion, then just say something like "please take care to avoid WP:Bludgeoning". This is more likely to be useful than a snarky comment. Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sound advice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

At the same time this is also a good advice to User:Prisencolin, namely please avoid bludgeoning. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Forum shopping by Prisencolin

Prisencolin started an RFC on the Talk page of the nominated category. Rather than a short statement, it is yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've closed WP:RFCNOT. Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is not about "Renaming categories," which is prohibited by by WP:RFCNOT, it's about creating a definition for said category with help from actual experts in history and geography. (this should be obvious if one actually read the text of the RFC...) The outcome is intended to have no bearing on the CFD. One again, you are ignoring everything I have to say..--Prisencolin (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it's forum shopping, but it certainly does not seem productive to start such a conversation there since, if the CFD is successful, the associated category talk page would also be deleted so you would lose any of the input you are trying to gather.- RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If you read the RFC, you can see that I was trying to find a way to move the text back into the CFD (which is commonly done). Also, talk pages of deleted pages can be permanently restored (eg Talk:Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence/Archive_1 (although now that I think about it it may only be there because the admin forgot to delete it...) .—Prisencolin (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Support for racism in category names by Prisencolin

Prisencolin's most recent comments are beyond the pale:

We do not remove content that can be construed as racist WP:NOTCENSORED and all social science (and science in general), is going to be biased in some way. Some fields (like IQ research) can be criticized more frequently for their biases, but I don’t think that’s a reason to exclude WP:POV depictions of said research on the encyclopedia.

— —-Prisencolin (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

speaking of racism...—Prisencolin (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond the pale means "bounds of morality, good behaviour or judgment in civilized company." That there was a pale in Ireland, and a pale in Russia, and there have been others, does not mean this expression has or ever has had anything to do with racism. (The Pale is the monthly newsletter of the SCA Middle Kingdom where I'm located.)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Harrassment by Prisencolin

@Prisencolin: should be talked to about his or her behavior such as [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2021_February_11&type=revision&diff=1006455344&oldid=1006453101%7Cad hominin attacks]] since retracted and apparently trying to impersonate me on another editor's talk page. [[30]]. He or she retracted the first and corrected the second, but this editor's behavior - originating in a content dispute - moved into wikilawyering (I hope this editor realizes that he or she is misciting various policies or accusing me of violating essays), and has now moved beyond that. See our policy of Wikipedia:Harassment where "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't get this behavior; it's repeated on many of the people who disagree with this editor on content matters and this editor attacks editors about their knowledge, opinions, and credibility. I ask that it stop and that some admin make it stop. Whether there is an element of racism or not as posited above I haven't fathomed but the behavior - regardless of its motivation - must stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why I was misidentified by another user as you, it was a legitimate mistake in not signing my comment, and I further have no idea why you are accusing me of impersonating you... My complaint, which I have tried to illustrate on this board is that you and probably others on CFD are carelessly... no let's use a more neutral term, just voting for deletion given your own opinion with WP:BEFORE carrying out the checks. Admittedly BEFORE is a guideline for AFD, and for nominations, but I feel it should still apply for voting. CFD resembles Wikimobocracy due to the small number of users involved, as the high proportion of categories deleted (from a cursory glance). Further, it almost feels like a bit of a trap when an editor brings up a category for renaming, and the category immediately gets voted for deletion even though that was no their intention. Perhaps Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion should be spun-off. It's not for me to say whether it was harassment or not, but so far no one seems to what I did was otherside the lines of civility other than yourself.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason you were misidentified is likely because you forgot to sign, but did link to Carlossuarez46's talk page at the end of your comment. [31] I agree you clearly weren't trying to impersonate anyone, but an important reminder why you should always make sure you sign. If people are voting in CFD, that's a problem. But AFAIK, you've presented no evidence people are voting at CFD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly why I misidentified the poster. FWIW, I would have taken the same corrective action regardless of which editor brought it to my attention. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing against consensus by Prisencolin

Closed as keep Prisencolin is an involved party, and therefore not eligible to close. This is currently at 7 delete (most of them speedy G4), to 1 Keep (Prisencolin).

Fortunately, it was promptly reverted.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there, maybe a misclick (I've never used XFDcloser so I have no idea what it's like). But while closing would clearly be inappropriate, I don't see any reason to worry about a close reverted the same minute it was performed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:XFDcloser, I think a quick close could easily be performed in two clicks very close together. Probably especially easy on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This was clearly accidental, as third parties have noted. Why is this even being reported to this board?--Prisencolin (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not possible to "misclick" XFDcloser — it requires at least 2 clicks to operate, and a final click to execute. The problem is this removed the discussion from various groups and pages. The revert in place did not restore them. Clever method to limit discussion, and nevertheless a problem caused by a problematic editor.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Category:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent has been closed as delete.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@William Allen Simpson: You're completely wrong. See Special:Contributions/Nil Einne. I should have trusted my instincts and the documentation. If you use the quick close, only 2 clicks are required, and these are very close together as I said in my first followup above. Basically you click quick close then options appear below it and you click one, and then by the time you managed to click abort, you find you've made 30 edits you need to revert if you stupidly chose a CFD with lots of categories for discussion. I guess you've never used a smart phone or tablet, but believe me this would be very easy to do accidentally on one. A little harder on a device without a touch screen, still not that hard. If Prisencolin did not properly revert their close, you should talk to them about it rather than wasting ANI time on stupidness like this. There's no evidence this is anything but an accident, your lack of knowledge of how the XFDcloser works, and how people use devices not withstanding. (Yes I'm incredibly frustrated because I just wasted 10 minutes and messed up Wikipedia because I decided to trust you but you were wrong. Okay yes I chose a terrible example to try this on, and should have killed my internet connection before trying but meh.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are correct that I've never used a smart phone or tablet to edit wikipedia. However, the rest of your post is entirely speculative. As you mention, even a quick close requires both a selection of a pulldown menu and a minimum of 2 clicks. There is no likelihood of accident.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify I only had and have one option when I open the quick close menu, quick keep. I assume it's because I'm not an admin but I'm not sure. Maybe if you do have quick delete as an option you do have a third click for that option, again no idea. It's fairly beside the point since keep was what was done. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• More importantly, Prisencolin should not have been using XFDcloser on a discussion where s/he was participating. That's unlikely to be an accident. Edit is at the far right margin, the easiest to select.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Prisencolin view on reliable sources

Followup to Prisencolin's original posting:

Please tell me that Oxford University Press and the Los Angeles Times are "absurd and useless." I may be inclined to believe you if you argued they are absurd and useless leftist propaganda machines.

— Prisencolin (talk)

This section of diatribe reveals possible political motivations for relentless attacks on fellow editors. It is congruent with the expressed support for racism in category names.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson's "inappropriate" AFD nomination

As much as I'd like to avoid escalating this conflict, it doesn't sit well with me that an AFD nomination Simpson made on content relating to the above controversies has been referred to by a third party as "inappropriately suggest[ing] [the article] was created in bad faith." The nomination, has thus far not had any other delete votes but also has three keeps (including myself), as well as two other comments from non voting parties suggesting that the nomination was based on flawed logic.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Outside interference with MfD

There appears to be an organized campaign to get spas to !vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Could someone please take a look at it? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon, thanks – the disruption and canvassing concerns are why I had semi-protected the page, the draft and EC-protected some articles in this area on 13 February 2021; see the log entries of that day at WP:GS/COVID19. Theoretically, the canvassing should not have an impact on the closing of the deletion discussion, as policy-based arguments are supposed to outweigh a canvassed non-policy-compliant majority. I'm not sure if there is anything else left to be done administratively; it seems the best approach is to wait for the discussion to be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The same editors are probably also going to interfere with a newly-opened RfC [opened as a matter of course to have a neutral and well advertised discussion] (although those editors are somehow managing to shoot themselves in the foot even more - at some point they won't have a foot left to shoot at, I'm afraid - by making claims that notifying WP:AN; WP:FTN or WP:COVID about said RfC is somehow canvassing...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis

• Informed analysis (talk · contribs)
• All of these IPs: Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64
• Back in 2019: Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21

I have seen this user charge into GAs and FAs and rewrite bits of them, introducing errors or going against consensus. To try and forestall this happening on Genesis (band), I decided to rewrite the entire lead from scratch this afternoon and left a talk thread here to try and resolve the dispute and a constructive note here, only to get reverted with "I do not care if it is FA if is is wrong." (which misses the point I was trying to make that charging in full pelt to a GA or FA where other editors have done lots of work, means you might get blowback and have to discuss changes) and putting grammatical errors in. I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring.

Elsewhere I see him edit-warring on Katharine Hepburn, saying "Leave this alone. No one else object months last year or weeks now. Leave it alone." and on Aerosmith, saying "I do not understand why the other editor appears to have no concise writing skills and insists on re-adding repetitive and obvious text. Do not do again." which suggests an ownership problem, and his talk page has a bunch of warnings for edit warring and generally being disruptive.

Can somebody else try and have a chat with this user? I feel like I've got a sore head. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Four other editors have either implicitly or explicity agreed with the additions I made in the Genensis lead. Look at the history. For example, why is only the fact Invsible Touch had 5 top 5 singles in the US mentioned. Where any of those successful anywhere else? Turns out only the titletrack and Land of Confusion were. The cherry-picking of only specific high success many editors do is in fact a contravention of the point of view policies. Why is mentioning the popularity of Mama and another signficant song wrong? People want to know some of their popular songs. Why is saying which was their first top 10 ablum in the US was X wrong and what their highest platinum level in the US was wrong? That was stated in several other articles.

I should add some of the text which Richie cited as wrong was not text I added. If it was wrong before I added other stuff why was it in there?Informed analysis (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If you analyze at the text I deleted there you would indeed see the old text was repetitive and inconcise. The text had Aerosmith repeatedly going on more and more extensive tours. The Aerosmith lead is the longest of any lead on any band I tried to add a key fact of their original breaktrough that is provien by the chart info and dates - that Dream On was re-released 2 years later after Sweet Emotion mde the top 40 and then became their first huge hit, and that editor has reversed in 4 or 5 times even though I explained my rationale several times. He prefers to have info in about rollercoasters and video games. He is exhibiting unobjective ownership. No one else expressed any concern.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis, That is not the point I was trying to make. My point is you seem to get angry and upset when people disagree with you and bark at multiple editors not to change stuff. That is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Richie - you made massive reversions without thinking or acknowledging some of the text may have been useful. You were angry when you made the massive reversions. You did not make any collaborative effort. You should be restricted from making massive reversions. That is the truth - I think a read of the history will show that - you blindly added back in text that I had already explained in my changes was wrong .Informed analysis (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not correct. If you look at the statistics for Genesis, you will see a number of editors who have worked on the article besides myself, including LowSelfEstitle, RoderickSilly, Joefromrandb and MrMarmite. As far as I'm aware, we've all edited the article at the same time without any issues, and I've had no cause to complain about any of their edits, nor vice versa. The only person who seems to have a problem is you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You inserted text saying a certain album was their first to chart in the UK when it was in fact their second. You also inserted text saying they had success in mainland Europe first when the only country the album had charted in was Italy (at number 1). Admit your error. If I made an error in something, I will admit I did. Of course, if you are adding text saying which their first to chart in the UK was, why would we not add text saying which their first to hit the top 10 in the US was?Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have asked Informed analysis to loosen their grip on the Bryan Adams bio, and I warned them that this edit summary was unacceptable, telling others to stop editing, which demonstrated WP:OWNership issues. I have had a few very spirited jousting matches with Informed analysis regarding how much detail was appropriate for the lead section of musician biographies (I argue for streamlined prose and less detail) one of which can be seen in the Pat Benatar editing history. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet and others just completely revert with no discussion large amounts of text that I had gradually inserted over weeks or months with no one objecting, including by cutting/reduced clearly overly detailed text on tours, record companies and members, and Binksternet and some of those others think that is fine and appropriate behaviour fro them to undertake?? Why? Read the history - Binksternet exhbits excessive, totally uncollaborative behavior over the Pat Benatar article. THe Def Leppard page noted above is one where I had carefully found ways to cut out less important text in order to add relevant text. Why is whether a video was one of the first played on MTV important to the overall impact of a band? It is not. Statement of greatest success "from early 80s to 90s" was partly wrong as they did not have hardly any success from 80 to 82 and is obvious when they read about the 3 albums from 83, 87 and 91. Why is simply saying they had 7 hits in the US from an ablum (which was wrong - a number 80 peak is not a hit - that is biased) adequate without saying how those tracks did in any other countries? It is not - I added key info to which Def Leppard single off Hysteria had actually had success in the most other countries or the only one that was a big hit in the UK.Informed analysis (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis has also made a few thousand edits logged out, working on the same articles as when logged in. See Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21.

Starting in September 2019, Bettydaisies and Larry Hockett tangled with Informed analysis at the Gregory Peck bio. They might have some thoughts about the behavior of this user. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Binkersternet, I gradually added text over several weeks on the Benatar article - no one had any concerns - he then deletes every single word I added - that sure is collaborative. That is warring! He could have reviewed the text and deleted or reworded text he felt was truly wrong. I keep in as much of the text already but reduce its length to more concise/cut out repetitive and then I add informaation that many people seem to have found useful. What song and what country was her first top 10 song. What was her first top 10 song in the US? What was her highest charting single in the US? Stuff that is found in other leads but that Biskernet just did not want to include it here. What albums were her first big hits in other countries. As I full illustrate in the explanation of changes to Benatar segmnets, his text made no sense on which Benatar's biggest album was and suggested her success in Britain ccurred at a different time than it did. It was vague and misleading. As well, many leads give 2 or 3 lines about the band's or artist's early years/origins - for Genenis it gives needless detail on my members/organizers; I added what Benatar did in school and in her early 20s, right from the main body - Binksternet just deleted in without discussion.Informed analysis (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Further regarding Binksternet, for Alanis Moressitte's main article (not lead) I gradually added fully referenced chart information, sometimes aggregated i.e. "made top 10 in several countries in Europe" for her entire career over the period of weeks. I pointed out how she how her 4 number one singles in Canada had been number one for something like 30 weeks in a single year. The original article mostly mentioned the US and was wildly inconsistent, i.e giving all chart positions for some minor hits later in her career whereas for signficant hits early on it gave virtually none. So, I had added a larger amount of info so that the article was completely consistent like an encyolpedic article should be. No one had a single objection. He just came in a month latter and reverted every single item of text I had added. Every single item. Clearly that is warring, uncollaborative, acting angerly, and possessive. He should be santioned even moreso than myself. Same with Ritchie.Informed analysis (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I have encountered this user regarding Peck’s page. They expanded if, but users on Talk: Gregory Peck thought it much too bloated. I made substantial revisions to Gregory Peck to improve its readability based on the concerns. The user expressed on my talk page unhappiness at this, stating I “began to destroy” “the most thorough” assessment of Peck’s work ever written.

My personal feedback would be that civility should be kept in mind - as well as syntax and professional language. WP employs summary-style to write informative, digestible biographies. The relevancy of the primary subject to information is paramount. The most prominent issues here are struggles with WP:OWNERSHIP and collaboration. Constructive editing cannot be done without the user having a thorough and ensured understanding of the latter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've found this editor impossible to deal with, in that they're just not interested in abiding by WP:NOR. After clashing with them over this issue at Hard rock, I've seen the editor rewrite leads and article text at other GAs (the Who, the Rolling Stones) where their main aim seems to be to present a more international picture of chart success than just mentioning the UK and US markets. Which would be fine as long as the sources supported that, but most band biographies and books on 1960s and '70s rock music do not discuss a song or album's chart performance in, say, Australia and Canada. Wish that they did.

So, most of these changes at the Who and the Rolling Stones will have to be undone. But I get the feeling that other editors are (like me) holding back until they've got the energy to deal with what most likely will be another head-to-head confrontation, because Informed analysis makes it an issue of personal opinion between themselves and any editor who challenges them – when it's not that, it's about a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The chart statistics I inserted are completely accurate - in some articles I added them to the body first; in others they are from body or from the Discography page on the artist or the page on a specific song. Nothing has to be redone. It is amazing how every different lead on different artists has totally different level of information - some only state singles, some only state albums, some extra short, Aerosmith extra long talking about Rollercoasters and cultural phenonmon without any reference at all. One person says 5 paragraphs should be used, another says 4, another says 3. In every case, I try to include as much as the original text that is there as possible respecting what someone else earlier found important. They should be more similar and when you read all the differnt ones it is like what is going onhere. Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis: Once again you're sidestepping around the pertinent issue – that is, whether the additions are supported by sources in the article, or whether they're original research in the context of the article because the information is unsourced. You're just choosing to focus on their accuracy and, as you see it, the need for such information.

In the lead at the Who – through your contributions and those of an IP user, admittedly – we currently say that "My Generation" "went to number two in the UK and Australia, number three in Canada and the top ten in parts of Europe"; there's no source for these details, and they don't appear in the main body, sourced or otherwise. Same situation for "Substitute" and "I'm a Boy" being top-five hits in the Netherlands, "Pictures of Lily" and "Happy Jack" going top five in "several countries", "Jack" hitting number one in Canada; and for "I Can See for Miles" being a top-ten hit in Canada. It continues in the lead – Tommy as "the first of nine straight top ten albums in the US and Canada", inclusion of Canadian chart success of "Pinball Wizard" and "See Me, Feel Me", The Who by Numbers being "their fifth straight top five album in France". Nowhere in the 1964–1978 section of the article is any of this non-UK and -US chart success discussed.

A lead section is supposed to summarise main points from the article. The lead's therefore been compromised by the inclusion of unsourced information, which amounts to original research; and it means that the article fails the Good Article criteria, specifically: 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections ..., 2c it contains no original research ... After Ritchie333 reverted your first batch of changes, in January, none of this original research was there.

Just because your additions are "accurate" and the information can be found at the artist's discography doesn't mean they belong, and it certainly doesn't get around the WP:NOR and GA criteria issues. So of course they have to be redone or removed if the article's to retain its GA status. And to echo a theme voiced by other editors in this thread – and despite your constant protests to the contrary – no one's going to thank you for compromising the quality of GAs and FAs, and you are in no way collaborative by continually ignoring warnings and other concerns raised on your talk page over the years. You're either wilfully ignoring WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and the like, not to mention WP:BRD with regard to working with other editors, or it's your competence that's the issue. And Ritchie and Binksternet are excellent collaborative editors, by the way.

Your 7–9 February edits at the Beach Boys show you're doing the same to the lead there. You've not added any sources to support the information on the band's Canadian, Australian and mainland European chart achievements. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I inserted ALL the relevant chart information with exact references into the Alanis Morisette, Pat Benetar, Foreigner, Rush, Bryan Adams, Abba, Journey and some other articles - go look at them. Then Binkersnet reverted ALL my additions of that to the Alanis M article three or more times, and refused to allow me to add anything at all; and deleted my addition to the lead of the Pat Benetar article 4 or 5 times. In Hard Rock my additions were mainly to the body and they were deleted. Due to Binksternet and a couple others, I gave up spending a week or more adding all the references to the body before adding things to the lead as it would just get deleted so I just went straight to the lead using information all found at the discography page for the artist or the page for a song or album.Informed analysis (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Hard Rock above, that article had random references to the chart positions that certain songs had reached, such as No. 12 for Don't Fear the Reaper and several others. I added the chart positions for some of the acknowledged agree-upon most integral early hard rock songs - Born to Be Wild, Girl, You Really Got Me, etc. and Baracudda by Heart. The other editor just blindly reverted what I added without any explanation - that is edit warring. I asked the editor to explain why the chart positions for certain songs was fine to include but not for more important songs and he did not respond. I added references to songs by certain artists who had no songs mentioned - the songs are listed on external lists of all-time best or most important hard rock songs and he deleted the names of the songs. Sounds uncolaborative. Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My frustrations are similar to the above. After he started synthesizing conclusions from movie critics over and over again (example here), I tried (and failed) to explain WP:SYNTH to him (on the Peck talk page, his user talk page and my user talk page). In hindsight, I could have provided more detailed explanations and showed more patience, but I was frustrated after the IP irregularities became apparent and most of my attempts to explain were met with deflection. (Example: Part of the edit summary for the SYNTH edit above says "go in a delete such statements from all other articles".) Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Another editor at the Peck page kept telling me I should add the exact quotes of the movie review, so I did. Larry kept saying, the the reviews of 1 editor or 2 editors do not represent all reviews of the time period...so I looked up virtually eveyone available and for recent decades focused on 8 or 9 most well-known sources. I bascially did what 2 other editors directed me to do. Some people told me they thought it was an excellent read - there are books (Christopher Tookey) that specifly do that. If you read the point of view guidelines, simply including the quote of one reviewer on one actor's performance in a movie should not be allowed as that is not presented a broad perspective.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Issues with synthesis (such as saying “Critics agree that ..." when no source describes such agreement) were brought to your attention about fifteen months ago. I'm disheartened because there is still not much evidence that you've attempted to understand the guideline. We work all the time with honest editors who have genuine misunderstandings, but when you respond to these IP address concerns by saying you forgot to log in a couple times, that is going to create a certain distrust that makes people lose patience. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Hockett - as I have said then and above - why is simply stating the opinion of one critic is isolation proper point of view?? It is not. It is suggesting that that one critic's statement is better than everyones elses. I got heck for just stating one critics opinion on other pages and even at Peck's. That is why I gathered quotes from 12 or 15 critics AND included the exact key part of the quotes PLUS links to the actual webiste, where availabe, and then said "The majority of reviews were positive citing such things as X or X", and then including the most interesting quotes AND allowing them to link directly to all the quotes. The I said "the few negative reviews focussed on X with one saying...." I cannot see how in the world that is wrong compared to someone just including the comment of one reviewer who someone simply decided to be the one they include. I explained this all to you 4 or 5 times in 2019.Informed analysis (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis, I think you're missing the point Larry Hockett is making. I haven't reviewed the article, but from what you've just said it sounds like you're making an unsourced assertion about 'the majority of reviews'. If you collect a bunch of individual critics' comments about a piece of work, they can be used to support assertions about those individual critics' opinions, but presumably none of them say anything about what the majority of critics say, and thus they can't be used to support an assertion about what the majority of critics say. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

regarding inclusion of only one critics opinion of movies, here is text from wikipedia's article on wikipedia:

"Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[95] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article. This is known as a neutral point of view (NPOV)." This is why I included quotes of numerous critics both from the time a movie was released and in recent decades, not just one quote or viewpoint from one critic that so many other people feel is appropriate, in contravention of wikipedia's principles.Informed analysis (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis I'll try to explain this again. The problem is not using more than one critic. The point is that if you have a bunch of sources, in each of which an individual expresses their own opinion, you can't go from that to say what the majority opinion is - that's where the WP:OR comes in, you are performing research by sampling a bunch of reviews, and determining that that's what the majority view is. I hope that's clearer. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

TO EVERYONE: I challenge you to just read the history on Genesis (band) to see Ritchie's methods as he is the one launching this review. You will see he just massively deleted text I added whereas I tried to explain my changes. I challenge you to read the history on Pat Benatar with Binksternet - he was the warring one whereas I tried to reach middle-ground.Informed analysis (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I admit that I have not read any articles involved and stopped reading Informed analysis's comments above after seeing that this editor considers that getting to number one in Italy was not success in mainland Europe. Anyone who doesn't know that Italy is in mainland Europe cannot be considered qualified to be involved in writing a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I will point out that Italy was the only country it charted in - it did not chart in single other European country. That is not "success in Europe." Success is Europe means at least 3 or 4 countries. I wonder how many of you seemingly Americans consider an album going numer one in Canada but not even charting in the US "success in North America" Even when a song has success in 3 or so countries in Europe, people have tended to write "parts of Europe" or "Scandinavia" if that was were the countries were?Informed analysis (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To everyone - I propose a vote of each person who reviews all the above comments - read the current leads on the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Eagles and Genesis, and tell me if you do not think they are an excellent summary (all at length that is still less than Aeorsmith's and the one of Bette Davis - which some other person was trying to add more length too) of those band's careers. You could add Rush to that. No one has objected at to the Rush lead for a few months - but what if Binksternet or Ritchiee suddendly don't like it and revert everything from months ago? I guess that would be fine? For some of these bands, old lead did not even mention they were in the Rock Hall of Fame - how was that not in there???Informed analysis (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Everyone - look at Beach Boys lead - on December 8 editor ILIL rigigdly reversed additions I made listing some of the band's top charting hits (previous version only mentioned 1 or 2 songs) and despite myself explaining my additions (and deletions to make other things more concise) he repeatedly reverted even my moderate, half-way additions. He was showing rigid ownership. I gave up. On Feb. 7 I decided to just add TWO of their number one US ongs to the lead (which is done in many, many other leads). Now someone else (Merjin2), totally on their own, I swear this is not a co-worker (204) or friend of mine, has gone in on their own and added more info on their top charting songs. Clearly, other people agree with adding more on important songs, their chart positions, including outside the US. The problem here is mostly editors who feel they alone own a particular band's article refusing to allow someone like me to objectively analyze the situation and to add other useful information that a vast majority of people have not opposed and in some cases are adding back in themselves. Wikipedia needs to focus on the quality of the leads, and making them consistent which is clearly, in any objective analysis, what I have been doing.Informed analysis (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Logged out edits with Toronto IPs

Informed analysis has acknowledged that they "forgot to log in a couple times", but the problem is much bigger than that. The range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 has made a few hundred edits, and some were clear violations of WP:MULTIPLE, for instance this sequence from yesterday in which Ritchie333 reverts a series of edits from Informed analysis, which is quickly reverted by 2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:69EF:EFDF:8697:2E80. Back in October–December 2019, Informed analysis made a concerted effort to fool others into thinking that there were two different people involved in the Gregory Peck article, when it was simply Informed analysis editing logged out using Toronto IPs of the range 204.40.194.0/21. Informed analysis referred to this other editor as "204" in the following edit summaries: "this addition of editor 204 from famous writer Shipman seems useful so I am re-inserting", "I discussed this with editor 204", "204 - these changes show the exact text you need to insert to do it properly..." and "204 - the soft break template shows up in red..." This is bad faith falsification, using two accounts to take advantage of other editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

204 was a friend at work who I used to talk to about making changes. She would make the herself. I could not control what she was doing and aver a year ago she lost interest in doing any more edits and since we now work from home I have not talked to her in ages. I don't know what else to say. This does not excuse Binksternet's repeated huge reversions without working collaboratively or trying to meet halfway as is explicity shown in Pat Benetar and Alanis Morrisette.Informed analysis (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not creative writing class. You and the 204s have the same edit summary style: "the changes I made are totally valid" and "this change is totally valid". Same with you and the 2607:FEA8 IPs: "paragraphing" and "paragraphing". You are all the same person. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's because at work our supervisor and entire unit used the term totally valid and discussed changes to reports we prepared to go to the minister has valid or non-valid. We talked about using that term in our wikipedia edits.Informed analysis (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)th

Color me disbelieving. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Gee, are you going to accuse me of being Merjin2 at the Beach Boys and Floydian at Genesis too? They are both explicilty agreeing with my changes. And in numerous cases various editors went in and corrected minor errors that I may have left behind, obviously generally agreeing with my changes and trying to assist in their implementatin/finalizationInformed analysis (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see Binksternet or Ritchie defending their mass, repeated reversions, refusal to collaborate, and ignoring the explanations I provided. That is because their changes are completely undefendable and they acted in totally inappropriate, edit-warring fashion.Informed analysis (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As you can see at the top of the thread, I wrote I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring and that's why I left a lengthy message on the talk page to resolve the dispute. You also asserted I did not discuss my revert on The Who as mentioned by JG66 upthread; which is not true. You also said Floydian supported your changes on Genesis (band) which is not true. If you continue saying things without backing them up with evidence, people are just going to tune out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example where the 2607.fea IP accidentally replied to a discussion between me and IA on my UTP (before deleting the reply). Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Good example, and the person says they have more "contacts" who agree with them, obviously referring to the IPs working with IA in violation of WP:MULTIPLE. And then a few edits later on your talk page, the IP editor continues the charade by implying they are not IA, which is completely false. Purposely violating WP:MULTIPLE for more than a year now. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No substantial talkpage participation

It appears to me that Informed analysis is mistaking this board for a content discussion forum, having saved all this discussion up for years with no talkpage participation, least of all on a bunch of GAs and FAs. Given that the wall of discussion above appears to be in lieu of any article talkpage participation on any of these articles since ... click, click, click ... I give up, at least since last November, I can understand why editors are complaining. IA, you are expected to use talkpages to explain your edits and to gain participation. Your complete absence of such engagement is disruptive and contrary to the editing ethos of this site. I see a whopping 62 talkpage edits on 3902 total edits, apparently with no talkpage participation at all for years. No wonder people are irritated. In short, stop posting here, go to talkpages and make use of them, and make no major changes without gaining consensus first, most of all on high-profile articles. If you return to jumping into articles with big boots and no discussion, you will face sanctions Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding - it is clear that in most articles there is only one editor (the one who feels they are the owner) objecting to the additions/reductions I made, often gradually over weeks; sometimes they only objected several weeks later. As I provided evidence of, some people explicitly and others implicitly agree with the specific and type of additions I made. In most cases, the talk pages have had no discussions in a long time - probably only the one objector would even check there and, given their obvious evidence of rigidly reverted any changes, they would have disagreed on the talk page anyhow. I note that two to three years ago on some webpages I engaged in talk about a few article and got agreement from the only person who commented. Then 1.5 years later someone else came in and changed everything. I objected at first but then gave up. Even the persion who had originally agreed with my approach changed their opinion.Informed analysis (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be under the fundamental misapprehension that you don't need to explain anything. Your edits are being disputed. It's 2021. Use talkpages - this isn't optional. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal : 1RR restriction

I have to admit my patience is now being frayed. Despite working with MetalDiablo666 on the lead at Genesis (band) yesterday, and carefully documenting our findings on the talk page, cross-referencing the MOS where necessary, and despite Acroterion leaving a "seriously, use talk pages" message, I come in today to find Informed analysis has reverted without discussion again.

So I would like to propose : Informed analysis is restricted to the one revert rule. That means they must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Violations of this can be enforced by blocks. Logging out to evade scrutiny and attempt to avoid the restriction can also be enforced by blocks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

IT SURE IS AMAZING THAT RITCHIE REFUSES TO DISCUSS WHETHER A BAND'S ONLY NUMER ONE SONG IN COUNTRY SHOULD BE MENTIONED. OR IF THEIR FIRST SONG TO GO TOP TEN IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES SHOULD BE MENTIONED. THIS SITE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT QUALITY INFO NOT ABOUT ONE MAN AND MAYBE ONE OTHER PERSION IMPLEMENTING THEIR UNIQUE VIEWS IN A CERTAIN LEAD. He's like Donald Trump spreading false information or news.Informed analysis (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Ritchie333. This is a good first step to increase article stability and to minimize the frustrations of those dealing with the behavior here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As a minimal measure, given IA's unwillingness to abide by or seek consensus, or discuss his changes with other editors in a meaningful way (rather than talking at them), and his continually branding every dissenter as the bad guy when other editors have merely been protecting article content that's been reviewed and, by implication, agreed upon by consensus, and/or ensuring that articles aren't bloated by the inclusion of chart data. This user has had multiple warnings on his talk page about original research and adding unsourced content, requests to use the Bold–revert–discuss cycle, and other behavioural issues that have come to light here. The WP:MULTIPLE concerns also suggest he's not contributing positively, imo, but is more concerned about "winning" the point each time. (As I commented with a post I made here, I'd like sanctions extended to a topic ban.) This recent comment at Genesis is arrogant and absurd; Genesis are synonymous with Charisma Records ... On this noticeboard, Chrisahn added a comment with an edit that, although addressing an entirely different report, I thought was perfect for the user that's the subject of this one: "Please take this to heart: 'If multiple people are telling me I'm wrong – there's a pretty good chance that I am wrong.'" JG66 (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. Any measure that will bring IA to talk pages is a step in the right direction. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think stronger sanctions may be required, but this is a minimum. They have to start using talk pages.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum measure. IR has taken to this board to debate content instead of discussing behavior, and has also failed to provide diffs and engaged in WP:PA. Aside from the current block, cordial attempts from multiple editors to encourage IR to cooperate haven’t worked. They must show willingness to listen and learn to make any constructive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettydaisies (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support From my experience with the editor, half of their changes have been welcome improvements, while the rest simply involve the addition of tedious chart data, the removal of vital information, or grammar "fixes" that corrupt the nuance of a statement so much that it causes factual errors to appear. Also, seems to have difficulty proposing or accepting compromises. ili (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

People - before you issue your "support" for the above, go read the version of Genesis that I last inserted and compare it to the last version issued by by Ritchie333. Think - his version contains minute detail about some guy name King who helped the band do their first recording etc. etc. etc. His version talks about recruition of some guy named Ray Wilson for their last album. It does not mention their only US numbr one single. It does not mention what single was their first to go to the top 10 in a good number of countries (their first true "international hit") and in the US. It omits any mention of the songs considered to be their most significant songs. It totally omits any detail on their most successful albums? Does anyone who reads the lead, who has no prior knowledge of Genesis get a true sense of when they achieved success by the current text? Do any readers read it and when they see a key song listed think "oh yeah, I recall that song - I do know who they are after all??? In response to a point Richtee made, Florian specifically said he/she supported the gist of what I was adding - look it up.

The Genenis lead deviates from what many othe lead articles covered even before I made any changes. He and one other persion have some strange focus on keeping the content they like - BUT that is not the content that the average reader would find useful. If any Univeristy prof read the Genesis lead proposed by Ritchie33 and gave it a mark, they would give it probably 60% - extra detail where not needed and important detail excluded. THINK PEOPLE. This should not be about protecting the unique opinions of someone who thinks they own a page, but about creating a high quality product. Some of the above persons specifically said the only issue was that the seemingly useful detail should be in the article, which I began to do with the Who article.Informed analysis (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked Informed analysis for 60 hours for continued abuse of this noticeboard to argue content and to disparage other editors. I expect them to address their own behavior, and this action does not preclude continuation of discussion here about further community sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Article ownership issue

Every change at Talk:Black Lives Matter-themed signs, including project banners and ratings, as well as discussion of the article content has been reverted by User:Steve.fami.ly, once with an edit summary "Mentioning removal of 2/3 of content on removal is not proper usage of a talk page". Same editor has extensively edited the article, reverting most/all changes too - probably without justification although I have not examined those closely. MB 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely some unjustified removals by Steve.fami.ly. Certainly some WP:OWN tendencies as you say as well as mislabeling some comments as vandalism. I've added the page to my watchlist. — Czello 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User:MB, you are required to inform User:Steve.fami.ly at their talk page - a ping is not sufficient (see the orange edit notice). I've done so and warned them about ownership. Fences&Windows 22:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I know that and did so - you missed it. MB 22:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Besides the obvious ownership issues, they also attempted to re-direct Stop the Steal and briefly attempted to create a puff piece section in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics for the same topic with a concerning revert Special:Diff/985773100 Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page ownership is so unbridled that they removed standard elements like quality assessment and wikiproject banners. Their editing of the article is non-neutral, describing the statements on the sign as "far left" and using links to Amazon and other sales sites as references. This is problematic behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 01:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1007441213 Reverts with "cease and desist" as edit comment. Obviously not here. Slywriter (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, pretty sure Id be right to keep reverting but given the low profile of the article, any fixing can be done once admins have dealt with the editor. Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I liked this edit summary Stop vandalizing and try talking while they rushed to delete every comment made on the talk-page. --JBL (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only removing comments with which he disagrees, but also tampering with them. Blocked for one week. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Flagged edits.

See #Long term promotional and copyright violation issues above

I am a first-time editor on Wikipedia and contributing to an article that has been flagged, for uncited "biographical" and "promotional" material, with a query from someone asking me to "disclose my association" with the subject. Of which I have none. Please tell me why my edits are being flagged, and what I can do to remove the flags -- none of which existed prior to my edits. If we need to revert to the original article to remove the flags, that's acceptable. And then I will train myself better in Wikipedia protocols and not attempt to edit anything until such time. Thanks. KillerWhaleGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerWhaleGuy (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC) This enquiry is probably best suited for the Teahouse where experienced editors can advise you further. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Long term promotional and copyright violation issues

• Luna (killer whale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Harris (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Springer (killer whale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chris Harris (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This business goes back more than ten years, with multiple WP:COI accounts and block evasion. In short, the Luna article has been subject to numerous, massive copyright violations; a rev/deletion needs to be performed on the most recent edits by KillerWhaleGuy (talk · contribs), who also added unsourced and promotional content to the Michael Harris article.....it needs major clean up for unsourced and promotional content. The orca articles are connected to the Harris bio, for obvious reasons. His activism, or that of his associates, has caused long term issues at several articles. Asking for copyright checks and confirmation that all block evasion has been identified (see WildScience1976 (talk · contribs), OrcaFan2000 (talk · contribs), and a number of apparently dormant registered accounts like NewEverettRobotMan (talk · contribs), Pansyboy (talk · contribs) THISISINDIANCOUNTRY (talk · contribs) (which refers to a production by Michael Harris} and Mrjoshuawells (talk · contribs). Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no concern about issues that "go back more than ten years" as they don't concern me. And yes, after seeing the numerous unsourced and promotional content replacing the sourced and cited (and not promotional) content about Michael Harris and his group Orca Conservancy, I decided to do some editing on the Michael Harris page. For the record, I do not know Michael Harris or any of the accounts you mention. But it would come as no surprise that many come from Seattle and the Pacific Northwest, as it concerns an extremely well-known local orca, and a well-known local conservationist. It is also clear now that I've started an account and can review the edits on the Luna article that it is largely sourced and cited to Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, who were widely reported in the local media as pushing a "controversial proposal" (per LA Times) that was criticized by the region's most respected orca researcher (also in the LA Times). As an avid reader of Wiki over the years and a close follower of orca issues here in Washington State, I have visited the Luna page frequently and have seen the dramatic changes made by editors, with one common occurrence, that Orca Conservancy and Michael Harris and some of the critical advocacy for the orca, led in part by the Free Willy-Keiko Foundation and other groups, are almost entirely removed. EVEN though they are heavily cited by reliable media. This is a major violation of the Wikipedia protocols.

There are also no "copyright violations" on anything I've done. Quoting from cited sources is not a copyright infringement.

Please direct me specifically about what I need to do to remove the improper flags on my edits -- and if that is impossible, then please revert all articles to their previous form before I initiated my account. I do not want to be responsible for adding flags to articles that did not have them before I did my edits. This has been a terrible first Wikipedia experience for me. -KillerWhaleGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerWhaleGuy (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Negative, KillerWhaleGuy, you are quoting to a clear excess in a way that may likely constitute WP:COPYVIO (diff). Please write your own original prose and quote sparingly. Further investigation is probably warranted. El_C 00:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning (Bus stop)

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 we have a few more eyes here, please, with a view to establishing whether User:Bus stop has budgeoned the discussion? By my light, it's been a pretty clear strategy from the moment they opened the thread, but I might be jaundiced. To crunch the numbers, there have been:

• Approx. 83 edits to the thread, of which
• 40 edits are by Bus stop—48%—resulting in
• Approx. 5,100 words, of which
• Approx. 3,000 words—58%—are from Bus stop.
  It's true that discussion appears to have died down over the last couple of days, but that's not, perhaps, surprising, considering the ever-expanding word count and the (slightly bizarre) propensity for diversions into Paul McCartney's Jewishness (or otherwise).
  The question(s) are, is this behavior considered disruptive; does Bus stop have any previous history with such behavior; and, if so, should they be restricted from such behavior. Many thanks. ——Serial 15:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

H'mm; to answer a couple of my own questions. I note that WP:BLUDGEON itself states that Doing so may be considered a form of disruptive editing; I also see that bludgeoning was central to this ANI thread from December. ——Serial 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129—you write "By my light, it's been a pretty clear strategy from the moment they opened the thread, but I might be jaundiced." Why don't you just ask me what my strategy is. I'll tell you. My strategy is to cause the Einstein article to say something along the lines of "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew"—something like that. If I bludgeoned, I'm sorry. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Deja vu... Bus stop received a topic ban from the American politics topic area in November of last year for bludgeoning behavior (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler), and his "fixation on tagging people he identifies as Jews" was mentioned there. Bus stop has a long history of this behavior around Jewish people and Judaism in general: a search of ANI archives shows it goes back for over a decade. In 2007 it was proposed he be topic banned from Judaism (resulted in an indefinite block); in 2012 it was proposed that he be topic-banned from categorizing people as Jewish (unsuccessful); in 2014 this was again proposed (Bus stop "agreed to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention"). It's concerning to see he is continuing both the bludgeoning and "Jew-tagging".GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. The "Ham Steak Hawaiian Jew"? And I didn't make that one up. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Serial Number 54129, If you would like to understand, I would be glad to explain. If the subject of an article is clearly Jewish, and sources provide commentary on for instance how their Jewishness has bearing on their life, in such an instance we should not be using the wording "born into a Jewish family". We should instead be saying "was Jewish" or "was a secular Jew". I'm not "Jew tagging" in that I am not adding new information the article; the article already said the subject was "born into a Jewish family". I am changing the locution. It is not the family that is the primary focus of the article. The primary focus is the subject of the article. If sources unambiguously support that the subject is/was Jewish, then why are we writing "was born into a Jewish family"? Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How many more discussions of bludgeoning by Bus stop have to occur here before more serious sanctions are imposed? And how much longer must Wikipedia and its editors be damaged by Bus stop? This behavior seriously disrupts discussion and drives good editors away. But, of course, that seems to be Bus stop's primary motive. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can someone remind me how to check if Bus stop has been given a BLP DS alert in the past year? If they have, I'm ready to use DS to topic ban them from anything related to Judaism and BLPs. If they haven't, that would be a good first step. i know there's a way to check that, but can't find the documentation after a few minutes of looking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Try to post a DS alert at their talk page, and then when you try to save the edit you get this search option.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, this appears to be the only alert they have received in the past year. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

hmmmm.... I see this BLP warning in the edit filter log for roughly the same time but it didn't show up in the history search; let me save the diff so I don't have to search for it again and I'll investigate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You can search for "discretionary sanctions alert" in the tag box: [32], or look at filter 602. Note that entries will be made in filter 602 on the first attempt to save a DS alert, even if the person alerting the user does not continue with the edit. That may be what you're seeing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have waited for your comment; I just spent the last 10 minutes eventually figuring out the same thing. It looks like Doug started out with a BLP alert, but for whatever reason never saved the edit. Although I'm about to give Bus stop a ds-alert for BLPs, as a write this I haven't yet, but it already shows in the log I tried to because I hit preview originally tried to save it on their talk page, but was stopped by the big red warning notice. That seems suboptimal, but I guess off topic. Anyway, a couple of minutes after the signature timestamp, Bus stop will have been given a DS alert for BLPs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—my point concerning "Jew-tagging" is that I'm not doing that. My point is that I am not taking the initiative to add to articles that someone was Jewish if the article didn't already imply that they were Jewish. I say "imply" because the language "was born into a Jewish family" implies that they must be Jewish. So, all I'm doing is stating outright, what already is implied. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—another way of saying this is that the article is not primarily about the family. The article is primarily about the subject of the biography. If sources expound on the Jewishness of the subject of the biography, why should we be using the language "born into a Jewish family"? I prefer to directly say that they were Jewish, or that they were a secular Jew. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You have already made these points at the talk page, there is no need to repeat them here where it is your conduct being discussed, not whether the term should be included in the page. El C's comment below seems apt. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—I did not point out at the Talk page that the article is not primarily about the family and that the article is primarily about the subject of the biography. I am saying this right now for the first time. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, GorillaWarfare, I am responding to your language of "Jew tagging". I don't know that it has a definition. But as I am trying to explain, I am not adding the new information that anyone is a Jew. If an article is already saying that someone was "born into a Jewish family", and if sources go into detail about them as Jews, shouldn't the article be just straightforwardly saying that they are Jews? Why the indirect locution? Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, GorillaWarfare, you should not even be using the term "Jew-tagging". It is improper. We don't make such insinuations. We should be attempting to respect one another's editing propensities. It is a vast world and Wikipedia attempts to write about as much of it as possible. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You just made three separate comments to me, each pinging me, without me having responded to any of them, within an hour-long period, in a discussion about your own bludgeoning behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I pinged too often GorillaWarfare but if you are saying something inaccurate about me at this noticeboard I think it is in my interest to clear it up. If not, sanctions would follow, isn't that right? I know how this works. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, Bus stop's original comment seems to have disappeared into the ether (except there's no such thing on Wikipedia), so I'm going to attach my response to it, edit conflicts and their refactoring notwithstanding. Bus stop's comment in question read: Trumped up charges, GorillaWarfare. And WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for both GorillaWarfare and Serial Number 54129 (diff).

My response read: Negative, Bus stop, I submit to you that you are projecting. My sense is that you either bludgeon discussions to the point of exhausting the endurance of other participants, or you tersely engage in fire-and-forget commentary without even a cursory glance at whatever is the case in question, like you did with me recently (direct link). That you've been allowed to continue swaying between these two extremes, that is a bit astonishing to me, truth be told. And distractions concerning the content dispute itself when this behaviour is called into question, well, unfortunately that's just par for the course. El_C 16:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't erasure of Jews a concern? Einstein very clearly self-identified as Jewish and so surely we should respect that, instead of apparently trying to minimize that aspect of his life. Here's a very detailed analysis of his identity: https://aeon.co/essays/einstein-on-the-practical-matters-of-being-german-and-jewish (there's much more controversy about whether he was German than whether he was Jewish). Bus stop could certainly comment less, but the constant reverting by others, their lack of engagement with sources, and the repeated derailing sarcastic comments by Martinevans123 ([33][34][35]) are concerning. Fences&Windows 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Attempted humour. Obviously failing. Would you like me to strike them all, or remove? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Martinevans123—you've been a thorough pain in the fucking butt. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for that vote of confidence. You can always blame me if you like. I didn't notice you getting derailed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think that's somewhat irrelevant here, to be honest - the issue is repeated behaviour after many warnings and sanctions, not this particular content dispute itself. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Exactly. Astutely put, Black Kite. Also, I'll soapbox a bit by linking to Einstein's Why Socialism? — a non sequitur, but I did it anyway. So there. El_C 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C—Wikipedia is not exempt from antisemitism. Antisemitism is ubiquitous. And of course it finds its way onto Wikipedia. If the subject of an article receives considerable commentary in reliable sources on their Jewishness, how it impacts their lives, how can we be saying merely that they were "born into a Jewish family"? Shouldn't we be saying they "were Jewish"? Or that they were a "secular Jew"? Wikipedia doesn't get to decide who is a Jew—reliable sources do that. In short—a person is a Jew if reliable sources support that they are a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop, I am not interested in engaging this content dispute with you at this time, certainly not on this forum. El_C 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a simple fact, El C. It would be Pollyannish to think that antisemitism is not found at Wikipedia. A factor that bears its ugly head in every other part of society probably has a presence on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I really, really hope you're not trying to insinuate anti-semitism on the part of those you were arguing with on the Einstein article, because that would be a very poor idea. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, Black Kite, and I mean that with utter seriousness. I am referring to ideas. If a person represents that a non-practicing Jew is not entirely a Jew, I don't consider that person to be an antisemite. But the idea is not only at odds with the way Jews identify as Jews, but it is also contrary to the way Wikipedia supports its own material. In essence it is original research for an editor to say that for instance Einstein was not entirely a Jew because he wasn't a practicing Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Good, thank you for that. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Right? Well, at least there's that. Bus stop, that you continue to try to engage the topic dispute with me here after I had already said to you that I am not interested in engaging this content dispute with you at this time — well, I think that speaks for itself. El_C 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• A rate limit for Bus Stop was suggested in the December ANI. I think it's a reasonable thing to try. Levivich had suggested three posts per thread. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Meh, I learned a long time ago that Bus Stop can be generally ignored. They have a limited understanding of policy and I have yet to see them participate in a discussion at BLPN where I didnt end up wishing I had a device to throw a shoe at them long-distance. Archive 280 Stefan Moleyneux is one example of their range of tactics. It generally goes: Make crap argument not based on policy. When pointed out argument isnt in line with policy, pretend they meant something else. Argue a different point. Ignore direct questions. Waffle when asked for evidence. Change argument entirely when looks like not being listened to (this happens often). Generally the best way to deal with them is to 1. Ignore them and address only other editors who can make a coherant contribution. 2. Revert anything that looks to be a BLP issue. 3. Force them to attempt to gain consensus. 4. Watch any subsequent discussion collapse under the weight of their tiresome verbiage. Really they need a topic ban from all biographies AND anything remotely to do with Jews. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Fences and windows. Thank you for weighing in. People can be so unfair. If anybody takes the time to look at what transpired at the Einstein article—Talk page and article space, it will be seen that I have been careful to maintain rational dialogue with others, supplementing my arguments with sources. This is a content dispute. The unfairness is that it has now switched to a behavioral issue. No, it is not a behavioral issue, at least not on my part. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Allow me to very quickly summarize what took place. I have been arguing with several editors. That is permitted. One editor is permitted to disagree with three editors. Here's what they do: one maintains the position that Einstein is not fully a Jew. The other maintains that Einstein is not a secular Jew, because he was semi-observant as a little kid. (Totally ridiculous—all Einstein did as a toddler is tell his parents to get kosher food, which no doubt they ignored.) Based on the reasoning of these two editors, I cannot write that Einstein was Jewish, because in the opinion of one of them, he was not fully a Jew, and I cannot say that he was a secular Jew, because in the opinion of the other editor, Einstein was observant as a child. Ridiculous? Sources of course don't matter in any of this. Original research reigns supreme. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sources are of course just things to use when they are convenient. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hang on, I thought I was meant to be the sarcastic one here. Already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bus stop, I realize this discussion concerns you, specifically, so that it is of course expected for you to wish to make your case. But, I'm letting you know that it's starting feel like you are bludgeoning this very discussion which alleges that you bludgeon discussions. So, there are shades of irony to be drawn from that, which may well be lost on you, but I suspect are being picked up by most participants here. Self-awareness can be a harsh mistress, truly, but I think being blunt about this is long overdue. El_C 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• El_C—so now I'm bludgeoning in making my case? Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what El_C posted, Bus stop, and that's one of the signs of bludgeoning. You persistently interpret, or misinterpret, statements rather than actually read and attempt to take in the poster's expressed thought(s). Tiderolls 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Tide rolls—I merely responded to what El_C posted. And I read what they posted before responding. This is getting ridiculous. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, bludgeon-y projection, thy name is Bus stop... El_C 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

El C—don't administrators have anything better to do than constantly degrade this project and waste everybody's time? Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do than to respond to every single comment posted here? Give it a rest, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And you're coming extremely close to making a personal attack by accusing El_C and other admins participating here of "constantly degrading" Wikipedia. I'd watch my step if I were you, you're already close to a sanction for your bludgeoning behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—can I ask you a question? Do you have a sock-puppet named Jayjg? Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why, yes, thank you for bludgeoning me. I find it extremely useful to have a sockpuppet who is an admin, as it relieves me of the burden of doing many everyday Wikipedia things, like convincing other editors in consensus discussions, making arguments regarding sanctions, and protecting articles from damaging vandalism and PoV editing. Instead of doing those things, I just pull on my sockpuppet, get out the admin's broom, and sweep away all my problems just like magic. It's really convenient, and it really is true that two Wikipedia accounts can live as cheaply as one.

Anyway, I've been waiting for years for someone to uncover my deep, dark secret, and now that everything's out in the open, I feel so relieved. It's as if a great burden has been lifted from my shoulders. Again, thank you for bludgeoning me.

With apologies to Jayjg. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation. Do you have anything to back it up? —El Millo (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. The little bell went off, indicating that someone had posted on this thread, and Bus stop just reached for the first attack they could think of. Interestingly, I guess I must have been accused of sockpuppetry with maybe 15 or more people over the years (User:EEng is one of the ones I remember), but I don't recall User:Jayjg having been one of them. I guess I just have one of those faces that looks like a lot of other people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a hunch, Facu-el Millo. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Such hunches can get you blocked, ya know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Insert bludgeoning response here →

I too have been accused of sock-puppetry. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—my apologies—I must have been mistaken. And my apologies to Jayjg too. You just seemed like the same editor. My mistake. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So, because we "just seemed like the same editor", you just assumed that two high-profile, long-term editors, one of them an admin, were sockpuppets. Yeah, sure, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Valereee's suggestion for a rate-limit, but as noted in the previous discussion, there is little doubt that Bus stop will quickly circumvent a rate limit by starting a new thread. That, in effect, would make the problem worse. There needs to be clearly specified, graduated sanctions with no exceptions, ultimately (if necessary) escalated to an indef block. I don't like to see an indef for someone who does make some useful edits, but this has gone on long enough and with too much damage. Bus stop's history clearly tells us that previous discussions and sanctions have no long term effect. I suspect that's the case because Bus stop enjoys the bludgeoning process, or cannot comprehend where normal discussion stops and bludgeoning begins. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting, Sundayclose. I rarely start new threads. How can you say "Bus stop will quickly circumvent a rate limit by starting a new thread"? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Misunderstanding the argument, either by mistake or purposefully, which states that you could just start a new thread to circumvent the limit per thread, not that you currently start new threads. —El Millo (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I understood that, Facu-el Millo. But I habitually do not start new threads. No wonder this is called the torture boards. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin. Never will be. But I will offer this: this sort of thread is a total degradation to the project. Whatever the outcome, this is why Wikipedia is toxic. Salem witch trials pale by comparison. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are somewhat correct, but what you don't seem to recognize is that you are the toxic element here. You've attacked numerous editors who have reported your disruptive behavior to the community without taking anything they've said as a cause for concern to alter your behavior. Everyone else is wrong -- except for you, of course. If you stop to think about it for just a moment, you'd realize that this is extremely unlikely to be true, and it's not, unless, of course, all the other editors here are irresponsible and don't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
  Your behavior is disruptive, both here in this discussion, and in general in your editing. You came close to being topic banned in the past, but avoided it by voluntarily stepping away from those actions, but here you are, back again, doing the same damn thing you did before. By all rights, that topic-banning discussion should be dug up from the archives and re-opened, since the conditions under which you avoided being sanctioned are no longer in force. You're extremely lucking that you haven't been blocked just for your behavior in this thread - and yet you keep pushing the envelope, playing the victim, using the "toxic Wikipedia" card to deflect attention off of you.
  You should be damn glad that I'm not an admin, because I would have indeffed you a long time ago. The real admins are more judicious than I am, but even they have a point past which they cannot be pushed, but you continue to push away anyway. Good luck with that strategy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose, what about in addition to three posts per thread, BS can't start new threads on any talk in which they've posted in a currently open thread? —valereee (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I really think it's a non-issue. Per WP:BURO, an admin can see that starting a new thread is not a new discussion, it's a continuation of an ongoing one in the previous thread. That's why I used "discussion" in my proposals below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm persuaded by the comments that the issue of starting new threads is a matter that admins can manage. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Endless projections continue, even here

Above, Bus stop has written a response to me, by adopting yet another amazing projection. It reads: don't administrators have anything better to do than constantly degrade this project and waste everybody's time. Bus stop, I think my record speaks for itself. How about yours? El_C 21:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C—try to understand something—your "record speaks for itself" in some areas. But editors are not expected to "stay in their lane." I reserve the right not to agree with anyone about anything. This thread is pure toxicity. An administrator is expected to be fair. Have you actually scrutinized the edits to the Einstein article and Talk page of the past few days? Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop, your record speaks for itself as well. In fact, it screams. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's astounding how the toxicity thing works, Beyond My Ken. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

From WP:BLUDGEON: Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, Beyond My Ken, I am here trying not to get sanctioned. You are here for what reason? You obviously have nothing better to do. Though you would no doubt say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit it, Beyond My Ken, you are totally uninspired by this project. Otherwise you would not be wasting this much time on getting me sanctioned. Wikipedia happens to have a Jewish problem—unsurprisingly. Antisemitism is fairly ubiquitous in the world at large. Why would there be not a trace of antisemitism at Wikipedia? An encyclopedia is incapable of uttering the words "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew"? Give me a break. Every source that addresses the subject supports an assertion that Einstein was Jewish. No source supports that Einstein might not be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) So, now you're playing the antisemitism card, how unexpected.

If you knew anything at all about me, you'd know that I am very concerned about antisemitism on Wikipedia and everywhere else in the world, and about the whitewashing of articles about antisemitic Nazis, Fascists, neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and various other far-right figures. I take great pains to remove antisemitism when I find it, and to make sure those people are properly and accurately described and not glorified or excused. However, the current issue has nothing whatsoever with antisemitism, or even the debate about whether Einstein should or should not be labelled as Jewish (I believe he should be), and everything to do with your behavior. I understand that you can't see that, but it is very much the case.

As to being "uninspired" by Wikipedia, I very much doubt that I would spend hours daily editing here, making usually hundreds of edits a day, if I wasn't convinced that this project is a significant benefit to the English-speaking world. I truly believe in Wikipedia. I don't however, think that Wikipedia needs editors such as you, who disrupt the community in their earnest self-righteousness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You are making a very good argument in favor of sanctions with the two above comments. I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds—believe it or not this project actually compiles material in accordance with its presence in reliable sources. If all good quality sources addressing the question say that Einstein was Jewish and if there are no good quality sources saying that Einstein was not Jewish, then it should be possible for an entity purporting to be an encyclopedia to make a simple, direct statement—either "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew". This should not be so difficult. Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is baffling that you're still repeating your long-refuted arguments from the Einstein discussion, and that you don't understand that whether you're right or wrong in the inclusion of the information isn't relevant here. What's relevant is the methods you use in order to get what you want. —El Millo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you have to try to argue your point as best you can, but when you're then confronted with disagreement by numerous editors, it's time to accept consensus. Do you think I agree with every consensus made here that is relevant to articles? Like Only in death ... I've suggested, here, ignoring your posts when your style becomes fatiguing, but they're obviously not being ignored. At least choose your battles more wisely (in terms of where you stand a chance). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the Law of holes is actually good advice, but pretty soon you're going to be hitting the Earth's core if you don't stop digging. Quit arguing content and pay attention to the people telling you to stop bludgeoning this discussion about your behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—you refer to "the antisemitism card". The antisemitism is the main problem. Obviously I'm not talking about overt antisemitism. I am talking about the inability to make a simple, direct statement: Einstein was Jewish. I am talking about the inability to make a simple, direct statement: Einstein was a secular Jew. I would concede that is not exactly antisemitism. But it is certainly bothersome. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129—you say "It's true that discussion appears to have died down over the last couple of days". Isn't that why you are starting this thread now? You don't want to wait too long after it has "died down". Now's your opportunity. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know about "died down", I just got fed up with the whole discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was going on to write Robert Mapplethorpe articles, actually on individual photographs. I hope they site-ban me. Less work for me. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, he wasn't Jewish. Not yet, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• People don't have to stay in their lane at Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors should feel free to wander into other people's territory. That is the natural educational inclination. One cannot force one's views on anyone else. But even on one's own turf, one has to be tolerant. The stupidity of this project is the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It extends typically to topic bans and even site bans. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Bus stop prohibited from BLUDGEONING discussions

Given that WP:BLUDGEONing a discussion is something that User:Bus stop is apparently unable to stop themselves from doing, Bus stop is topic-banned from posting more than three responses in any 24-hour period of time to any specific discussion anywhere on Wikipedia, except on their own talk page. This sanction shall result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite one, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This has been going on for too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC).

• Comment Sundayclose has suggested that this won't fix the problem; should we consider also requiring that Bus Stop not start new threads on any talk page in which they're involved in a currently-active thread? —valereee (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think that admins can be trusted to see that if Bus stop starts a "new" thread to avoid a sanction, it's simply a WP:GAMING tactic and not really a new discussion, just a continuation of the previous one. That's why the proposal says "discussion" and not "thread". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that this reasonably implicit. And I guess now that it's actually been specifically discussed here as an intentional part of the proposal by the proposer, it can be regarded as an explicit part of this proposal. —valereee (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per actions in Proposal 2. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as it can be seen in all the threads that are part of this discussion, this user can't help but bludgeon. It almost seems like a bit now. —El Millo (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. At some point, with problems in multiple areas, we should actually start to talk about a site ban instead of 3 different high-maintenance topic bans, but I'm willing to try these two proposals instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but I have a strong preference for proposal 3. If this passes and that does not, I think it may be useful to define what "any specific discussion" means. Any single level-2 heading? Any discussion on the same topic? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Certainly any level-2 heading, but creating new sections or bringing up an issue on another page to circumvent this should also be covered in some way. I'd say to leave grey-area cases to admin discretion; though I support any discussion on the same topic, broadly construed. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I added "specific" in an attempt to make it clear that the 3-response limit was to one discussion considered at a time. I was concerned that the proposal could be misinterpreted as meaning that Bus stop could only make 3 responses in a 24-hour period across all of Wikipedia. But, as I've said elsewhere, a discussion is a discussion is a discussion, whether it takes place in a single thread, in sub-threads of a single thread, or in multiple threads. As long as the subject is essentially the same, it's all one discussion, and Bus stop doesn't get to avoid a sanction by starting a new thread or sub-thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining your thinking a bit more. That's reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, this has been going on far too long now. Anyone who was involved with Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (568 talkpage edits), Killing of George Floyd (378, including 230 in 14 days), Greta Thunberg (251), Stefan Molyneux (239), Christchurch mosque shootings (159), or indeed any of the other 31 articles to which BS has made 100 or more talkpage comments, will know that it's simply a timesink. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as an uninvolved ANI observer. After reviewing the discussion in question and other behaviour, I believe that topic-bans on bludgeoning and making edits related to whether people are Jewish are warranted. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Can someone clarify whether the limit is 3 responses to a person or responses within a topic? Some discussions can be rather dynamic with different tangents/lines branching out. I also have some due process concerns about whether the limit applies if Bus Stop is the subject of the discussion like here for instances. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I intended it to mean three responses in the discussion, not per person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support with underlined wording inserted ...three responses regarding a particular topic in any 24-hour period.... I ignore Bus stop yet still waste time from skipping their interminable "discussions". Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable change that I would support. Anything to clarify the meaning is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above; seen this too many times in discussions that Bus Stop is involved in. They tend to drive a topic towards obfuscation via their approach to debate, which disrupts the process. --Masem (t) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I see this as the minimal level of sanction, and I suspect it may not be enough since all other sanctions have not helped. Unless I missed something, we can support all three of the proposals. Obviously proposal 3 makes the other 2 irrelevant. But I support all three. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as the absolute bare minimum necessary to curtail many years of disruption and wasting other editor's time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be Bus Stop's primary issue, though admittedly it's the fine point on top of a handful of other issues; regardless, this is certainly the most glaring one. Their continued bludgeoning in this very thread might be somewhat understandable, given that sanctions are imminent... Except that they've already been advised to slow down by more than one editor, and/or at least not respond to nearly every comment, which is not advice they seem to want to heed. That alone doesn't give me an abundance confidence that this is a behaviour that they would (or could) change of their own volition, and that likely some sort of restriction needs to be imposed for the benefit of other editors. Note that I'm voting in the affirmative for all three proposals, and that should the site-ban fail, this is my vote. I was initially leaning toward this sanction only, but after having read the entirety of the conversation here, I'm not sure this would be an overly effective remedy, or that they even fully recognize the issues with their editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as the minimum necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as obviously necessary but probably not sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Bus stop prohibited from discussing whether anyone is Jewish or not

Given that User:Bus stop has in the past agreed to voluntarily stop labeling article subjects as Jewish, but has returned to doing so, they are topic-banned from labeling any person, dead or alive, as Jewish, either by editing the article in question, or by adding a category, regardless of whether the person involved is or isn't Jewish. Bus stop is allowed to post suggestions on article talk pages to the effect that the subject is Jewish and should be labeled as such. They may not WP:BLUDGEON any discussion which arises from their suggestion, and may be blocked if they do so. The period of time of escalating blocks may continue up to and including indefinite, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken—there is no reason anyone should go along with your witch hunt. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus Stop, are you actually going to bludgeon the !vote? —valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently so (see below). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This has been going on for too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC).

  Xxanthippe—correct me if I am wrong but didn't you argue years ago that Henry Kissinger wasn't Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not recall editing Henry Kissinger. Please provide a link. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC).

I could be mistaken, Xxanthippe. Please trust me, it was an honest mistake. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You were just warned above for making baseless accusations, and this is now the second time in this one discussion you've used this "I must have been mistaken" defense. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Xxanthippe, I Just checked. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—do you ever assume good faith? Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You've just agreed it was a baseless accusation. Where am I assuming bad faith by mentioning that you have now made two of them in one discussion, and were warned after the first? There is no assumption of faith, bad or good, it is just a factual description of your behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not "accuse" Xxanthippe of anything, GorillaWarfare. Secondly, I didn't even check the Henry Kissinger article before saying "I could be mistaken, Xxanthippe. Please trust me, it was an honest mistake". Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That you didn't check is the problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely not "the" problem, as there are so many. --JBL (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, this has been cringe-worthy behavior for many years (Note that I've changed the header; I understand the motive for using the term, but "Jew tagging" just seems gross. User:Beyond My Ken, if you want to change it back I won't argue further). I was going to suggest a broader BLP ban, but it occurs to me, really embarrassingly late in the day, that Einstein isn't a BLP. Perhaps some were wondering why I proposed a BLP DS alert earlier; it's because I'm clueless. But also because he has done the same thing at BLP articles too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• No problem about changing the header. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, and long overdue, but I have a strong preference for proposal 3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yes please. ♟♙ (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - That ship has sailed a long time ago in terms of the POV pushing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per comment on proposal 1: After reviewing the discussion in question and other behaviour, I believe that topic-bans on bludgeoning and making edits related to whether people are Jewish are warranted. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support There are plenty of editors who can reasonably present a case and Bus stop is not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. This seems like a case of IDHT after repeated warnings here. --Masem (t) 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This certainly seems necessary, but anyone familiar with Bus stop's editing knows that there are many other topics beside Jewish-related that Bus stop has bludgeoned. Unless I missed something, we can support all three of the proposals. Obviously proposal 3 makes the other 2 irrelevant. But I support all three. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Sundayclose's reasoning that the three proposals be put in place. —El Millo (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I happen to be Jewish and have written a few biographies of notable Jews and have also expanded articles about people whose notability derives in part from their involvement with Judaism. That is a small part of my editing. But this editor has a long history of being obsessive and unrelenting in declaring people Jewish even if their notability has nothing to do with being Jewish. As for Albert Einstein, it is impossible for an intelligent person to read that article and not understand that he was a proud Jew who was not religiously observant. And yet this editor wasted the time of several editors by trying to use a contemporary article from a Jewish newspaper to hammer that home. Articles about such a major figure should rely on the highest quality book length biographies, not newspaper articles published 65 years after his death that bring forward no new information. I am sick and tired of this editor's constant and counterproductive accusations of anti-Semitism to attempt to justify their obsessive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"contemporary article from a Jewish newspaper"? You clearly have not read the relevant section on the Einstein Talk page, Cullen328. The Smithsonian (magazine) is not a "contemporary article from a Jewish newspaper". It is the first source that I presented. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are simply wrong when you say "But this editor has a long history of being obsessive and unrelenting in declaring people Jewish even if their notability has nothing to do with being Jewish", Cullen328. You are confusing me with several other editors. Maybe I did that years ago. All I have done more recently is change wording from "was born into a Jewish family" to "was Jewish". Please stop it. You are talking claptrap that will get me sanctioned. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe I did that years ago." Yes, you did. As for the Smithsonian, that is no better source for a biography of a very famous person who died over 65 years ago than The Forward. I tell you what: If any editor other than you, any productive editor, calls any one of my contributions "claptrap", then I will take that very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328—are you saying that The Forward is not an adequate support for an assertion that Einstein was Jewish? If so, please explain to me why that would be so. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am saying that contemporary popular newspapers and magazine articles are poor quality sources in general for Wikipedia biographies of highly famous people who died over 65 years ago. For use in such articles, book length widely reviewed biographies written by respected historians or other respected scholars are the type of references that should be used. And there are many such biographies of Einstein, and of course many of them describe his Judaism, as does the Wikipedia biography. I have no problem using The Forward as a reference in biographies of lower profile but still notable contemporary people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per Cullen and others. Overdue. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is a topic that calls for editors with understanding of its nuances and the ability to make subtle distinctions, and it's not apparent that Bus stop meets those requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Site ban

I've never interacted with Bus Stop before, but after reading the discussions on Talk:Albert Einstein and elsewhere, I've got a sore head. I'm prepared to scrap this proposal if somebody (who isn't Bus Stop) can briefly summarise all the great work he does to Wikipedia and why he's a net positive .... otherwise I think we might as well put this option on the table and discuss it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, they have created several articles on works of art, although none in the past two years. But, in troubling developments, they've edited to add Jewishness into two articles just in the past ten minutes. WTactualF? —valereee (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as (attempted) proposer. Just edit conflicted with you saving my own edit to add this proposal, which I'll paste here: Adding this option, as it was a suggestion several people supported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler, especially after he immediately violated his topic ban. I didn't support the siteban then, and I actually opposed sanctions for the topic ban violations, but it seems it's time now. Bus stop is not only continuing the problematic behavior in this discussion, but engaging in behavior that would not be curtailed by the above two proposals (such as making personal attacks, casting aspersions, and making accusations of bad faith against other editors: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a net negative and highly disruptive person here to "right great wrongs". ♟♙ (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia is too parochial for me. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Can I propose a new policy/guideline that says "if someone supports their own siteban in a noticeboard discussion, they are sitebanned with immediate effect, without waiting for the 3 day (or whatever it is) deadline to pass. This does not count as a self-requested block. It's the real thing." I see User:NedFausa is doing the same thing in a thread higher up. Why have a discussion if the editor being considered agrees they should be banned? Or, alternately, why let someone troll the discussion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, Works for me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not for me. People can get upset and wanna take their ball and go home (before they've slept over it). The process should stand, regardless. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed, there is the risk that if someone self nominates themselves, then people will become complacent, and skip the discussion, and then when they change their mind, they can point to how they were the only/primary supporter. Having a thorough consensus removes any doubt whatsoever. Of course a person can self nominate still. Shushugah (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't mind people self-requesting a block to take a break, or to just chill out. However, if it gets to the state where admins are edit-conflicting to write a site ban request, and they haven't worked out that just stop commenting altogether is the only sensible option, then .... more fool them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Skip what discussion, Shushugah? This is not a discussion. Have you seen anybody respond to my numerous posts? Except in wise guy style banter? Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If I'm slow to respond I'm cooking din-din. (Salmon.) Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I plan to make some potatoes on the side. Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I find it somewhat interesting that you comment on others' lack of substantive or constructive replies to your argument and then let us know what you are eating for dinner, which is clearly irrelevant. I do not wish to discredit your point of view or make an argumentum ad hominem, but I do find this somewhat hypocritical. On another (more relevant) note, I believe the reason that your posts have few replies is that you are repeating the same argument (both in this discussion and in the discussions on Jewishness that prompted this); as such, people are already very aware of your point(s) and, if they have made their point and/or a rebuttal known, they may not repeat it after each of your comments. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 00:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Bus stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is fine with me as well. A net-negative as far as I can tell. Their support of their own site-ban is just the cherry on top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I do want to add that if any of the other proposals have sufficient support, they should also be imposed. That way, if Bus stop is able to convince the community that they should be un-site banned, the topic ban(s) here, plus the existing one from AP2, will still be in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I feel that Bus stop tries to drive wedges, suggesting that other editors are denying that this or that person is/was Jewish. Attic Salt (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This has been going on for more than a decade, and if this discussion is anything to go by it's getting worse rather than better. I'd support something lesser if I thought it would solve the problem, but I'm all out of ideas. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a cleaner option which would emphasize how the community feels about long-term disruption. Unblock appeals can consider procedures to handle any future conflicts. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Given that Bus Stop is asking for this, I only proceedurally Oppose but with the firm commitment that this is a final warnings; presuming the above two proposed community remedies pass, that failures to abide by them or any past warnings still active will be a site block. But this may be moot giving their comment above. --Masem (t) 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral Weak oppose as the user in question does have some – albeit seemingly few – constructive edits not related to people being Jewish. If I look at his/her contributions, exactly one half (25/50) of the most recent 50 contributions either have Judaism mentioned in the edit summary or article title. Even more edits are still related to Judaism. However, there are some edits which are constructive and unrelated to Judaism, as with adding an image, reverting vandalism, and trimming a lead. I believe that topic-bans are sufficient to prevent his/her disruptive behaviour without affecting constructive contributions. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC) (Edited 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC): Change to neutral after considering arguments and reviewing more past behaviour)
• Support I've seen countless threads at AN/I and elsewhere with the same problems: bludgeoning and IDHT. Clearly a net negative. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as Bus stop has rather proved my original point wrt bludgeoning; that's clearly incurable at this point in time. Also per Floquenbeam, who notes that the previously suggested resolutions—which I support, failing this psses—are unnecessarily complicated; I agree. If we are at the stage that we have to dictate how and where an editor should communicate in an otherwise collegial environment, then we've already lost the game, metaphorically. I rather assumed we would get to this point earlier, when I realised how entrenched this behavior was, but it's a good sign that the community have examined other options thoroughly before finally suggesting a minimum of six months off. Veiled accusations of antisemitism, actual accusations of bad faith, and frankly trolling suggestions of sockpuppetry have also played their part in my decision. ——Serial 23:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not thinly veiled accusations of antisemitism, Serial Number 54129. Wikipedia is approximately as antisemitic as any other place on the internet. Please tell me—why would it be otherwise? Please tell me. That's not a rhetorical question. I am of course referring to what has been termed the New antisemitism. I am not referring to overt antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It is time for these years of tendentious drama to stop. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support per Boing & Floq - The irony of bludgeoning every person to death ... in a thread that discusses their bludgeoning .... You honestly couldn't make it up!. Unfortunately I don't actually know what they've done here that's been an improvement ... if anything it seems to be bludegeoning everywhere which aint an improvement. –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As Britishfinance has said earlier today about a different siteban proposal (which I authored), one word: unambiguous. El_C 00:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Considering Bus stop's long history of disrupting discussions and lack of response to other sanctions, I think we are at the point that this is necessary. Unless I missed something, we can support all three of the proposals. Obviously proposal 3 makes the other two irrelevant. But I support all three. I am convinced that anything less than site ban will eventually result in us being back here in a few months (or less) discussing this again. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  I feel that there is too much parochialism and too much antisemitism at Wikipedia. These actually go hand-in-hand. The inability to recognize Jews is a form of antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  It's amazing how these people work. Here we have Attic Salt and Beyond My Ken following me around and reverting me. This is identical with what Binksternet and Attic Salt were doing at Einstein. (Binksternet literally claims that Einstein isn't entirely Jewish. Parochial a bit?) Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Bus stop: Are you arguing that not describing people as Jewish is anti-semitic? It's not like people are trying to censor Judaism, it's (in my opinion) that you're trying to edit it into very many articles to the point where it has become a problem. MOS:CONTEXTBIO says that if ethnicity or religion is not relevant to notability, it should not be in the lead. I believe that this is also applicable – to an extent – to the whole article. If something is not relevant to the person or his/her notability, I think it should not be in the article. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 02:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Twassman—Wikipedia is censored if one cannot even state that Einstein was a secular Jew. That should be no big deal. Instead we have this thread. Bus stop (talk)

  @Bus stop: For Einstein, I believe that this is relevant given that he stayed in the United States due to Hitler's anti-semitism. Your most recent edit was challenged and reverted because Attic Salt (talk · contribs) believed that it did not agree with a source. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Eh, I give up. There are two topic ban discussions going on and Bus stop is still doing both of them while they're happening. This is so tone deaf I don't see any other option. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support given that Bus stop keeps going on and on about the content of the dispute that got them here, bludgeoning the discussion about bludgeoning and not even being able to stay on topic. It seems like a WP:CIR issue, plus all the WP:BLUDGEON, aspersions cast, and overall trolling when they started talking about what they were having for dinner. —El Millo (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo—these are not "aspersions". Wikipedia is just as antisemitic as any other part of the internet. Bus stop (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the accusation of sockpuppetry and specific accusations of antisemitism which you later admitted were unfounded and which you didn't bother to check beforehand. This is starting to look like Inception, you're bludgeoning my !vote about you bludgeoning the discussion about bludgeoning another discussion. —El Millo (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite—Binksternet writes "Jewishness [is] multi-faceted: Religion, culture and ethnicity are the three elements. Einstein was two of those three, not all three". Wouldn't that be original research? All sources that address the question say Einstein was Jewish. No source says Einstein might not be Jewish. Binksternet is undaunted; they write "there are the several meanings of Jewish including religion, race and culture, and Einstein emphatically did not practice the Jewish religion. He did not celebrate a bar mitzvah and he did not engage in any other religious ritual". "Parochial" is the only word I know for this sort of thinking. Bus stop (talk)

• Support -- indefinite site ban. Can we please stop allowing people to waste our valuable time through this nonsense? It's obvious that he's not getting the point. 14 years (2007!) is more than long enough for him to learn. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The impression I got at Talk:Albert Einstein was very creepy, like when the Germans were compiling lists of Jews in the 1930s – Bus stop was insisting Einstein must be a Jew. Bus stop's simplistic argument was repeated over and over on the talk page, without any acknowledgement of the subtler points brought up by others. I'm afraid the complexity of writing an encyclopedia is not what Bus stop is cut out for. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Binksternet, I was arguing that reliable sources support that Einstein was a Jew. And yes, it is that simple. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet—you don't seem to understand—we write articles based on relevant information that is found in reliable sources. That's the basis for Wikipedia, when it functions properly. Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per everyone else, & echoing Sundayclose in particular -- if this ban is ever rescinded, the other two should be in place. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Their constant bludgeoning is disruptive as it is wasting everybody's time. After 14 years they are not going to change. P-K3 (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasting time? Pawnkingthree—what could be a bigger waste of time? We are trying to write an encyclopedia? Let us stop kidding ourselves. What this is, I don't know. It is human stupidity. It's always been with us, and it shows no sign of going away. I have to cook some salmon. After I catch it. Something is fishy about that story. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, in no small part for the behavior displayed in this very conversation, where Bus stop displays their belief that repeating an argument over and over and over again somehow makes it more persuasive. Hint to Bus stop: not so. It seems the editor is convinced that all the rest of us are parochial and unable to detect anti-Semitism. I am sure that I am not the only administrator who routinely blocks antisemites on sight, and I resent that repetition. Topic bans on Judaism are not enough, since the editor bludgeons discussions about art as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328—you only block overt antisemitism "on sight". Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems that only you possess the secret decoder ring that enables you to detect anti-Semitism invisible to others. Please use your special powers somewhere else than Wikipedia, where actual evidence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I emulated Floquenbeam here as I've just indefinitely blocked Bus stop due to their continued badgering of one respondent after another (bludgeoning par excellence) in their own site ban discussion. Not having 3 days of this. No way. El_C 03:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Bus Stop et. al.--Jorm (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've interacted with Bus Stop a bit, and though we've sometimes disagreed, I should note that nearly all of our interactions have ultimately been cordial. That being said, I've definitely noticed the varied issues with their editing, and have even pointed on rare occasion that I thought their behaviour (especially on article talk pages) was problematic. Not just the bludgeoning, but also, without stating it directly, that they seem to be editing with a political agenda. I've always tried to AGF, and have rightfully said (when I 'pointed it out') that I didn't know if this was intentional, or just due to their personal POV. Frankly, I think some of their edits, consciously or unconsciously, amounted to white-washing certain article subjects, especially those related to organizations and figures associated with the far-right and occasionally, the alt-right. Given that their primary concern seemed to be whether this identification appears in the lead, I had somewhat started to suspect that this was because they didn't want this information (however overwhelmingly well-sourced) to appear in Google search results. I don't know this for sure, but it seems entirely plausible given their line of argumentation in the past. Again, this is just my informed opinion. This is also just one of several issues I've noted, in addition to other problematic behaviour I've seen, including the two primary issues raised here. While in the interest of giving everyone a "fair chance", I was initially just going to vote for the lesser sanctions proposed here, I've come to accept that they're essentially a net-negative to the project. The fact that they've made at least a few bad-faith accusations toward editors in this very section, including insinuating that one established editor is a sockpuppet of another (on a mere "hunch")... Doesn't instill me with confidence that most, if any, of these issues can be rectified in the near future. More than anything else, they waste a lot of editors' time--- whether by bludgeoning, or continually litigating a point/proposal that isn't really supportable by policy or consensus. Ultimately, the latter (including the issue that I raised) tend to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments after all the "Wiki-speak" invoking barely-applicable policy or guidelines is exhausted. Therefore, I'm voting for a community site-ban, as I think that their behaviour and civil POV pushing very much outweighs the positive contributions that they make (sorry, Bus Stop). Should this proposal fail, I am still in favour of the other two proposals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've literally never seen a productive contribution by Bus Stop, all I have ever seen their disruption. On an arbitration enforcement request against someone who was promoting voter fraud conspiracies Bus Stop wrote: I am especially horrified by the administrators here—Liz, Bishonen, Cullen328. Wikipedia is going to become a far-left screed. Nothing but polemic will populate our pages. Opposition should be welcomed. Instead you are silencing people. An article should reflect an adherence to reliable sources and consensus. When you ban people you reduce the likelihood of ever attaining the admittedly elusive WP:NPOV. Administrators should be rejecting this sort of witch-hunt which aims to silence opposing voices. Enough is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Doesn't feel right for BusStop to be permabanned with hardly anyone putting in a good word for them. They've contributed good constructive edits and they can be warm and collegial with other editors. It's a shame to lose an intelligent and mostly moderate conservative editor as we seem a little short on those. Unfortunately though, it can't be denied that their overly determined, one sided focus on sensitive topics has been problematic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, I think I did say something to that effect, though it essentially amounts to me saying that my interactions with them were quite civil. I said more positive things, and said that I could accept a reasonable explanation for some of their proposed edits (especially if they weren't familiar with the phenomenon of "Jew-tagging") under Proposal 2, which seem to have been lost in an edit conflict. However, I stand by my statement that their positive contributions were far outweighed by the other long-standing issues with their editing, per bringing "more heat than light". I also disagree that they were necessarily moderate beyond perhaps an occasional pretense to appear so, given the content of some of their comments, but that's ultimately a matter of perception. Obviously, they could be very "un-civil", as Hemiauchenia's quoting them shows; I think saying those three editors contribute to Wikipedia becoming a "far-left screed" says more about Bus Stop's political POV than it does theirs. I will agree that they seem intelligent. But that's obviously not at issue here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because I don't think this punishment fits the crime. I suspect Bus Stop is rather pissed off right now and handling this, in my view, poorly. However, I don't think this should rise to a site ban. Probably better to do something like a week in time out to cool down then reassess. If Bus Stop was saying really ugly things to individual editors (like accusing them of being Dutch[[41]]) I could understand. However, this seems to be a case of getting fed up (during a pandemic when many are short tempered) and acting in a way that isn't cool but is hardly site ban worthy. I just can't see this as a reasonable punishment for the crime in question. My comment only applies to the question of a site ban. Springee (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed site ban is nothing to do with punishment—it is to prevent further disruption and time wasting for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban per the miles of rope paid out over the years. Please do not close before the three days are out; currently, their indefinite block is only a common or garden one-admin block. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support Per proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. For the sake of my own sanity, I stay away from ARBAP-related topics whenever possible, but reading through the history of this case, it seems clear that Bus Stop's conduct isn't compatible with a welcoming or productive editorial environment – and hasn't been for a long time. Here is a thread from July 2007 (not even a year after they registered their account) where they engage in the exact same bludgeony conduct they've demonstrated here. Since this has been going on for over a decade, I don't think anything short of a siteban will be able to stop the disruption. Blablubbs|talk 11:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support because it's clear lesser sanctions will either be deliberately ignored or not comprehended. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. For me this is too much. I'd rather at least try options 1 & 2. And I say that fully astonished that BS continues to bludgeon the !vote and completely sympathetic to why the community is finally out of patience here. Bus stop, I hope someday you'll be able to contribute again. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Bus Stop and others. My experience is limited, but I can't think of another time when someone has made it so clear that they are intent on bucking community standards. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see any reason to think that this behaviour is going to change - I also agree with Grandpallama that lesser sanctions wouldn't work. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support To quote The Duke, reading this would give an aspirin a headache! Blimey. I've never heard of Bus Stop before this thread, and thought it was either an editor having a MAJOR meltdown, or someone had hacked their account. I can't see anything even close to say "go, on, give the rascal one last chance" As Charlie Chaplin said to Blackadder in a telegram: stop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Alas, for Bustop this must be "the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun." [42] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Now, if you play straight with me, you’ll find me a considerate Wikipedian, but cross me and you’ll find that under this playful boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless, sadistic, maniac. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wibble. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Come on, guys, there are better places to drop jokes than a person's site ban. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Bus Stop's editing behavior is clearly a serious issue worthy of serious sanctions. While I understand the community's frustration, I'm concerned that 'Support' votes are piling on due to a mob effect, springing from a proposal that was put on the table more or less just to 'see what happens', without, in my view, a reasoned argument for kicking a user entirely from the site. I don't expect BS to abide by BMK's proposals, but I feel that due process is not occurring here in a way that's equitable to all parties, and I find that troubling. RandomGnome (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Bus stop blacklisted from notifications

One of the bludgeoning tools used by Bus stop is the too-frequent pinging of opposition editors in active discussions. I propose that Bus stop be added to the notifications blacklist at MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the Romans stopped at three nails... Levivich ^harass/_hound 09:30, 19 February 2021 (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.

Spamming Aberystwyth University template to alumni bios

Most of Sabikptah edits, more than 100 in the last hour, have been adding {{Aberystwyth University}} to pages of alumni and other loosely related subjects. I posted multiple times on their talk page to stop[43] but they keep doing it without replying to my posts. I think it's likely spamming, although I suppose it could be a well intentioned editor who simply hasn't got the hang of talk pages yet, but is there some way to stop them and get them to discuss? (t · c) buidhe 11:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's rather odd that the university never had its own nav box before though; Sabikptah had to create it. Definitely odd. ——Serial 11:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked them (12 hours) so as to get their attention to these outstanding matters. Note that they may not have been aware of these notices if they were using certain mobile devices. A perennial problem which, incidentally, I brought up on Jimbo's talk page just yesterday (diff). El_C 13:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal commentary and completely broken english

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

Random personal attacks or commentary: From: Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2 and User talk:Cengizsogutlu

"If you're being harassed by words as manipulator or trolling for no goal, it's your problem."

"And why are you trying to cover up a terrorist execute?"

"What is written on your profile and thinking of some parts of my country in this way shows how sincere you are." (Thinks I'm a troll because I refer to Southern Turkey on my user page as "Northern Kurdistan.")

"We can complain about so called personal attacks, but if someone who has no knowledge of a topic they still don't say anything about it. Btw i wish the laws of physics would allow to destroy the mountain bunkers with a 5 kg drone bomb :D.."

"There was no personal attack claiming to blow up the entire cave with drone munitions is first class trolism"

"Des Valles if you gonna tell me they died by heart attack would be more convincing btw.. Someone is gibberish, another one is not open for to debate!"

"please stop manipulating articles you will be reported"

Incoherent Ramblings: From: Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2 and User talk:Cengizsogutlu

"Duduee this encyclopedia has become officially biased.. Now i see edits like DIED are you serious?I have never seen such a biased admin. Oops The admin, who is not open to criticism, will now ban me for a different reason."

"For ex put Nazi's claim victory in Normandy in info box etc cuz their propaganda radios tells lies ~to people in Berlin, while bombs were raining down on France. No one can admit defeat in an unfinished war, this is a golden rule."

"What i want to say even if you throw a nuclear bomb in an unfinished war, the sources of the other party will never accept defeat unless they surrender. But the truth is obvious. In this operation, the PKK lost its high level protected shelter and prison with dozens of hes mitilia The only thing they can claim as victory is their assassination of the hostages during the operation. For ex Its like isis claiming victory after losing one of the cities"

"This munition cannot blow up the bottom cave bunker structure. imp ossi ble in terms of engineering. Turkey has BLU-109 bomb If this had been used they wouldn't have been able to get bodies from that building"

"I'm not a no-brainer nationalist. Turkish soldier captured 2 militants, filled dead hostages into helicopter to deliver the bodies to their families. Finally, 4 militants who wanted to RUN off with a paramotor were nutralized."

"I really congratulate you btw cool way but again if you perceive those as insulting it will be your wrong view or different purpose to complain."

"What they want to do is showing their selfs as freedom fighters to world opinion but in fact they are a far right marxist communist terrorist. I'm sorry, but this is nothing but Asymmetric warfare strategies. Same as turkey is not accepting the Armenian genocide in order not to take responsibility for what happens in the next.Truths cannot be covered up with lies, and cant painted with their own fake sources" (I have no clue what this is about but I suspect it has to do with Turkish Armenian genocide denial, like most posts it's in broken English so I can't understand it)

He clearly doesn't have a basic understanding of English due the constant wording issues, spelling mistakes and broken grammar. Previously warned by Drimies here and by GirthSummit, so he decided to double down and state I am a vandal-troll and calling someone a troll and a vandal isn't a personal attack. Des Vallee (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

He clearly does have a good understanding of English. (You understand what he writes well enough to be offended by it.) Please stop exaggerating the rather minor aspect of problems in his English prose, and instead describe the other problem(s) dispassionately and concisely. Note that users are normally allowed to ramble incoherently (to a point) on their own user talk pages: if this user rambles incoherently, threateningly or otherwise unpleasantly in response to what you write on their user talk page, then stop writing there, and instead stick to the article talk page, where incoherent rambling (let alone obnoxious comments) can be stopped more quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I say block the reported user for repeated personal attacks. 4D4850 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Genre-warring blocked(?) IP

IP user 2600:1003:B02B:B502:0:56:970B:E001 is aggressively changing genres to unsourced values, in particualr at Bon Jovi articles (see Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B02B:B502:0:56:970B:E001 for the current list. As I've reverted their edits, I've noticed that User:Binksternet has previously reverted similar/identical changes to the same articles, with an edit summary like Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1003:B0AA:4459:0:1D:378B:2901 (talk): Rv... Genre warring, block evasion by Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B003:822D:0:14:6A0A:501. or Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1003:B003:822D:0:14:6A0A:501 (talk): Block evasion by Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B0A0:0:0:0:0:0/44.. I don't understand/see the full block info, but the pattern is unmistakeable. Can somebody please shut this user down for a while? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And while I was fashioning this report, I received this NPA violation on my Talk.

But then, nevermind; user has now been blocked. Thanks — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

125.167.113.0/16

An user from Indonesia with the range 125.167.113.0/16 (talk · contribs) has been disrupting lately with stub templates and hatnotes in unrelated articles (example of the most disruptive constant edit) other less-subtle examples include [44][45][46]. This started around January. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/125.167.113.19 and Special:Contributions/125.167.112.156 for a month each. Let me know if any other IPs seem to be exhibiting the stub problem. Trying to block a /16 range would be too large, I think. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Pnginitiator

Judging from their recent post on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, this editor appears to be running a business creating and editing articles on Papua New Guinea firms, but has never disclosed their status as a paid editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've left a template to explain the requirements. Though they've been an editor since 2018 they've only created one innocuous article, so in effect they've disclosed being paid before they did any harm. User:Pnginitiator/sandbox is clearly paid for. Fences&Windows 00:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism across various articles

See also: Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Common vandalism: Among us??

1. Valentinian I: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54],
2. Theodosius I: [55], [56], [57],
3. Valentinian III: [58],
4. the mess that is Valentinian II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some pages have been protected and some accounts blocked but this continues over I don't know how many pages. Valentinian III is unprotected. These emperors are on my watchlist but there may be (many) others. GPinkerton (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the Sususs Amongus meme, isn’t it. Perhaps an edit filter might help here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the Sususs Amongus meme, isn’t it - Malcolmxl5, no doubt it is, whatever that means! GPinkerton (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Something to do with the Among Us game, GPinkerton. It has, I think, flowed out of that as has the Sus Imposter meme, which has been hitting articles with the word "Sus" in the title. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, here we are[59]. A gamers' meme that’s gone viral and some gamers evidently think it’s fun to despoil Wikipedia articles featuring Emperor Valentinian. As there are only four articles involved, a coordinated strategy of protection for one month ought hold the gamers back until they move on to the next thing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Among Us meme? See the history of Sus, Iran for another one and the corresponding talk page for explanation. Pahunkat (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, several 'Sus' articles have been hit, including the SUS dab page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Now [60] List of Roman emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) GPinkerton (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the picture on Valentinian II (much better with the whole sculpture). Maybe that will dampen it? GPinkerton (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Fingers crossed! Now Loyola Catholic Secondary School[61][62]. This will be school kids stuff. I’ve put pending changes protection on this one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Impostor syndrome being hit by the Sus Imposter meme and protected for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yuta Watanabe

WP:BLP. Needs protection ASAP. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mz7. 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editors

Hello. I am a WP-fr user. Please note that we strongly believe that Tagcivil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an undisclosed paid editor, following Karl ant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cédal Nadric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as I detailed it in Talk:Civil registration and vital statistics (may be not the good procedure). The main object of their contributions is to promote a bubble tag powered by a french company, Prooftag. Tagcivil is blocked on WP-fr until disclosure. Cheers. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spiderland/archive1

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.

---

For some reason, Ceoil (talk · contribs) has taken to attacking me for quite literally no reason.

• This edit has Ceoil saying " dont have to deal with Ten Pound Hammer's unthinking, unresearched, brutalist, "impressions" things."

• I asked for a reasoning behind this unnecessarily harsh language and got in response, "It means what it means, and don't play innocent, but is irrelevant to keeping or demoing this page."

I have no idea what caused this whatsoever. Prior to nominating Spiderland for FAR, I don't think this editor and I have ever crossed paths before. I am at a total loss as to what has set them off. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonsense complaint and reeks of an abrasive personality who spends all day, every day dishing out coldly but is unwilling to accept any level of reaction. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to back that up? PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, but cant be bothered as [1] this is trivial [2] didnt start this crying to mammy. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Because I have to say I am not terribly impressed by your follow up comment to their section diff. It means what it means...ie shut the fuck up and let others comment, and don't play innocent as to why I dont want to engage; but if other come in it will happily be irrelevant in our either keeping or demoing this page.[63] PackMecEng (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

An "abrasive personality" sounds more like the kind of person who comes the fuck out of nowhere to attack me, an editor who has been on this site nearly 16 years without ever crossing your path once as far as I know. And who keeps dodging the issue and resorts to further name-calling whenever asked to elucidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Except it wasn't out of nowhere, it was within a structured review process, that I think you had by then little to contribute to, having had a number of false claims rebuted...ie that the early summer complaints about the lead had not been addressed. This mistake is obviously carless due dilligence before opening a FAR and frankly typical. PackMecEn, have long noticed that if you advise someone to walk to the far right to avoid beasties, then should prob lean left to escape being eaten...ie I don't, and never have, trusted your judgement. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In all seriousness. Are you drunk at the moment or something? PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I raised a fair point, and I wonder what brought you to this dispute. It just have always judged you as somebody who is always, so consistently wrong; and now you you question me with words that would lead others AN indefinite block. My impression of you however is: low horizons, low IQ, read a lot of shit books, big opinions. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil. Please sign off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, not helpful, time to push back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saying it would explain a lot here. Things like this are broadline nonsensical. PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't "false claims" to say that the article had [citation needed] tags and reliance on user-submitted sources like genius.com. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a silly side-question, but what on earth is meant by brutalist in this context? Is Ten Pound Hammer a minimalist construction that showcases bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design? My first thought on reading it was that this was an argument about some sort of bizarre architectural style that merges brutalism with impressionism. --Aquillion (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what caused this whatsoever. [...] I don't think this editor and I have ever crossed paths before. I am at a total loss as to what has set them off. Maybe from 1 week ago? [64][65]. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A good-faith removal of unsourced content and an equally good-faith concern about troubling behavior between two users? Hardly seems worth picking a fight over. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are mixing up the past and present to suite your current needs. Try and focus on the current Spirerland FAR, although your involvement has been discredited there. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bison X. Ceoil (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself a Wikifriend of Ceoil, so my input is not neutral. A) TenPoundHammer, might you consider that you may be missing the big picture in ways that deeply hurt real people? B) Ceoil, please take the rest of the day off; it’s not good to be posting when emotions are involved. I seriously apologize for asking for your feedback on that FAR; I should have contemplated the overall situation better, and I apologize for being so inconsiderate. C) Could some kind admin please consult with Deepfriedokra about the history behind this dispute? D) ANI is perhaps not the best place to deal with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ok Ceoil (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To both of you (TPH and Ceoil), be well ... best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Letting the FAR Coords know about this thread: @FAR coordinators: . And off for the night; I hope everyone will see things better in the light of a new day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 21 February 2021 (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:NOTHERE editing by User:AntonBoyad

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.

---

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

1. Removed sourced content from the Armenian Apostolic Church article that showed Iranian links.[66]
2. Removed sourced content from the Kurdish Christians article that showed Kurdish roots of an Armenian dynasty.[67]
3. Removed sourced content from the Aramazd article that showed Iranian links.[68]
4. Added "Armenian" to the Parthian Empire link, even though the Parthians were of Iranian origins. No edit summary/explanation.[69]
5. Added "Armenian architecture" to the Palatine Chapel, Aachen article. No edit summary/explanation.[70]
6. Changed "Oriental" into "Armenian" on Erato of Armenia. No edit summary/explanation.[71]
7. Added "Armenians" to the Circassians in Iran article. No edit summary/explanation.[72]
8. Added "Armenians" to the Mazandaran Province article. No edit summary/explanation.[73]
9. Removed "Kurds and Qajar Turks" from the Mazandaran Province article. No edit summary/explanation.[74]
10. Added unsourced content ("Kurds originate around northern and southern Iran and arrived in Anatolia as nomads.") to existing sourced content on the Zazas article. No edit summary/explanation.[75]
11. Ignores warnings on his talk page.[76]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that "user:AntonBoyad" is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They are deleting referenced material, and inserting their own unreferenced material, in topics related to Armenia. Borderline WP:AIV case. Britishfinance (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2021 (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.

WGFinley reversing protection without consent of protecting admin

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 Lincoln Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WGFinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muboshgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WGFinley has unprotected The Lincoln Project against the wishes of the protecting administrator, cherrypicking his comments and ignoring where Muboshgu wrote "I am strongly against unprotecting that page" (see User talk:Muboshgu#The Lincoln Project Semi-Protection) This is in violation of the protection policy which specifies that Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should, in the first instance, ask the administrator who applied the protection unless the administrator is inactive or no longer an administrator; thereafter, requests may be made at Requests for unprotection. He has declined to reinstate the protection so it can be properly discussed. His reason for unprotecting apparently was the news coverage of the protection in Fox News, which seems to me to be a terrible reason to unprotect a page, particularly given the news coverage doesn't actually say anything about the protection being inappropriate (it wasn't). He also wrote that "I took a look at its history and it appears there was only one vandalism edit between its last protection and when you protected it." This is not true; a skim of the page history plainly shows multiple vandalism edits ([77], [78], [79], [80], [81]) between the previous protection expiring at 14:15, 9 January 2021 and the new protection being applied at 19:16, 10 January 2021‎.

He also has said that "I'm not seeing a level of activity that merits protection", which is absurd given the page has been protected. Prior to the protection, there was vandalism almost immediately after protection expired, warranting the action.

He has also inaccurately described Muboshgu as WP:INVOLVED, which he is not: Muboshgu's prior actions on the page were to revert obvious vandalism ([82], [83]), and his engagement on the talk page postdates his protection. WGFinley also seems to have thought I was involved as well despite the fact that I have taken no admin action on the page (though he has since said he was just warning me against doing so, for some reason).

Please see the discussions at Talk:The Lincoln Project#Page Protection, Talk:The Lincoln Project#Current tag, and User talk:Muboshgu#The Lincoln Project Semi-Protection for background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see suboptimal actions by all 3 admins here, but it's all really, really low grade stuff, with the worst registering a 3.6/100 on my Crisis Meter. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, I'll amend that slightly: WGF's baseless accusation that M and GW are violating WP:INVOLVED here registers higher; it's actually a 13.5/100 on the Crisis Meter, and a 38.5/100 on the Wrongheaded Aggression Meter. But still, don't sweat the small stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Suboptimal behaviors:

  • WGF: Do not baselessly throw around accusations of "INVOLVED", it's a serious accusation. M protected the page to prevent vandalism, anyone can do that, whether or not they are a contributor. And GW didn't do anything admin-wise, it's rude to presume to "warn" her because she might. This is the most serious thing here. In a more perfect world, M and GW would have just laughed at you and ignored that, but I can see how it would stick in their craw.
  • WGF: Don't use {{current}} here, it doesn't apply. You don't add things, re-add them when reverted, insisting on a talk page discussion in order to remove them.
  • WGF: Please be more careful about edit conflicts.
  • M: If you tell someone they can unprotect a page even though you don't agree, you can't very well strike out your grudging acceptance after they do it, when you've had a chance to think about it more.
  • G: Please don't bring minor issues to ANI, which blows everything out of proportion all the time. Including me blowing edit conflict handling out of proportion, earlier. Or people mentioning WP:WHEEL, which does not apply here. My careless comments are an inadvertent but perfect example of what goes on here all the time, and why we should avoid ANI where possible.
  • M&G: this experiment in unprotection is easily undone if vandalism returns. M's protection was perfectly reasonable, and I would have likely done the same, but unprotection is worth a shot.

  Reminding all 3 admins of these things is really all I think needs to be done here. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: I think you're referring to Muboshgu's striking of the comment on their talk page, but just in case it's not also clear, Muboshgu's comment that he was strongly against unprotection occurred prior to WGF choosing to unprotect anyway. I don't think it's improper for me to bring this to ANI when WGF unprotected without clear agreement from the protecting admin, and declined to reinstate the protection for discussion. Where else would I take it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: I guess my opinion, which no one else seems to be agreeing with so I suppose can be ignored, is to not take it anywhere. Just let it go, perhaps be momentarily annoyed with WGF being slightly rude (like 1,000 other editors today have probably momentarily annoyed other people), and just re-protect if vandalism resumes. Someone was rude to me today; I left them a brief note on their talk page and went on with my life. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: It is not the rudeness that bothers me; if they'd only accused me of being involved I'd have replied as I did on the talk page and left it at that, not brought it here. I am more than acquainted with people being rude to me on this project, and if I came to ANI each time, this board would be a lot busier than it is. It is the unprotection against policy that I am unhappy with and think needs review here. But, points taken. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I could have been clearer, I agree that I am not entirely without fault. But. my first response with the since struck portion and the second response where I took that back and said I explicitly opposed unprotection both came before WGF's first reply to me, and a few exchanges before it was unprotected. I wish I had struck it at the time, before they had the chance to reply. I am glad there hasn't been any edits of vandalism since unprotection, as of this timestamp, and I hope that holds. To me the issue isn't rudeness, it's the cherrypicking of comments, misconstrual of facts, and unprotection despite two admins arguing against it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, completely accept your summary here with a few caveats. I think I did follow process by bringing the issue to M's talk page. I'm pretty sure I was miffed after M reverted my tag without at least discussing it with me. M clearly said there wasn't agreement but it was up to me to unprotect, and I did. I accept I may be thinking of a long-ago template we would use to tag articles that had a lot of volatility due to news coverage, a better way to handle the wrong tag would be to at least discuss it. I accept I didn't check the dates on the edit history were after the protection occurred and while M may not have been involved at the time it was protected, and while there may be disagreement as to whether protection is merited, M was clearly involved at the time I initiated the discussion to remove the protection. That was my impetus for making the change, that and the simple fact that if I'm wrong and the article becomes subject to a lot of vandalism, I would be the first one to say it should, indeed, be protected. All of that said, the rapid escalation of this and disagreement over something that's a pretty simple difference of opinion and instant analysis of my edit history may be the reason many contributors decide to reduce their participation. --WGFinley (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Differences of opinion are fine, however this "difference of opinion" involved you reversing another admin's action against their wishes. You said I'd like to remove the protection and monitor and I think you should let other admins who are not involved in the editing of it to make a decision on if it needs protection again. Regardless of the "involvement" issue, what you should have done, of course, is brought the issue to WP:AN without undoing it to see if there was a consensus for doing so. Analysis of your edit history is appropriate in this case, as it reveals that you only have 19 logged admin actions in the last eight years which possibly explains why you are unclear about what you actually should have done. However, in the end, there is no great harm done here - but I suggest you should consider gaining consensus before performing what could be a contentious action in the future. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm disappointed in this response. If anything, it makes me think your unprotection was "involved", since it happened after you got annoyed that your tag was reverted. It's tone deaf to say you completely accept my view and then say you were right and they were wrong. You were, IMHO, much more in the wrong than they were. Which, in the grad scheme of things, wouldn't matter on an issue this small, except you keep saying Muboshgu did something wrong. You might notice that nobody commenting here thought that there was anything wrong with Mubushgu's protection. You might notice that nobody thinks they were INVOLVED. You might notice that, independent of how active you are right now, cumulatively Muboshgu has roughly 40 times the experience you do, and they might, just might, have a better grasp on current policy than you do. Don't play the "this is why no one wants to contribute anymore" card. Your - understandable and completely acceptable - level of activity does not make you immune to criticism when you do a crappy thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Remark: WGFinley's last edit before today was in December; their last 50 edits go back to April; their last 100 go back to 2018; their last 250 go back to 2012 (!). --JBL (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see how that matters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I take that back; If WGF thinks it's OK to change someone else's comments, then perhaps they lack the experience to be an admin here. What the actual fuck was this? Starting to think that bringing this to ANI wasn't a mistake after all; was this a momentary lack of competence, or evidence of a deeper problem? WGF, can you reassure me that editing GW's comments was a one-off mistake? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: I think it was a mistake, though it is a three-off mistake and not a one-off. See my comment below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Yes, likely misunderstanding how to handle edit conflicts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue it's relevant to show that often what I call "woodwork" admins lack the understanding and knowledge of current policy and norms and thus make big boo-boos, such as this. But I won't get into my feelings on all of that here. CUPIDICAE💕 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• If nothing else, it drives home the fact that they saw the protection on Fox and came here to lift it as a result. That's not inherently wrong but I'd be concerned that coverage from those sorts of sources is often hyperbolic and exaggerated - admins shouldn't be making decisions based on that. Even if they take the time to try and research it, it's hard to avoid the initial framing or the basic implication of "admin sees something that seems outrageous on the news, logs on to Wikipedia and immediately uses their tools to fix it" - it's not great to have an admin who has barely edited coming back based on something they saw in an axe-grindy culture-war piece in the media to immediately use their tools. While WGFinley cites WP:INVOLVED, the principle behind that policy is that This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings; coming to an article in reaction to a patiently axe-grindy piece like this, immediately accusing another administrator of being involved, and offering themselves as an uninvolved administrator to watch over the page seems a bit eyebrow-raising if nothing else. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yikes. WP:WHEELWAR was a thing when WGF became an admin and still is now. Perhaps they should refamiliarize themselves with Wikipedia's current policies and norms before diving headfirst into controversial areas and violating policy. CUPIDICAE💕 19:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• I am the fourth admin to protect this page from vandalism / disruptive editing for any length of time. The first protection was for three days in May 2020. The second was for a month in October, overlapping with the 2020 election. About ten days after unprotection, it was protected again for another month. The third protection could have (and should have) been longer, as within a day of its unprotection, vandalism resumed, and so I protected it for three months. This was on January 10, four days after the insurrection at the US Capitol, and the edits requiring my to reprotect the page were primarily Stop the Steal-related vandalism. Given that people had just died for that lie four days prior, and we had an inauguration under threat of worse disruption ten days later, semiprotection was indeed necessary. The edits that led me to reprotect the page had nothing to do with John Weaver and that situation, in spite of the narrative that Fox News chose to invent in their article. WGFinley did indeed cherrypick from my comments. I was much more amenable to another admin unprotecting the page when they started the thread on my talk page saying that I protected the page after one edit of vandalism, but that didn't sound like what I would do, and indeed there were four edits of vandalism in quick succession within a day of automatic unprotection, which led me to reprotect the page. WGFinley also doesn't seem to understand that the {{current}} template has nothing to do with if a subject is in the news, but if the article is being heavily edited. And, their insistence on putting the template back on in spite of what GW and I said and not going to RFPP, as protection policy says, is inappropriate as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Response

While I came to this article while reading articles on this topic and having the Fox News article come up in my search, it has nothing to do with my reasons for unprotecting the article. When I saw the article my thought was "wow, there must be a big vandalism issue on that page!" My review found, there really hasn't been a great deal of vandalism on this page. I then took a look at the protection log and the admin's reasoning, I thought the three months that was opted, along with prior protection of the page, to be a bit long.

The final factor in my reasoning for unprotecting was the protecting admin's heavy activity in editing the article. In particular the pretty snarky comment on this removal[84] along with this comment on the article's talk page[85] led me to believe the protecting admin was clearly involved in the editing of this article and the disputes surrounding it and shouldn't be taking administrative actions on it.

Nonetheless, I posted to the protecting admin's talk page to discuss it further[86] and added the CURRENT tag to the article with the intent of unprotecting the article shortly. My tag was reverted and we had some discussion of the talk page ensued. I made it pretty clear I would not be opposed to adding it back if the activity merited it and that I, as an uninvolved admin, would be happy to monitor it and elected to unprotect the article despite the disagreement the protecting admin acknowledged.[87] --WGFinley (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen the argument that WP:INVOLVED retroactively applies. The talk page comment you link is from more than a month after the protection was applied.

You are again cherrypicking Muboshgu's comments, and not quoting where he said "I am strongly against unprotecting this page". It was clear more discussion was needed.

As an aside, you have now three times undone other users' edits when leaving a comment: [88], [89], [90]. Please try to be a bit more careful when saving your changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: He didn't just accidentally delete the other comments, he also deliberately edited your original comment, removing references to cherrypicking for instance. That, I think is unacceptable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Hemiauchenia. I don't know if this was maliciously done or out of sheer incompetence but it certainly looks like WGF's current tool use is a disaster in the making. CUPIDICAE💕 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be something off with the board today - there seems to be a lot of edit conflicts (2 x with this comment).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I don't actually think he did, it looks like it was this edit of mine, where I added the cherrypicking info, that was accidentally undone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I realised this going through the diffs afterwards. My apologies. The fact that he has no idea how to resolve edit conflicts properly though is concerning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I resolve edit conflicts as I always have, copy what I wanted to add, abandon the edit, refresh the page, and try again. I didn't intentionally try to remove anything and it now seems there's some admission that I didn't. --WGFinley (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't make any intentional attempt to remove anyone's comments. --WGFinley (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My review found, there really hasn't been a great deal of vandalism on this page. The article was semi-protected for a month on December 9 due to a spate of vandalism. So, obviously there wasn't much vandalism in that month because it was semi-protected. After the semi-protection expired late on January 9, it was vandalised six times in one day before Muboshgu restored it. And there hasn't been any vandalism since, because it's been semi-protected. I would have done exactly the same (a spate of vandalism immediately when an article comes off a long protection is a big red flag that it should be restored) and I'm sure a lot of other admins would too. This seems like a very sub-optimal chain of events, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection restored

WGFinley, this key WP:AP2 page has seen continuous disruption, including recent revisions that had to be deleted. It is a prime candidate for an indef AE protection (which is par for the course for me). Not intending to WHEELWAR: please feel free to re-lift the protection again without incident (from me), but I ask that you do take what I said into account. Also, note that I will be registering this protection in the log, regardless, but will update as needed. Hope everything else gets otherwise resolved amicably. Thank you. El_C 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to Close

It appears pretty clearly that I have lost touch with the current norms within the community and I was too hasty in my actions here. I would request for this incident to be closed, I intend to take no further action in it. Since I've lost touch, I have voluntarily requested removal of my access to admin tools. --WGFinley (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2021 (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.

Multiple IPs adding porn or offensive image in supposedly TFA article

• Evelyn Mase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please give attention to this article, because today it has posted as TFA. But unfournately, as time progressed, instead the purpose of TFA are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, many vandals take advantage it to vandalize the article with adding an offensive thing. Today, multiple IPs like 37.40.110.129, 5.21.242.196, and endless other IPs adding offensive or porn images to this article, even many IPs replace to people's article with pennis article, which should be deleted. It is clear violation of Biographics of living person policy. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:GuyFawkes289: sockpuppet

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 a sockpuppet of recently indeffed User:Tarik289, both users have similar editing styles on the same articles. And after checking his global account information Guyfawkes289 has been identified and blocked as a puppet of Tarik289 on tr.wiki. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (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.

Persistent promotional editing at Hobby School

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.

---

Persistent addition of unsourced, promotional and copyright violation content. I've requested a user block of the original account at AIV; since then, other accounts have gotten involved. More eyes, please. 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of accounts involved with this page, Air Force 129 was confirmed to be a sock of a long-term sockpuppeteer last week (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Maglasang) but hasn't been blocked yet, and has been accumulating copyvio warnings and other disruptive behavior since then. Help from an admin would be appreciated here, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Air Force 129 blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:33, 20 February 2021 (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:MPN 1994 and unsourced stadium claims

• MPN 1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group H (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think this user understands the importance of discussion, and instead insists on reverting to their preferred version of this article, which contains WP:TOOSOON unsourced claims of future matches held at certain stadiums, specifically Malta home games. I've already notified the user of the ongoing discussion about this issue at WT:FOOTY#Source for stadiums?, but I already know that the user is going to revert again ignoring the discussion. It's obvious from their edit history that they have never used a Talk page before (apart from a single User talk page post in 2013 which has since been archived). At this point, I have a feeling WP:CIR applies here. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit war their preferred version after being formally informed of this and the ongoing discussion, which gives the impression of a refusal to discuss. WP:COMMUNICATE applies as well. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Things I notice about MPN 1994 - no edit summaries, no talk page posts, lots of addition of unsourced content, lots of OWNership vibes. GiantSnowman 21:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:ExoEditor and User:Kepler-1229b

Both editors are repeatedly removing a merge template from an article, but the merge discussion has not yet been closed. See [91], [92]. I attempted to discuss this on the talk page but ExoEditor continues to remove the template, and Kepler-1229b has put a 3RR notice on my talk page, even though I was careful not to violate 3RR. In addition, ExoEditor (formerly Albertheditor) has baselessly accused me of sockpuppetry in the past, which was discussed in a previous ANI thread. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Kepler-1229b's talk page, they seem to have a history of reverting constructive edits. They have also been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation was a false accusation, and there were only two or three incidents of reverting constructive edits, and one of them was ended by another editor. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do lurk around ANI. On one hand, you did technically break the three revert rule, but on the other hand, I would do the exact same, and would consider removing merge templates for a merge being discussed obvious vandalism or disruptive editing, which is an exemption from 3RR. But on the stand next to the tv, I am definitely looking at the exception in a forest of rules, which is WikiLawyer-esque behavior. So I'm going to stop writing now. 4D4850 (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia works with consensus. We are two editos in favor of removing that merger notice from the article (after many months of debate and many editors involved, consensus has been reached about not merging the article (or at least no consensus has been reached about merging it) even though it hasn't been closed. SevenSpheresCelestia has now broken the three-revert rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KOI-4878.01&action=history), something that neither Kepler-1229b nor me have done in this case. I'm not asking for him to be temporarily banned. I personally think there is no reason to create a problem from something like removing a merger notice from a page. I would appreciate if an administrator archives the merger proposal (most of the pages proposed by SevenSpheresCelestia to merge have already been merged; those for which consensus was reached, including me) - I think I shouldn't do it myself. With respect to the sockpuppetry accusation he is talking about, that happened last year and I honestly don't think it's related with the issue at hand here. In any case, anybody can check in his talkpage that I apologized to him. I don't want any trouble. I'm just in Wikipedia to help it grow with my little grain of sand. Thank you and have a good day. ExoEditor 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article so that all parties involved can discuss the dispute properly and make sure that a consensus has been reached. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant discussion has been closed by User:Onetwothreeip, but @ExoEditor: reverted the closure. I added the archive template back and commented on the talk page; an IP editor (possibly ExoEditor?) then removed my comment and the archive template. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: ExoEditor has removed my comment again. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: and again he continues his disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't notice, but he claims I'm disruptively editing and created another ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The behaviour of SevenSpheresCelestia is just unacceptable. He keeps closing a debate for which consensus hasn't been reached at all. I'm now forced to kindly ask the Administration to temporarily ban him from editing. He proposed 4 mergers, and after many months and editors involved, consensus (including me) was reached for merging 3 of them. It's not enough for him. He insists that consensus has been reached to merger the 4th article, something that not only is untrue, but shows no respect for the group of editors (including me) who spent much time working on it. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 right here. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm very suspicious of this recent edit happening when it did. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fourth removal of my comment, please block ExoEditor for disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot close a debate that you started: True, but I didn't close it, User:Onetwothreeip did. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. "Fourth removal" is counting the IP editor. Regardless of the number of edits, your removal of my comment is disruptive and borderline vandalism. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your friend closed it, so it's irrelevant. Wait until an administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached. Plus reverting vandalism is an exception. I really won't waste my time reading more your comments. You may not have but I have a life. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My "friend"??? I haven't had any interaction with User:Onetwothreeip before this incident. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I agree the disruption here stems mostly from ExoEditor, who, as far as I can tell, edits on exoplanets much like a fanboy of whatever niche fandom would. They went as far as opposing merge notices e.g. [93], which is utterly silly WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, given a merge discussion was ongoing. I don't know what the best solution is, but IMO a topic ban is on the table. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, I'm forced to reply you. Wikipedia works with cosensus. Several editors were in favor of removing that merger notice (most of the merger proposals had been accepted after several months of debate and many editors involved, and no consensus was reached for just one of the pages). Plus the debate should take place in the talkpage of the page at hand or in a 'Article for deletion' discussion. Not in third-talkpages, as it's happening now.

I will avoid commenting on your insults. If you think that keeping an un-solved debate open in Wikipedia is 'fanboy' behaviour, it's not my problem sorry.

Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia.

The corresponding evidence will soon be sent to the Administrators.

I won't check more this discussion, sorry. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia. Here he goes again, he was making the same claims in the ANI thread mentioned above... SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, now you made me interested enough to make some time to find the proof, which I already have. Good luck and bye.ExoEditor 21:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Show me your "proof" then. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia" Alright, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality has to stop. Such repeated and baseless accusations are enough for me to support a full ban of ExoEditor (talk · contribs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

ExoEditor is continuing his disruptive editing at ANI. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saw your comment because the Administrator asked me for the evidence we have against you. Just for the archive, it must be noted that this user SevenSpheresCelestia is closing ANI's where he is partially involved. As I said, I won't waste my time anymore with this disruptive editor who has 'suspiciously' semi-retired the same day that an investigation on him/her has started. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not close your ANI thread; I reverted your disruptive reversion of its closure. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @ExoEditor: I strongly suggest that you - very quickly - either provide evidence for we have solid evidence that (SevenSpheresCelestia) uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia, withdraw and strike those comments, or I will simply block you. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SevenSpheresCelestia Cheers. ExoEditor 21:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExoEditor: Yes, which I've suggested is closed as none of it is convincing, and some of it is plainly incorrect. So, again, "solid evidence" please. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b: This also applies to you, given that you wrote the SPI and nonsense like this. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked ExoEditor for a week after they ignored the above, but instead asked for the merge request to be closed how they wanted it here, and again repeated the sockpuppetry allegations. Simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

And out of nowhere (see immediately after ExoEditor's block), [94], Kepler-1229b asks that SevenSpheresCelestia is banned, offering no logic. This smells of retaliation through a sock sock behaviour. It's at the very least WP:BADFAITH/WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am a sockpuppet of @ExoEditor:? I am not. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ardenau4, one of the "sockpuppets" (I know SevenSpheres on Discord, but we're not the same person). I haven't actually edited anything in a while but I will say this: given that I've read articles that have been edited by Kepler-1229 b, I don't suspect him/her as a sockpuppet. However, given that ExoEditor, does have a COI on his page, this may be possible meatpuppet behavior. Unfortunately when I became inactive a while ago I hoped this conflict would have resolved itself, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to have been the case. From what I've seen of this conflict, this seems to be in bad faith, as conflicts like this have happened before, where users have edited pages that ExoEditor has created/contributed to, and have started small edit/talk page wars. I hope this conflict gets resolved some time soon. Ardenau4 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Consistent sockpuppetry without any ample assistance lately

Recently, this sockpuppet investigation against a particularly popular contributor of bad faith to Wikipedia has returned. The sockpuppet investigation case has been expanded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter, however, there also have been lax protection policies pertaining to articles related to the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia in particular). I am requesting the sockpuppets of Hoaeter are immediately stopped in their tracks. The WP:DRIVEBY at Habesha peoples, and WP:AGENDA pushing at P'ent'ay among other articles is tiresome. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TheLionHasSeen, I had protected Habesha peoples for a month and (as you probably noticed) the suspect edits resumed a couple of days after that expired. I suppose that article will need protection again, but the new edits were less disruptive than before (perhaps by design) and, as of this writing, it's been pretty quiet for a couple of days. I'm not sure what happened with the SPI report. I wondered if it was missing some sort of flag where the clerks or checkusers would see it, but it's in all the right categories (and is listed on the main SPI page). It's frustrating, I know, but FWIW it's not even the oldest open SPI case (and, as always, we're depending upon volunteer effort). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A reminder that per WP:ARBCOM ruling standard discretionary sanctions are not in play for the Horn of Africa region, so don’t be afraid to put them to use here. 2600:100C:B02B:FDE3:7D12:4069:B31F:9D78 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume the editor meant "now in play?" (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa#Final decision.) I am not sure about applying sanctions, as I would seem to be fairly much WP:INVOLVED. I have, however, placed an alert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I am not sure why I have so much trouble wrapping my head around WP:ACDS. It's unclear to me what a discretionary sanction would look like, in this case. Unless I'm mistaken, Hoaeter is already technically banned from editing here, as per WP:THREESTRIKES. They're already not allowed to edit, and (as of this writing & in my opinion) no one else has been so disruptive that page restrictions are justified. (I believe page protection is a separate remedy, and we've used that in the past.) Blocking sock accounts as they are identified seems just as effective and, as a normal admin action, is something that I can do (unless I am mistaken) even if I'm WP:INVOLVED. (I've still been logging already-blocked accounts at WP:SPI/Hoaeter for the sake of documentation and (for lack of a better term?) transparency.) As far as I know, there's really nothing else to do where Hoaeter's concerned that we aren't already doing. If there is an uninvolved admin who reads this far and wants to apply discretionary sanctions, then please do so, but where the Habesha-related articles (and templates etc.) are concerned, we're really only concerned about a single editor using multiple accounts. And if I am overlooking something really obvious that discretionary sanctions would do for us (e.g. some technical remedy I don't know about), then please point this out to me; the coffee is not doing it for me today and it's entirely possible I'm missing an important point. Maybe this comment is better suited for WP:ARE; again I'm not even sure what to ask for, in terms of a sanction. (I will cross-post this to Talk:Habesha peoples where WP:ACDS has been fairly recently discussed.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S. to TheLionHasSeen, I believe the SPI case may have taken so long because it was missing the CUrequest parameter. For future reference, if you want a Checkuser's attention, the status template needs to look like this: {{SPI case status|CUrequest}}. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They have even attempted to get me blocked on Simple Wikipedia for notifying their administration of their workings there (https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&oldid=7383888 vandalism report) and verbatim copying information from this English Wikipedia, with the same agenda pushing tactics they've used before. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Est. 2021

Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor seems intent on being as disruptive here as he was in wp.it, where this account is blocked as a sockpuppet of his earlier account Vicipedianus x, which has an extensive history of blocks for PA, edit-warring and block evasion. The move-warring at Agro Nocerino Sarnese (a page that as it happens I created), edit-warring to downcase appearances of that proper name in other pages such as Cava de' Tirreni and general WP:IDHT don't bode well for his future here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The only disruptive user here is you, who vandalised a page for no reason, with a false edit object. I left a message on your talk too. My earlier accounts display an appropriate disclaimer, and they are listed on my userpage, so don't try changing the topic and let me assume good faith. About the name 'Agro nocerino-sarnese' I explained you twice already that this name is not in English, it's in Italian, hence it must follow Italian linguistic rules: adjectives in the names of Italian geographical regions are not capitalised, and there is always a dash between two of them (cf. Appennino tosco-romagnolo, Appennino tosco-emiliano). Don't pretend I didn't explain it three times already now. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That edit doesn't at all look like vandalism to me. — Czello 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: Have you compared the two versions of feast of Our Lady of the Hens? He deleted FOUR SECTIONS for no reason, including all the notes and references, with a false edit object. It does look like vandalism. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks far more like a content dispute issue to me than vandalism. Vandalism is deliberately attempting to harm Wikipedia for malicious reasons, which I don't think this edit is at all. — Czello 14:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not a content dispute. He talked about the name 'Agro nocerino-sarnese', but he didn't say a word about the rest of the page he wholly deleted. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The dispute over the proper capitalisation is a WP:Content dispute. I suggest you re-read the policy if you think it isn't. As for the other reversions, it's not clear to me the reason for them but it's clearly not vandalism. At most, it was carelessly reverting a bunch of edits when you only dispute one. By incorrectly calling it vandalism, you discredit any argument you may have in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I suggest you re-read the page, instead of commenting without awareness of the facts. The edit I called 'vandalism' had nothing to do with capitalisation. He deleted several paragraphs for no reason. Read his version of the page, then check my version. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: You're missing the key point I was trying to make. You said it was vandalism. It clearly wasn't. There is an active content dispute over the capitalisation of the article. Given the content dispute, reverting your capitalisation change was not necessarily wrong and definitely not vandalism. As I also already said, they reverted a bunch of your edits. I'm not sure why they did so. Either they disagreed with several of your edits and felt it best to revert without yet offering a real explanation anywhere that I saw. Or they disagreed with the capitalisation change and so reverted them. As I already said, that is careless editing but not vandalism. As long as you continue to call it vandalism, your credibility here is badly damaged. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers

After a little edit-war, despite I had explained him why his edits were wrong, the user Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) tried to discredit me here on the AN, defaming me multiple times, assuming bad faith and calling me disruptive. I' ve been patient and respectful, but the user doesn't stop discrediting me. He just did it again in this talk. Please, stop him! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Page moved back to consensus version (even if by virtue of WP:SILENCE alone). Move protected indefinitely. Est. 2021, please do not move war. If you do so again, you may be sanctioned. Please propose move requests for any and all moves that are likely to be contested. Thank you. El_C 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I'd say the same to you. Move warring is ill-advised, especially when the title change isn't of an especially urgent or drastic nature. El_C 15:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, El C – in an ideal world I would not have moved it a second time; in an ideal world I wouldn't have needed to – the user would either have listened to advice or started a discussion. I'm still waiting for someone other than me to revert the dozen or so instances where he's downcased the name of this place. But as you say, it's not particularly urgent or drastic. Thanks for at least partly resolving this ridiculous dispute. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Don't pretend being a victim, you made it ridiculous reverting tens of edits without a doubt, deleting multiple paragraphs from the article feast of Our Lady of the Hens for no reason and defaming me several times because of your illogical tantrum. Three explanations didn't suffice for you, so I followed El C's advice. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

PS. Is it normal to delete talks? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Some editors do it. Whether you want to call it normal or not, they're entitled to do so per WP:OWNTALK so it's no concern of ANI. I suggest you drop this complaint since AFAICT, while neither of you come out shining, neither of you have done anything requiring admin action yet now that the article has been returned to the older title and move protected. Rather than continually calling something vandalism which wasn't or wasting more time trying to argue it is at ANI, why don't you open a discussion at Talk:Feast of Our Lady of the Hens talking about your other edits (excluding the capitalisation change) and why you feel they are beneficial. And if Justlettersandnumbers agrees with your proposed changes or doesn't respond, and if there is no other disagreement, reintroduce those edits. (To be clear I mean minus the capitalisation change. While article text doesn't always have to follow the titles of main articles in this case there doesn't seem to be any reason for a difference. So the dispute over capitalisation is best resolved via the RM.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Tisquesusa

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.

---

They seem to mostly be making constructing edits, but this evening they went rather non-linear. They have been adding links to Commons from categories, which I have been removing as they are misplaced. They posted on my talk page today at User_talk:Mike_Peel#Instead_of_destroying_my_work,_you_could_do_something_constructive,_don't_you_think?, and I have responded there in good faith, but then I saw their other edit summaries. A neutral intervention here would be useful, please. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Those 8 edit summaries from today are extremely offensive. That is unquestionably unacceptable behavior that should not need to be pointed out and discussed with the editor. Schazjmd (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) and ASK ME FIRST. Instead of destroying my hard work. GTFO}} Tisquesusa (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You might want to strike out those personal attacks, Tisquesusa. It's not going to reflect well on you. Oh, it seems that they've already been indefinitely blocked for that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They've already been blocked, so I've taken the liberty of redacting it myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 20 February 2021 (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.

• Previous ANI threads relating to Tisquesusa's personal attacks: October 2019, November 2019, October 2020. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is this user advertising commercial Más Muisca trips on their User page? Maybe I am getting this wrong? Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. The page User:Tisquesusa/Más Muisca looks like straightforward G11/U5 stuff to me. Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• This seems to be a long time very productive editor, who may have simply have blown a gasket. Can we not try somehow to rescue them? Paul August ☎ 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Tisquesusa was for the most part a productive editor, but they have a consistent penchant for engaging in henious personal attacks when angered, which has happened on several occasions, separated by months of editing without incident. An indef block was inevitable, in retrospect. Take this from the editor who probably has the most charitable opinion of him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for looking into this, although it's sad that an indef block was the conclusion, their productive edits looked good but I didn't realise it was a repeating issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But that this may well have been a "repeating issue", that doesn't mean that their indefinite block is not a net negative for the project. Paul August ☎ 13:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has far too high a tolerance for personal attacks as is. It is weird though that a long term editor with over 38,000 edits gets indeffed blocked with about as much fanfare as a newly registered vandal, so I may as well give a bit of an euology. Tisquesusa for the most part got quietly on with his work and did not interact with the wider community, which may explain the lack of defenders. His work expanding Muisca and geology related topics is considerable and cannot be ignored, though I won't exactly miss his unique citation style. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The more I hear the more I think we should reconsider the indefinite block. A net positive is a still a positive. @El C: ? Paul August ☎ 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

[Internet quite spotty today, so hoping this goes through.] Paul, I deem insults that deride autistic persons, even when obviously not intended as such (i.e. to deride said persons, specifically, as opposed to a passing insult) to be of an extremely serious nature. That said, I didn't check the user's history much upon seeing the redacted content, and so I have no idea whether their previous NPA blocks were of a similar nature. I just indeffed as an immediate impulse (hopefully, seen as decisively). Now, if said previous NPA blocks were, indeed, not of that nature, I don't mind you, Paul (or any other admin), alteing the block pending your approval of their unblock request. Any changes to the block, be it reducing it or lifting it outright, are alright with me, in that instance. In that instance, I do not require any consultation or even notification for any impending action the reviewing admin sees fit to take. In short, otherwise, happy to let others handle it from this point on. El_C 16:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The contents of the previous personal attacks were just as bad, but because they get have gotten revdel'd you can't dig them up for comparison. For instance, in one previous attack which got him a one month block [[95]], Tisquesusa referred to BHG as a "creature" and a "freak" and suggested that they might be a man. They also referred to the deletion of portals as the "shoah", a frankly idiotic and horrific comparison. Tisquesusa is a productive editor, but he is also neurotic and cannot be expected to reasonably respond to disagreement. In order for Tisquesusa to be unblocked, he must acknowedge that he cannot make henious personal attacks against other editors he disagrees with, he must not add categories that do not exist to articles, and that he understands that if he makes henious personal attacks again he will be indefinitely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

[96] relevant page for admins to see redacted personal attacks by Tisquesusa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to see Tisquesusa's contributions to the encyclopedia, I think User:Tisquesusa/Proud pieces and User:Tisquesusa/New articles speak for themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Hemiauchenia. Yes, I already got the sense that they are quite accomplished. But, as for their conduct otherwise, I think I've seen enough — which is to say, having viewed the first diff in these Nov 2019 revdeleted series only (revdel diff). Questioning BrownHairedGirl's (ping) sexual identity, and stating about her that: This creature has a mental issue, and so on. That's too much for me. I don't care that it happened two years ago. For it to happen even just a second time is too beyond the pale for me. So, put me firmly on the record as opposing any unblocking for the foreseeable future (if ever). We should not tolerate egregious misconduct of that nature in the form of a 3rd (?) chance. El_C 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, even as the editor who has had the most positive interactions with Tisquesusa and collaborated with them on several occasions, the fact that he has after repeated personal attacks, never apologised or acknowledged that they are wrong means that an indefinite block is the only realistic option, which is sad, but entirely due to Tisquesusa's own conduct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, just noticed this. Calling portal deletion Shoah! I have no words — or rather, the words I have are not fit to publish. El_C 18:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On an emotional level, I'm all for getting rid of this $%@##*$. But ... on a more pragmatic what-will-make-our-encyclopedic-content-better level, he seems to be a NET POSITIVE. Look, many of our most productive editors are ... how shall I put this ... prickly assholes. If I recall correctly the greatest volunteer contributer—by far—to the OED was a complete asocial nut case. We need to do everything we can to keep such hyper-productive editors. If that entails a more nuanced approach, so be it. Paul August ☎ 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul August, indef just means he needs to acknowledge what he did wrong and commit to not doing it again in the future. There should be no consideration of reducing or removing the block without that assurance. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So we won't let them go on making massive contributions to our encyclopedia, unless they publicly admit that they've been an asshole. Well yes that is what a mature adult would do, a good person who cares about other people's feelings. But that may not be who we are dealing with here. If we only allowed mature adults and good people to edit well ... who among us would be left? Paul August ☎ 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You, for one, Paul! El_C 17:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Well, that's kind of you to say so. But, given this mother f'ing virus trying to kill us all, I'm just about to blow a few gaskets myself. Also recently I've been working more on a long time aspirational goal of mine to become more of a curmudgeon, so watch the fuck out! Paul August ☎ 18:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a mighty fine lawn you have there, Paul. Mind if I, erm, get on it? El_C 18:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul, this isn't about the occasional "go fuck yourself" outbursts and variations therein — I have a fairly high tolerance for that, among admins, I think. This is on a whole other galaxy. El_C 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I get that ... Nevertheless ... Paul August ☎ 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a pity given the contributions, but there are some heavy behavioral issues there. Pity we didn't have a bot that just scanned every published edit (and edit summary) for profanities, and prevented an edit being published that contained them. Won't solve it all, but would solve a lot, and underline this is not acceptable? Worst case scenario, it would increase the thought and art-form behind finding new profanities that would get around the bot ... so at least there would be entertainment. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Bender the Bot

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, can someone take a look at the bot? It is going bananas. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be doing routine stuff, changing http to https. Anything specific that caught your eye? Fram (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It is doing what it is supposed to, I think it might be concerns with the rate? Changing *thousands* of http-https for whitehouse.gov may be hitting some people's watchlists heavily if they are interested in US politics (or in fact anything the US has opined on). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If the cluttering up of one's watchlist is an issue, one can filter out bot edits. Paul August ☎ 19:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be edits like this which replaced "|url=http..." with "|url https..." (i.e. omitting the "=", breaking the template - I think the bot has stopped doing this now.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem was caused by a coding error on my part. It affected about 150 pages, which I fixed manually. Thanks to Lotje and Bsherr for pointing this out, and for fixing some of the mistakes as well. --bender235 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2021 (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.

Uncivil/hostile disruptive behavior by IP

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.

---

68.132.99.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Numerous (e.g. 1, 2, 3) mentions of all Indian newspapers fake news in edit summaries and Talk pages (while removing and disrupting content). Vandalizing BLPs (1, 2). And uncivil/hostile behavior throughout their edits ever since the IP started editing since last year. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, a ban on here seems necessary. Gotitbro (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (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.

Personal Attacks and Disruptive Editing.

Hi, i would like to seek admin help for a major problem that i am seeking. There are many users who i feel are targeting me by attacking my created article's. (Sheikh Asif), (Sardar Nadir Ali), (Thames Infotech), (Imtiyaaz Rasool) These are the users/article subjects which these users tried to make and since i am from kashmir i know that they are not notable and they are just trying to use wikipedia for promotional activities, So i used to report them but these guys have started a gang and they are now attacking me. They have been trying to do disruptive editing on my first article Zeyan Shafiq, as you can notice that they have been trying to delete it from past many days, and now they have put it up on an AfD, but the main issue is that they are manipulating the AfD discussion by using new accounts to vote and comment 'Delete' . This article was edited by many experienced editors, was even made live by an admin (fences and windows) but they still call it as promotional content even though it was thorougly checked, It was even put up for 'DYK', but still these Vandals are just trying to use fake accounts and comment Delete without giving any proper reason. I want to request the admins to help and guide me on how do i deal with these people? Because they are just wasting all my hardwork. If i start working on another article i am sure that they will disrupt it as well. i was a new editor who made many mistakes in the past but after that i learned a lot, i haven't made any mistake since so long because now i know about all the rules and now i am ready to contribute to the Wikipedia but these vandals and fake accounts are just making my work hard. Thanks Hums4r (Let's Talk) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thamesinfotech/Archive, and the AfD of an article the OP created (and which I edited), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeyan Shafiq. The accounts are not named here, but Hums4r you need to do so, provide evidence of disruption, and inform the users of this discussion. Note I have been mentoring Hums4r and did not advise coming here. Fences&Windows 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I did freak out momentarily at seeing someone named "Imtiyaaz" dragged to ANI. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol M Imtiaz bro; even I was accused of being a sockpuppet by these people but I didn't prefer raising this noneissue to ANI. Their comments are available on my talk page. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 06:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

the user who opened this thread has been globally blocked for abusing multiple accounts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, this situation calls for a mandatory meme. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki on Sky

• Wiki on Sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Angelica di Silvestri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_di_Silvestri

The account Wiki on Sky claiming to be a paid editor, though lacking basic editing skills, tried to CSD-PROD the above page while also trying to delete sourced content. They also tried placing paid contributor tags on the bio page and my talk page. In the past, an IP claiming to be the subject of the bio had asked for the page to be deleted which was reflected by an admin here. I cleaned up the page and tried to get a wider opinion through an AFD which resulted in a Keep. The above editor was blocked for 24h for DE and yet continues disruptive editing post block. Vikram 10:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Admins. The page isn't cleared yet so how this person have places wrong nad false allegations to my client account? He is a scammer and disruptive editor. Kindly stop this person from disruptive editing because he is an editor with false info & he is trying to offend my client. SO kindly block this person from editing & my request is to delete the page becuase all the allegations are wrong.Wiki on Sky (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• This editor has a declared conflict of interest in relation to this article and their behaviour is clearly disruptive; I have posted a firm warning on their talkpage to this effect. To be honest, their ongoing single-minded advocacy for their clients appears to be posing a net drain on editor resources. Their objection appears to be in relation to a one-line mention in the article of allegations of tax-evasion by the subject; this appears to have a reasonable source, and does not appear undue. A partial block for Wiki on Sky from Angelica di Silvestri might be helpful to stem this nonsense, however if they keep it up for too much longer I think they will have well and truly reached the end of the line. (n.b. I closed the AfD). --Jack Frost (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I've cleaned up the article on Angelica as well as her husband Gary to comply with NPOV. I found better sources (The Atlantic etc) for their tax problem, so hopefully this will be the end of the disruption.— Diannaa (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Wiki on Sky, do not attack other editors, or cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Vikram is trying to collaborate with you, and is not a "scammer". There is a process for deleting articles, which can be found at WP:AFD. Be sure that you read the directions there carefully, and that you also read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Otherwise, you're likely to blocked if you can't assume good faith, edit collaboratively, and demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE. Please, read the links that I've provided, so that you can avoid any trouble going forward. As Jack Frost has pointed out, your approach thus far is not acceptable, and you're treading on thin ice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by Abdul afghan

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

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" five times at Sur Empire [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" twice at Amir Suri [102] [103]

Changed "Persian" to "Pashtun" twice at Muhammad ibn Suri [104] [105]

This is most likely his IP, which has done the exact same disruptive edits as him [106]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Warned for potential 3RR violation here
• Fails to communicate despite being invited to the talk page here, notified here. Went on to revert it again here

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is clearly over-the-top disruption, and POV pushing. Borderline WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR territory. Propose to block the user/IPs with an explanation of why this is unacceptable, and a clear directive to take advice on board, and promise to edit collaboratively as a condition of the unblock. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Poisoning of well on AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disha Ravi
• Disha Ravi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vincentvikram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Shankargb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Vincentvikram has been tagging active editors by falsely accusing them of being canvassed[107][108] and after I warned him on his talk page against this WP:DE he went ahead to double down not only on his talk page,[109] but restoring the same false accusations on AfD,[110][111] and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR.[112]

Even after knowing all this, he is now derailing the AfD by encouraging me to report his misconduct. Given the editor is editing since 2007 and does not understand what he is doing wrong, this is a case of CIR and thus I am reporting it here. Shankargb (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Vikram

Context: The AFD in question is a highly polarised one as it is currently in the news as events unfold, with very strong opinions on both sides.

• Starting with the easier accusations. An IP posted a delete comment at the top of the AFD which another editor moved down the list inorder. I highlighted the delete vote to help the admin count it. I thought I was being helpful.

• I tagged four accounts for either SPA or canvassing since I had reasonable doubts after visiting their talk pages. I tagged Shankargb with canvassing tag after seeing at least five sections (a sixth section he had deleted) with warnings of disruptive editing and two sections with DS alerts(within one year), the last being yesterday. If I am wrong about the SPA/canvassing concern I will apologise.

• Shankargb made a comment about "no personal attacks" and yet talked about my comprehension stating The problem is with your poor comprehension skills. Instead, he could have just talked about what aspects of the stub were actually puffery.

• I tagged krao212 since that account was ten months old and had at least ten sections with warnings of DE and two DS alerts, and all these were in related areas and hence my genuine concern.

• Two other accounts I tagged were clear cut SPA cases.

• What I do not understand is why would Shankarsg delete the tag for krao212 instead of just his?

• The tag I re-added was not shankargb's but krao212 and shankar objected to it and removed it twice. Why does one editor fight so vehemently for another account that has so many DE and DS warnings?

• Two other editors Sadads and RationalPuff have also expressed concerns in this aspect with Rationalpuff tagging this account as well.

• Finally, I don't like being threatened. I don't think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything. Have a discussion with me but don't add a threat at the end of that sentence and Shankargb added threats thrice. It in fact is a bullying technique and I called it. If he wanted to make a report just go ahead and make a report. I was acting in good faith and will accept a mistake if I have made one either knowingly or unknowingly. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this section per procedure as I don't want to add anything more here, unless OP wants to add something? Thanks Vikram Vincent 07:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait! Did I read this correctly?! Shankargb wrote above ..and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR and gave this as an example? I voted "Keep" on that AFD and highlighted the "Delete" vote of that IP. I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. Vikram Vincent 08:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent, getting a Discretionary Sanctions alert is not an indication than an editor is doing anything wrong; they simply inform editors of the particular rules for a topic. Having been in previous editing disputes is not evidence of having been canvassed. Tagging other editors on the opposing side of an AfD can be disruptive and should not be done without evidence - I think you were being excessive. Note that Sadads is the article creator, so not a neutral party.

There is no need to refactor comments to bold recommendations - AfD closers will read the full debate.

If we regarded editors saying that they may report an issue to ANI as "making a threat" then that would have a chilling effect on discussions of editor behaviour. Fences&Windows 10:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok Fences and windows, noted on the DS and DE. However, I did not refactor to change a vote from x->y as claimed by OP. Best! Vikram Vincent 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Was going to come here and say that Shankargb's comments are out of touch with the reasonable work that Vincentvikram is doing to keep the conversation organized and structured with comments for the closing admin. There are a lot of signals that this topic is beginning to solicit participation from folks who are loosely connected to the Wikimedia space and don't understand the conversation. (I was even harassed on Twitter by a hindu nationalist extremist/conspiracy theorist because I created the article in November (since deleted)). I was purposefully not tagging/commenting on individual accounts because I didn't want to get targeted in a situation like this. Sadads (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: would appreciate you or another uninvolved admin keeping an eye on the AFD/discussion, to help navigate this, Sadads (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I collapsed the back-and-forth between User:Shankargb and User:Vincentvikram at AfD as resolved. You have made 10 and 29 edits to the page, as the 3rd and 1st most frequent editors, respectively. Both of you should now let others comment to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the debate.

Other than adding a comment to clarify that the article had been moved back, I didn't see any other need for admin action, Sadads. The general notice about canvassing is up and any closer will know to take short comments from new and IP editors with a pinch of salt. It'd be helpful though if you would self-identity as the article creator in your comment at AfD. Fences&Windows 12:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Its more I think there are likely to be increasing problems, that I suspect will scale at some point-- for example, yesterday on twitter there was a solicitation participants. Sadads (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is IMO a halfway decent argument for calling this AfD early in recognition of a steadily increasing heat-light ratio (evidence in part by this thread), lack of any new relevant arguments, and the reality that this is a two-outcome AfD at this point (keep or no consensus). Not sure anyone wants to step in that, though :) (and also, I !voted to keep, so I'm not exactly uninvolved). Just a thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• No further action needed here after Fences and windows; AfD is a Keep (and I have !voted accordingly). Close this. Britishfinance (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• I do generally find the wear and tear of Vincentvikram to be disturbing as well as the constant attempt to make meaningful discussion useless, the statements on personal "reading compression" is not allowed and completely irrelevant and looks like an attempt to poison the well of discussion to me. Des Vallee (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. Will try to improve my engagement in the future. Best! Vikram 07:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 China–India skirmishes edition warring by Indian nationalists

KyloRen3, MBlaze Lightning and Wareon have all reverted my edits on false premises. All three edit mainly India related articles with pro-India POV. As assuming good faith is only or obvious cases of misunderstanding, I'm going to be blunt. I know there are Indian nationalists coordinating off this site on social media to edit wikipedia and those three magically showed up to RV me three times gaming three revert rule. They each only have one RV but I will have three if I edit again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes&diff=1008231330&oldid=1008230888

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes&diff=1008220589&oldid=1008218946

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes&diff=1008216427&oldid=1008215847

Even ignoring this and pretending nothing is going on, their reverts are all on false premises. The accounts I cited have been verified by the owners on third party sites liked linkin and muckrack for journalists and they are accounts of a Russian government official and journalist and as primary sources they can be used in articles.

Wareon is also false accusing me of being a sock of another editor, HanKim20. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanKim20Batumkik (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing here that OP has already violated WP:3RR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Dtt1 and Ashish Chanchlani

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.

---

• Dtt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashish Chanchlani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ashish+Chanchlani

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani (2nd nomination)

Dtt1 is tendentiously attempting to create an article on this Youtuber. Articles have already been created and deleted as A7, and then created and deleted after AFD, and created with a variant title in order to game the history, and deleted after AFD. The title was then salted, but a Deletion Review said that re-creation should be allowed. There may have been a misreading of the DRV as to whether re-creation was allowed in draft or in article space, but it has been re-created yet again in article space, and has been tagged for deletion by User:Pradixicae. The current AFD should simply be allowed to run, but then Dtt1 filed a case request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which does not handle deletion disputes. I have closed the DRN request as forum shopping. This was vexatious litigation at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, more name gaming about a week ago: Draft:Ashish chanchalani (see Teahouse thread 1 and Teahouse thread 2). That was not created by Dtt1 but by a new user who has since been globally locked as a LTA. It looks like there is a marketing push to get an article about Chanchlani created. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: Someone with OTRS access please have a look at this Ticket:2021021310003214. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: I here on Wikipedia work on articles which are salted or banned despite of the fact that they have sufficient coverage and ARE notable, and the same I am doing with Ashish Chanchlani the fact that he passes WP:RS cannot be denied, If we keep aside the fact of his multiple notable award winning then also he has multiple RS sources and I recreated the article on the base of all the new sources which wasn't there in the afd's, and if we talk about the references this here on Forbes India piece (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2021/ashish-chanchlani-going-viral-for-a-living/66315/1) is a piece which is by The author, Mansvini Kaushik, who was employed by Forbes at the time of publication and the piece ran in the print magazine ("This story appears in the 12 February, 2021 issue of Forbes India."). This is the Forbes category listed as reliable on WP:RSP. Similarly, the Entrepreneur piece (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/346458) here is also a staff profile which is independent, and also there are sources like (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-family-coronavirus-covid-19-6565075/) Wikipedia:INDIANEXP this which is again mentioned in wp:rs so how come I am paid or wrong if I attempted to create them? Parmish Verma was also salted and banned from recreation despite of the fact that he was well Notable and was having good refs available and I am being blamed as a UPE where I am trying to create articles on pages which ARE NOTABLE in India and just because we lack knowledgeable editors the fact that these people are notable can't be denied.Dtt1^Talk 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Title Blacklist

I recommend that Chanchlani be title blacklisted to prevent future gaming of naming protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• And to add onto this, I don't think the suspicions here are remotely unfounded or coincidental. Nearly every page move Dtt1 has done is moving sock-spam (or coi-spam) into mainspace:

Rohanpreet Singh - created by a declared paid/coi editor, moved within 24 hours of submission by Dtt1 who was a "brand new" user at the time

Draft:Rohan Solomon - recreated by dtt1 following CarryMint's several blocks

Draft:Toranj Kayvon/Toranj Kayvon - recreated/moved by dtt1, following known upe sock farm, Shringhringshring's block

Pratik Gauri/Draft:Pratik Gauri - moved by dtt1, sock spam by ShaiksKings

Khushi Shah/Draft:Khushi Shah - moved by dtt1, which also led to their temporary block for socking, from the ImSonyR9 a well known and prolific paid sock farm

R Nait/Draft:R Nait - moved by dtt1, a creation by a prolific spammer Swarup Kumar Solanki

Yasir Akhtar - moved by dtt1, created by known spammer Ayesha Mallik just weeks after their block and Dtt1 joining

Bandish Bandits - moved by dtt1, created by Godiswithyou

Viral Shah - another ImSonyR9 upe creation, even acknowledged by Dtt1, moved to mainspace

Just Sul - yet another ImSonyR9 UPE creation

Yasser Desai - their first page move, a long term spam target by a variety of spam socks, was moved to mainspace by dtt1 within hours of becoming extendedconfirmed

I could continue but I think my point is demonstrated here. When you hear hoofbeats... It seems so unlikely to the point of improbability that Dtt1 is some special unicorn who has just showed up at all of these paid-for-spam articles out of happenstance. CUPIDICAE💕 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic-Ban

I recommend a topic-ban against Dtt1 having to with Ashish Chanchlani.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per the clear case presented by Robert McClenon - wolf 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• conditional suppport as a second choice if the siteban proposal fails and on the condition it extends to all BLPs broadly construed as they have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding (or unwillingness) to abide by WP:BLP. CUPIDICAE💕 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as second choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite

• Indef, there's no way Dtt1 is not an UPE as mentioned in this SPI from September – Thjarkur (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• support both a tb and indef should they come back. My UPE suspicions aside, Dtt1 lacks the competence to edit BLPs, as evidenced by my multiple warnings to them about sources and their continued insistence that policy based decisions regarding said sources are "reliable." It's like talking to a brick wall. I'll also note, failing an indef, a BLP topic ban broadly construed should be placed to prevent further disruption. They've been warned about BLPs, sourcing and deprecation but insist on adding unreliable sources to support content in blps. CUPIDICAE💕 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef as UPE per the evidence in Ticket:2021021310003214 and other indications of being a paid editor such as their vehement defence of this spam magnet by citing SEO spam sites, their attempts to do the same elsewhere and their moving of sock spam to mainspace. Blablubbs|talk 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  For context, the ticket provides credible evidence that Dtt created Ashish Chanchlani in exchange for undisclosed payments. Blablubbs|talk 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Indef for UPE - There's no way this isn't UPE. On Wiki evidence is clear enough, OTRS ticket takes the cake. Wikipedia isn't for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef for UPE - This editor had drawn my attention when they tried to create Sapna Choudhary Draft:Sapna Choudhary a salted page made by multiple socks previously. His creation log is full of promotional non-notable pages that have been deleted. Ticket:2021021310003214 is damming too. All in all in my opinion there is enough here for a Indif block for undisclosed paid editing. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef for UPE - 2021021310003214. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef for UPE per the ticket and edits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Indef – pretty obvious UPE issues even though I can't see the ticket. And this post is a prime example of other problems discussed above (WP:IDHT, difficulty/refusal to understand the requirements for sources for BLPs, which turns into a time sink for other editors). --bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban as per comment by Bonadea about above post by subject editor saying that they work on items that are salted and banned. That is, the subject editor is saying that they are here to break the rules. I've inserted a subhead for the calls for indefinite block. I can't see the ticket, but I can see what amounts to a middle finger. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support site-ban as first choice. Jack Frost put it more concisely than I would muster: "There's no way this isn't UPE. On[-]Wiki evidence is clear enough, OTRS ticket takes the cake." PS: Technically, I think this should be a community site-ban, not an indef; accounts that appear to exist for the sole or primary purpose of undisclosed paid editing aren't going to be allowed back.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:48, 22 February 2021 (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:AnotherEditor144

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 I ask, how on earth does a two day old account, knowing you can add sub-pages to his user space, straight through some AfDs then arrive at an Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsuser. I find it very suspicious and wondered if this is a continuation of a banned user. Something seems very fishy to me. Govvy (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user definitely rubbed me the wrong way, as well. Nobody requests suggestions from SuggestBot 22 minutes after creating their account. Nobody subscribes to the Administrators' Newsletter before they're autoconfirmed. Nobody starts archiving their talk page within three hours of account creation. This one definitely quacks like a duck, although I'm not sure what the backstory is. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably simple block evasion. Some sort of CheckUser action may be warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, I concur. This is not a new account and I concur Ockham's razor aka duck suggests block evasion is involved. But who's the master, I am unsure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I was doing a lot of research when I was anonymous so that I was prepared. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 09:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at checkuser evidence for this account, and I couldn't conclusively associate this account with any other. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Could be a WP:CLEANSTART, which is allowed. Fences&Windows 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And some people are anons for months or longer before creating an account (I think I edited, in random and minor ways, for almost a year before deciding to formally become a named editor rather than an occasional typo fixer). However, the policy, deletion, and squabbling focus of this party is highly suspicious, and I see that the account is already blocked. I wonder why this was opened as an ANI investigation instead of WP:SPI, which seems like the proper process for this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since this thread was opened. The point may now be moot, and in any event there's nothing we can do about it unless the master can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I scared him away, who knows! Or he decided to recreate himself with less red-flags! heh. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first account, not a clean start. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 09:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

People can be blocked for disruption, trolling or obvious block evasion even if the original master isn't clear. Blablubbs|talk 14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 14:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of disruption, trolling, or obvious block evasion, I merely made the point that people may be blocked even if there is no master. The original block here is an example of that. But since you asked: I do have trouble believing you're a new user, and your conduct here and here does give me pause. Blablubbs|talk 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What conduct are you talking about? Also, I am not connected with the other user in any way. Extraordinary Writ says there is no master. User:Slykos is not involved. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• They seem likely to be part of the Niceguylucky cluster. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  The other sockpuppets are only possilikely, Andrew Davidson, so I would probably be unlikely to unrelated when checked. I am not connected with Niceguylucky in any way. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Per Shibboleth, I think this is likely another case of failing to watch the How to return secretly and successfully to Wikipedia training video.  // Timothy :: talk  04:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Even if this was a clean start (which it isn't), I could not have found that video. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• So, I finally had some more time to look through AnotherEditor144's edit history and re-examine this; hence, here is a more expansive answer to the question of where the diffs are.
  You have stated that you did a lot of research on Wikipedia because before you started editing. This research must have indeed been quite expansive, given that you have, among other things, you are apparently familiar with the letter code system that was formerly in use at WP:RfCu, which was replaced by SPI in 2009 and have cited a rather obscure essay at AfD. It would stand to reason, then, that someone with that sort of familiarity with Wikipedia would know a lot about our conduct standards in project space. For example, I would expect someone who claims such knowledge to know that !votes like these [113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125] or close suggestions like this [126][127] aren't considered particularly helpful. Such a person would also know that it isn't good form to respond to almost every comment in an AfD discussion ([128][129][130] – in one of these, you managed to ping Extraordinary Writ 7 times for no apparent good reason).
  Similarly, one would expect a user so familiar with the history of SPI to know that the system hasn't been in use for twelve years and that "block evasion" doesn't negate the prohibition on connecting named accounts and IPs, or that users with 24h-old accounts are discouraged from acting as a clerk (as is anyone else who isn't one).
  The chronology of events also gives me pause. In your 4 days on Wikipedia, you have racked up 351 edits. Of those, only 33 were to mainspace. However, you made lots of edits to Wikipedia-space. Your first edit to an AfD was, by my count, after just 8 mainspace edits. Despite this inexperience, you also proposed a new speedy deletion criterium on your second day on the encyclopaedia, after having invited yourself to a wikiproject, authoritatively denied a suggestion that wasn't an edit request on a talk page and inserted a pointless clarify tag after a "cum laude" on your first.
  In summary, what baffles me here is that I would assume that someone who has lurked long enough to know of – and participate in – all these processes would also know enough to not be consistently disruptive. Combined with the fact that you seem to have little interest in actually contributing to the encyclopaedia, I have my doubts about your claims about not having prior accounts and about whether you are here for the right reasons. I like to extend newcomers the benefit of the doubt, but AGF is not a suicide pact, and my birthday wasn't on the 19th. Blablubbs|talk 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(mistake fixed: "because"->"before" Blablubbs|talk 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC))

(and another one. I should drink more coffee. Blablubbs|talk 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC))

• Addendum: Here's a permalink to AE144's comments that were removed by JayBeeEll as "indistinguishable from trolling"... Blablubbs|talk 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This does not constitute trolling in any way. It was said because it could be rewritten. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, some of your arguments can be refuted.

1. The essay that I cited, specifically WP:TNTTNT, was reached by following a link from WP:TNT, which someone else cited.
2. The letter code system was found by searching the 2009 SPI archives and I have no knowledge of WP:RfCu.
3. I was not looking at conduct standards. Knowledge can be strong in some places and weak in others.
4. The action taken in your first diff was a reasonable action. People say "Delete per X" or something similar (where X is any user) very often, as are your 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th diffs.
5. In the 3rd diff, WP:GNG is a good reason to keep/delete. Notability is one of the key factors in deciding what belongs in Wikipedia. The same reasoning applies to the 6th, 8th and 10th diffs.
6. In the 7th diff, this is reasonable, as this has been done before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations.
7. After your first set of diffs (which, in my opinion, is too many), your 14th diff was responding to a clear consensus, as was the 15th.
8. For the 16th through 18th diffs in the 2nd paragraph, you have not provided a rationale for your reasoning.
9. The proposal was ill-informed (I know that), but it was motivated by this closed AfD, and I did not know that the proposal would be rejected at the time.
10. I have withdrawn my so-called "invitation", and they were suggestions anyway, not inviting myself like you said.
11. The denial was (or at least was supposed to be) in good faith, and the rationale was valid.
12. Many people do not know what cum laude means, and the article had high visibility on the Main Page when I inserted the tag, so I was asking someone to improve it.
13. To an outside observer, I would have been coming in good faith.
14. Your statement was very long, almost to the point where someone would not read it saying 'tl;dr'. This means my statement also has to be long.

Please review this before trying to use measures such as blocking. -- AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 20:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Just fixed some mistakes at 20:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose NOTHERE indef

• I think the trolling has been going on long enough by now, and I don't plan on engaging it further. Glancing over this discussion, there seems to be no serious doubt about the fact that you are not a new user and not here for the right reasons. If someone behaves in a way that makes them functionally indistinguishable from a block-evading troll, we don't need a master to block them as a duck. Blablubbs|talk 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Blablubbs|talk 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Oppose What exactly is "functionally indistinguishable" about me and a block-evading troll? AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This user is clearly here for the wrong reasons. For starters, the sort of trolling exhibited in AfD discussions is not acceptable. I was pinged eight times in one discussion (plus a ninth ping that wasn't delivered and three messages on my talk page), and the thorough evidence submitted by Blablubbs shows additional badgering at other AfDs. The user seems to think that Wikipedia is some combination of a social media site (see, e.g., this this list of messages to users who ostensibly "supported" or "defended" them), a soapbox (see, e.g., the continuous badgering at AfDs), and a game. AnotherEditor144 is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and that's sufficient to revoke the privilege of editing. See WP:NOTHERE. Additionally (and independently), this user displays numerous telltale signs of sockpuppetry, as clearly demonstrated above. It's a clear fail of the duck test, and, as a result of the numerous unconvincing denials, methinks the lady doth protest too much. If the user has a change of heart down the line, there's always the standard offer. But until then, an indefinite ban is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm bored of these kind of users, this user is obviously a returning character here to waste time, so I've blocked them. Reviews are welcome, if anyone really cares. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 05:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why I am not surprised this ended up here, thank you @Moneytrees: for pushing the red button. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2021 (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.

Uncivil and hostile comments and 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.

---

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (HW) was given a logged warning in 2016 stating "further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block". This is unambiguous, and while it is 5 years old, the the civility policy is not unique to HW nor a secret we kept from him. There is consensus in this discussion that the comments by HW were below the level of civility we require of editors---even those who oppose blocking make this point. There is no consensus in this discussion to lift the previous sanction, and certainly no consensus that it was placed in error.

Most editors opposed to any sanctions point to the other party to excuse HW's behavior. Specifically, the civility policy states "All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response." Per WP:CONLEVEL, that site-wide policy takes precedence over the minority of editors attempting to contradict it, and so those rationales which contradict established policy are given less weight than those based in policy. Similarly, while some editors believe it is appropriate to call a spade a spade that essay advises remaining civil in doing so and nevertheless is secondary to our community-ratified policies per CONLEVEL.

Considering rationales based in policy, editors are generally opposed to an indefinite block based on a 5 year-old warning. There is disagreement over whether a block of any length is the ideal strategy, or whether we should renew the warning. Editors in favor of a renewed warning are in the numerical minority, and other editors rebut those rationales claiming that a new warning would not encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Editors point to the active, unambiguous sanction stating that a block will occur, the previous failed attempts at dispute resolution for similar behavior, and continued present behavior. For these reasons, there is a consensus that a short term block is better than a second logged warning.

For the sake of completeness, there were a number of other threads of discussion which are worth summarizing.

1. Editors raised concerns about HW's signature: (1) that it is disruptive or uncivil, and (2) that it violates the guidelines at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. There is no consensus to require it be changed.
2. Editors raised concerns about the content of HW's userpage, particularly a previous revision from 2018 which juxtaposed a gallows with an unsourced accusation that a living person materially aided treason. This was removed as a violation of our policy on content related to living people, but some editors contended it was permissible political speech. The community gives wide leeway to editors in decorating their userpage, and there is wide consensus that political displays are generally appropriate. However, the user page guidelines forbid advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit such as "defamation and acts of violence." Similarly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. As the content has been removed, this thread is moot, but editors are reminded that their userpages must comply with Wikipedia policy and United States law at all times.
3. Editors, including HW, raise concerns about John Pack Lambert's (JPL) ability to maintian categories relating to biographies of living people. There is no consensus on whether to place editing restrictions on JPL, but any editor may raise those concerns civily and with evidence in a new ANI thread specific to those concerns.
4. Editors, including HW, raise concerns about Beyond My Ken's (BMK) civility. There is no consensus to place editing restrictions on BMK, but any editor may raise those concerns civily and with evidence in a new ANI thread specific to those concerns.
5. Some editors support merging Category:Possibly living people into Category:Living people. There is no consensus to here to do so, but editors may request this merge at WP:CFD.

Given the discussion summarized above, I have blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for 6 months as a community-imposed sanction for violating his previous civilty warning. As this is a community-imposed sanction, it may be appealed only to the Administrators' Noticeboard and may not be overturned unilaterally by an administrator. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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

User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [131], edit summaries at [132], [133], [134], [135], and generally at [136] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Wikipedia.

Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

 // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)

  For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Imagine my surprise on clicking. EEng 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"String 'em up, I say. It's the only language they understand". The box has now been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is much about 2014 that was good. That episode was not one of them. Nobody emerged happy with the outcome. If you would like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page archived it would be better if you asked him politely, rather than as a shopping list of complaints at ANI. Cabayi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Cabayi, unfortunately I was not editing Wikipedia back in 2014, so was unaware of that hoo-ha then. I had no intention of having a shopping list of complaints; that was just one of the first things by which I was struck when I visited their talk page. I am well aware of what BMK has pointed out; I had replied to it but that reply was caught up in a RevDel. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the sanction is still relevant, see these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also in addition to its overlength it appears HW still has that WP:POLEMIC-violating signature line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
  • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes

• And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.

About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".

When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [137]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.

Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [138]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [139].

Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.

Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:

• Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
• Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
• Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
• Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
• Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
• Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
• Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.

Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.

So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.

I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

• The diffs in the original post
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
• Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).

Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

 // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You have a very strange idea of what collaboration involves. Johnpacklambert refused to discuss the substantive issues after I set my position out. Johnpacklambert has explicitly called me a liar multiple times, on multiple pages, over the last few days, without providing one shred of legitimate evidence -- and that is far more uncivil than anything I've said. And I haven't assumed bad faith in this dispute. I've inferred it from patterns of behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It was not a "logged warning", it was a straight-out civility sanction: i.e. If you do X, you will be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
  I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if JBL JPL is problematic, someone should open a report on them and make a proposal, but their disruptiveness doesn't make HW any less uncivil or disruptive in his own right, and is not -- in fact -- a legitimate justification for an "Oppose" !vote. The closing admin should ignore any !vote that does not carry with it proper justification. Nor is this a one-time situation regarding HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You cant even be bothered by your own admission to take the time to do any investigating into HW's complant, so your !vote is meaningless. I look forward to when someone raises a complaint about you and people take the same approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;). --JBL (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)
      • Ooops! Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A fate worse than death...

• Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [140] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [141] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticizing a series of problematic edits involving BLP articles. That is not uncivil. Johnpacklambert by his own admission was disregarding available online sources, and making arbitrary decisions on who is alive or not. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately". Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm a huge fan of expecting civility. And HW's comments aren't at that bar. I'm not certain anything less then this will get them to pay attention. But while it could be said much better, is anything said by HW inaccurate? We appear to have an editor who has a very high error rate. Calling them out on that seems like the right thing to do. HW hurts their (important) message here. A calmer approach might have resolved the problems by now. I'm not sure what the right next step is--this proposal seems like it's likely to be used as a hammer. But I don't see evidence that anything less will get HW to pay attention. (I'm neutral on this for now, mostly just musing and seeing where I get to as I type this.) Hobit (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions if the main or only complaint is reminding John Pack Lambert via edit summaries that his playing around with people's alive status is utterly incompetent. Further, I would WP:BOOMERANG this and ban JPL from changing such categories, given his longstanding display of incompetence in doing so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Eh, this is still open. But anyway ... look. There's an ongoing sanction against HW. He's contravened it a number of times. His block log is active going back over a decade, so whether he's been personally mean to JBL recently is scarcely the issue. What IS the issue is this: do sanctions actually mean anything, or can they be safely ignored as long as an editor's made enough edits? Ravenswing 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Insurrectionists' gallows

Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Wikipedia over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I note that User:Chess has, coincidentally, edited Wolfowitz's user page to remove said userbox. I assume it will probably return sooner rather than later. ——Serial 07:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Came here from the ping. The userbox is a BLP violation plain and simple. We can't just wantonly accuse living people of criminal behaviour without sources. Calling for the death of a living person makes it 100x worse and could result in WMF actions (Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm). The fact he was the President of the United States and that it might be a common political belief that he deserves to die only matters in the sense that threatening death upon on a President is potentially in violation of US law and certainly has no bearing on whether one is allowed to violate BLP. WP:BLPTALK is extremely explicit that BLP applies to all namespaces including userspace and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

I wasn't aware of this AN/I thread when I removed the userbox (I patrol userspace for BLP vios and personal information and what not) but I stand by my decision and this isn't really something up for debate. The userbox violates BLP regardless of whether it is acceptable political speech. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

Given that this discussion is close to being automatically archived, I request that an uninvolved administrator determines what consensus (if any) has emerged from the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

An additional comment came in not too many hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone still believes that BMK and some others are genuinely concerned about civility in edit summaries (rather than inflaming old quarrels), I suggest you review these bon mots from BMK's more recent contributions. [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. And is there even a sign of a warning . . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rev id's that start with "8" or lower are not recent. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Civility is a slippery slope :-) Vikram Vincent 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Whoa. That is a surprise. What's with all the fuck-derivatives, there, Beyond My Ken, if you don't mind me asking? -The Gnome (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• So HW's official explanation for why they have been uncivil while under a civility sanction because of the nature and extent of their incivlity is that another editor who is not under a civility sanction has at times used colorful language? Perhaps they should recall that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not considered to be a legitimate argument in and of itself. And perhaps others might remind themselves of what the nature of HIW's objectionable edit summaries were that caused him to be sanctioned in the first place [153]. Hint: It wasn't for using colorful language, it was for multiple personal attacks against an editor. So I rather think this is an apples and oranges situation, and not relevant to HW's behavior to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I believe he is arguing that your objections should be discredited because WP:POTKETTLE and WP:GAMING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I can see where someone might think that POTKETTLE was relevant -- even though it's not, because our situations are entirely different, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz being under a civility sanction, whereas I am not -- but "gaming the system" is obviously completely irrelevant here. If that's what he's on about he's grasping at straws. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, they are different. You have been substantially protected and largely avoided any perm sanctions despite your actions. HW has been fucked repeatedly. The argument that they should be punished more severely while simultaneously getting away with similar is not just pot-kettle, its amoral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've been "protected" and he's been "fucked repeatedly", huh? You might want to compare our block logs to see how much I've been "protected".
  In any case, this report, and the proposed sanction, is not about me, it's about HW's continuing incivility while under a civility sanction. I understand that the "whataboutthem"-ism of pointing at someone else is a frequently used tactic to attempt to get the heat off oneself -- one often used in contemporary politics to create false equivalences and confuse the public and the press (which should know better) -- but such sleights-of-hand are rarely successful, even when repeated by enablers with hidden prejudices, unless the audience for them is extremely gullible, a category I do not place the Wikipedia community in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Deepfriedokra

• Really, there are points in this "discourse" where y'all should be ashamed of yourselves, or run for Congress. Just go back over what's been written and consider how it would go down if written by someone else.
• Request for closure? I don't see a consensus to sanction HW at this juncture. The fallacious arguments, hyperbole, wikilawyering, and false analogies (0n both sides) not withstanding, despite being presented with great gusto and enthusiasm. Some of y'all need to take some calming breaths and regain your composure. Y'all are really great people and great editors when you are calm.
• However. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is really no excuse for the level of harshness in your interactions. Do we need a list of people to IBAN you from interacting with? Were it JPL alone you've been rude to, an IBAN would be the answer. How do we stop your behavior? I'm a shoot-from-the-hip kinda guy, and am ready to Indef you right now based on your behavior. Cutting through all the sophistry, that's what it comes down to. I await your reply.
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz That signature is really disruptive and offensive. Don't you think it is time to move past that? As to the political screed on the user page. If we took all of those down at once, the servers would overload. My opinion is they have no place on Wikipedia, but we let established users get away with that sort of thing. I question whether the community would tolerate it if it were pro-Trump.
• I see no consensus for any action, and that is one of the many failings of this venue. Partisanship dictates outcomes rather than fairness and objectivity. I'll leave it for another admin to look at. I cannot and will not act unilaterally. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Closure

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, a 6 month block for the first block since the original restriction was placed (HW was last blocked in 2014), despite there being no clear consensus in the above discussion to block? Another example why a community de-sysop procedure cannot come soon enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)It was a valid close for blunt statements bordering on personal attacks. That, as well as the gallows user box, warrants a block. 4D4850 (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And the arguments against blocking boiled down to "it's okay to ignore an editing restriction". Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, a six month block after the last one was ~7 years ago, does seem to be unusually harsh. Can you maybe touch on why you opted for half a year instead of, say, a month or two? Thanks! El_C 15:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty heavy. And while the overall pattern of behavior may—may—"warrant a block", as a three-week old editor may say, the gallows thing is a distraction at best. ——Serial 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can only begin to imagine how things would look like had the US Capitol insurrectionists made (lethal) use of the gallows that they built on-site — which, in my view, many of whom intended to do, but thankfully simply did not get a chance to. //Sorry for the OT distraction. El_C 18:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Depends, I guess, whether one sees the userbox as still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression, El C.^([154])

Who are you, and what are you trying to say? No, I don't know how to use the page's history! El_C 18:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: The context was not HW's previous blocks, the context is the current discussion and how participants interpreted the behavior since that block. The block policy is clear: The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden. So while looking to previous blocks can be helpful in determining "the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior" it is not the only factor in the decision. For example, the logged warning was from 5 years ago: that's two years after the block you mention, so even after that block the community has already had to expend energy to prevent further disruption and it didn't work. Returning to the discussion at hand, participants discussed the patterns and likelihood of a repeat. While consensus was formed largely on the basis of the previous warning, it was not the only rationale editors had for supporting a block.

While some editors were not swayed by the userbox issue, some found it deeply troubling. That BLP violation was added in 2018, 2 years after the logged warning. While editors disagree on whether it alone is worthy of sanction, participants certainly did not view it as a sign that the 2014 block or the 2016 warning were effective at reforming a pattern of disruptive polemics. Even you, El_C, admit that you would have found it problematic were you aware of it prior to this month: At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. If we take you at face value, that means by your own admission we were hosting an illegal death threat against a sitting president for two years before it became a "relevant political statement". Should that inspire confidence in me that the present conflict is a momentary lapse and not a pattern of behavior likely to recur? Now add on the rest of the context: your argument was strongly rebutted by multiple editors, and there is a current consensus by editing that the material should not be re-added to the user page since Chess's removal has gone unreverted for 5 days at this point despite the active discussion. Moving on, other editors brought up his signature, characterizing it as "incredibly whiny" and disruptive for multiple reasons. There was no consensus to require it be changed, but that doesn't mean there was a consensus that it was benign or not a reflection on HW. Despite this extensive discussion, it's still there. Does that inspire confidence that a gentle hand will bring about the change the community wants?

Hell, even people defending HW pointed out a pattern of incivility, they simply try to excuse it through various means. The result of this is that multiple editors suggested an indefinite block bordering on an outright community ban. There was no consensus for an indef block, but clearly a significant portion of the community is worried that this behavior is highly likely to continue without serious intervention. One editor claimed that HW was "not compatible with a collaborative project, and another claimed he is "a net negative to the project". Multiple editors expressed frustration that an (expected) weak hand would be ineffective and lead to more problems down the line. In this situation, the blocking policy recommends a longer rather than a shorter block.

If after a month or two, HW believes they have changed and the block is no longer preventative, they are free to appeal it and I would support as I do all well reasoned and contrite unblock requests. But quite frankly, given the above, I laughed at the idea of "a month or two"-long block. My first draft of this close was for a year long block, but I reduced it by half because I thought that was too harsh. You're very reasonable El_C and someone whose opinion I deeply respect; read the community concerns above---read your own words dispassionately---and tell me whether a softer touch would bring about the change the community clearly wishes to see. Imagine any other volunteer organization where this record was presented to HR: do you think they would respond more leniently or more harshly than I did? As always, I'm open to being wrong and welcome review, but I don't believe I abused the discretion afforded by the discussion and blocking policy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I too thought a block was likely needed because there were repeated egregious breaches of our civility policy and little sign of reform. After reading it all through a couple of times I baulked at trying to summarise the debate, so kudos for not letting this get quietly archived. Fences&Windows 22:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I didn't intimate (or mean to, at least) that you exceeded your discretion or otherwise acted in violation of the blocking policy. The block length just seemed odd to me, as a first impulse, is all, which is why I asked for you to maybe expand on your reasoning. To that, thank you for the substantive explanation. I have read it in full and found it illuminating. I, otherwise, have no additional follow up comments or queries. Thanks again! El_C 22:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I was against the block and supported a warning only, but I think it was a good close, having been thoroughly convinced by the rationale of the closing statement and the expansion above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:36, 23 February 2021 (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 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.

Ruling party gaming RM outcome

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.

---

Yesterday I closed an RM started by Ruling party (talk · contribs) at General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea as no consensus. Less than ten minutes after I closed the discussion, he copied the article text to Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea,[155] the target of the failed RM and redirected the original article there.[156] A few hours later, they changed this redirect to point at General Secretary and Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, a duplicate article they had created around on 15 February, nearly two weeks after starting the original RM.

Having spotted this today, I reverted and told them not to game the system. Their response was to restore their cut and paste move,[157][158] claiming that they had moved it because they had received no response (the RM had three responses, none of which supported the move) also telling me that "I know you don't care about facts or the truth... but change you're mind and show pragmatism."[159]

Seeing as they won't listen to me, perhaps someone else can point out that this is not acceptable. Cheers, Number 57 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• He seemed cordial enough with me on my talk page regarding a separate move which I relisted, I'll see if my input's of any use. Looks like a good-faith new user who's just frustrated by the procedures round here. SITH (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Number 57: I'm not gaming the system at all. That has never been my intention and I never will. Thats a flagrant accusation I don't accept. I can, however, accept that I acted wrongfully.

The intention behind it was to mirror the Chinese Communist Party system; one article about General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, one about Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party and one about Leader of the Chinese Communist Party.

The reason why I acted like a spoilt brat—you can even say a-hole—is that past discussions with Number 57 have gone fairly badly. For instance, while the Constitution of the Kingdom of Laos and tertiary sources say that the Parliament of the National Assembly was unicameral he presses his POV that it is bicameral. I've also sought a compromise and I way forward and he refused all talks and discussion on the way forward. That's what I meant by "pragmatism". He is an editor that refuses to discuss and only seeks to get his way. Ironically, you can say that I have acted this way now—sort of. Instead of initiating another move discussion with no response I was just WP:BOLD.

You will also see that Number 57 is wrong. User:嘉傑 was the first to propose three articles instead of one at the talk page. I, at the beginning, opposed that idea but I eventually turned around. So please read the talk page—Number 57 has not.

User:Migs005 I tried to work with, but he refused. You can also see read that discussion at the talk page General Secretary.

As for you, Number 57, I don't understand how you got any responsibility here on WP. They way you act is disconcerting. Everyone knows that I shouldn't be an administrator—I'm surprised that you are. --Ruling party (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• He is not an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It says so on his user page... Or I'm crazy. Maybe I'm just seeing what I want? --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he is! Number 57, from Ruling party's response to my message on his talk page, I think he's aware and will drop the stick or at least send it down the proper channels and try to remain civil in future. If you're satisfied with the response, shall I nac the ANI? SITH (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am indeed an administrator. Happy for this to be closed if they've got the message (although annoying to see them making unfounded claims above). Cheers, Number 57 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Understandable, however I think, and hope, the message has been received both in terms of adhering to process and civility. Of course, if that's not the case in either instance, feel free to re-open or re-start! SITH (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (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.

CLCStudent

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.

---

CLCStudent (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This is a follow on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#CLCStudent AIV reports & unacknowledged_concerns, which petered out after CLCStudent acknowledged some concerns. To summarise, CLCStudent is a prolific vandal fighter who logs many reports at WP:AIV, but a number of these have been found to be incorrect or have excessive warnings or other communication issues. I've already blocked him once and removed his rollback flag, so I don't want to take any more administrative action. Today, I found that Suffusion of Yellow has been trying to get an answer over something without a response, while CLCStudent has been happy to ask me directly to block a vandal. I don't really have an issue with being asked directly, I'm just wondering why he can't use AIV? Has he been restricted from there in any manner?

Anyway, I think we need more eyes on this to see if there is a problem, and if so - what? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I contact admins directly when there is a vandal that I think will not stop until they have been blocked. As for that unaddressed concern, I has already said that I warned them because they triggered the filter. CLCStudent (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Triggering a filter is in itself not a valid reason to give any level of warning, but simply a reason for a human editor to look at the edit to see if it is vandalism. Please don't give any more warnings until you have understood that. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay now I understand. CLCStudent (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually saw Suffusion of Yellow's conversation with CLC here (and the two previous times it came up) before this ANI was filed. Editors who cannot see the diffs of private filter hits can't really warn an editor for hitting the filter, because, well, they can't be sure the edit was even problematic. Filters flag false positives all the time. There's a good chance the flagged editor actually did nothing wrong, in which case a warning is just WP:BITE. It seems this has been raised with CLC three times already, and SoY is a good explainer, so... In regards to CLC's AIV, however, I believe their accuracy rate is slightly above AIV's average (it's around 85% iirc). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It should further be noted that CLCStudent is responsible for around 25% of all reports submitted to AIV. Combined with their accuracy rate, which on the whole is not problematic, it seems they are a big net plus in counter-vandalism on the whole. The alternative explanation is that admins are actioning bad AIV reports, which would be far more worrying. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue. Rather it's 1) His communication when he makes a mistake (as everybody does) isn't great and leads to threads like this when we can't see the message getting through, and 2) AIV is the easiest administrative job on the block - anything that doesn't demand a block immediately is out - so for experienced users working in that area, accuracy should tend towards 100%. As I write, the current view of AIV has two declined reports from CLC - although there was a third which I agreed with and indeffed the vandal in question. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been more clear: I do agree that the response to the concerns raised by SoY, multiple times, was either non-existent or unsatisfactory. What I meant by my first comment is that I'm not convinced that the "Okay now I understand" has resolved it, given SoY has tried to explain this very thing already, thrice.

Having looked at CLC's recent reports (via the page history, since actioned reports are removed near-immediately by bot), the majority seem to be actioned (I haven't checked them for accuracy, but I presume they're correct), but the ones that weren't actioned are strange. For example, Special:Contributions/41.223.109.49 who made one edit yesterday and triggered the filter once today got a level 4. Then there's this, which does not seem correct to me. My mention of CLC's statistics in context was just to aid whoever looks into this deeper, if they may find it helpful at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• A bit late to the thread so not sure what to say. The funny thing is, if all the filter FPs I've caused were treated as "incorrect rollbacks", I'd have been dragged to ANI a dozen times already. I wish I could do better, but trying to predict human behavior with regular expressions is never going to be perfectly successful. I just hope that users don't take automatic filter warnings as personally as they do warnings from humans. Which brings me to the pont. CLCStudent, will you, right here, agree to always look at the "details" link behind a filter hit before warning the user for that filter hit? It's bad enough when the filter yells at the user for something they didn't do. It's really bad when you double down, and warn them again. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can agree to that. CLCStudent (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• @CLCStudent: you've already said above you understand and agree so maybe this is unnecessary and I hope it doesn't come across as offensive, but I wonder if it may help offer some perspective which will help. Do you understand your purpose in warning vandals and making reports at AIV? I don't mean to fight vandalism, I'm sure you know that. I mean why we need you or some other human volunteer to help? As I'm sure you're aware from AIV, we have bots which make reports. Where we just want warnings and reports after triggering some edit filters we use bots for that. (User:DatBot in particular I think.) These may be limited by codable factors like type of filter, number of times, time frame, and perhaps even some other details, but there will at most some additional software attempt to parse those those edits which often fails. When making warnings or reports, you need to have thought about the edits or attempted edits and decided there's sufficient reason to think they're a problem. That why we need a human, to apply human logic for stuff bots aren't currently capable of "understanding"/parsing. If you're doing something at AIV a bot could do, you likely aren't doing the right thing. (I'm sure there will be some cases where the task is too recent or to rare for there to be a bot, or there is a bot but it isn't working or you can't be bothered waiting or whatever. And outside AIV, there is still a fair amount of stuff that could be handled by a bot but isn't.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I practically never post to this board, but the thing that I noticed with this situation is the lack of verbosity from CLC. My only comment then is: CLC, folks that are concerned over the situation would most likely feel a lot better if you could give some commentary about your ways of doing things, how you understand their position, and what actions you plan to take in the future. Thus far you've communicated just nine words. Dawnseeker2000 04:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to stress Dawnseeker2000's request for more detailed comment by CLC. CLC's name is one of the most familiar to any admin who handles AIV. I do feel that 85% is insufficiently low for someone with the sheer level of CVU experience they have. While they have, very briefly, agreed on the filter-side of things, I'd like to see more expansion on how they think they currently interact with individuals feeling hard done by, what could be improved, what doesn't need improving etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess what I can say is that I will make sure I look more deeply at the edits that I revert or issue warnings for and make sure there is a clear violation. I will remember this conversation and think about these things from now on anytime I issue a warning or make a report. 2601:246:CF80:67F0:804D:D8EE:7185:92B9 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, since you seem to have edited logged out above: Are the other edits on that very static /64 also you? Specifically, I'm wondering about [160][161][162][163] from earlier this month and identical edits in December [164][165][166], as well as similar ones ([167][168][169]) in September 2019, which were immediately succeeded by an RFPP report and a talk page message, so whoever made them must know their way around (the edit was later repeated in December). Blablubbs|talk 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I agree with the requests above for a more detailed statement from you. It would help us to know that you do in fact understand things now. Paul August ☎ 12:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: And by the way, let me take this opportunity to thank you for all the good work you have done. Paul August ☎ 12:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! CLCStudent (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

+1, I have seen CLCStudent at AIV (which I have done from time to time), and their net contribution to Wikipedia is large, and much appreciated (and yes CLC, please do talk to us and engage as much as you can). Britishfinance (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent has now been CU blocked. Meters (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Presumably due to the logged out editing Blablubbs mentions above? P-K3 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. Sock blocked, but not actually listed as a CU block. Meters (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the block log entry ({{checkuserblock-account}}) and the corresponding template on the talk page, it is indeed a CU block. Blablubbs|talk 00:49, 24 February 2021 (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.

Violation of TBAN by GPinkerton

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.

---

As many admins might already know, an Arbcom case is almost over and is deciding to site-ban user GPinkerton. On top of that, this user is currently tbanned from post-1532 Middle East topics. In anticipating the site ban, GPinkerton has launched a crusade to push as much wild POV content as they can before they are banned, in a blatant violation of their current tban. So far, they did this at Arab Belt and this twice at Syrian Kurdistan. I brought this to the attention of admins Valereee and El C, who suggested I take it to the Arb case. The Arbcom suggested I post this here since the initial tban was not an arbitration decision. Valereee has already protected Syrian Kurdistan, but leaving the new content in. I think to be fair, their wild POV-pushing edits violating their current tban should be reverted before any page is protected. They are obviously trying to pull others into engaging in an edit-war with them. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Please make sure you notify the editor you are discussing, per the big red box at the top of the page, and the big notice that you get when you edit the page. I've taken care of this for you this time. SQL^{Query me!} 00:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that, my bad. Thanks SQL. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can we revert all the edits and comments made by GPinkerton in violation of their TBAN? Does WP:BANEVASION apply to TBANs too? Can the RfC they started at Hagia Sophia (Talk:Hagia Sophia#RfC on conquest legend) be annulled? VR _talk 00:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Vice regent, why should it be annulled? Neither Islam not the middle east after 1453 are mentioned. The RfC I have begun applies to Hagia Sophia, which is in Europe, and was, at the relevant time, nothing whatever to do with Islam. I'll ask again: why are you so keen to try and contort every edit of mine into a violation of the irrelevant and unnecessary topic ban you have taken it upon yourself to seek to enforce? Surely it can have nothing to do with your strident opposition to the subject of the RfC?

  I am thinking of asking for an interaction ban with Vice regent. This is third time in as many days they have falsely accuse me of violating this topic ban. GPinkerton (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton the intent of "post-1453 Middle East" was to prevent you from making edits relating to the Muslim conquest of Hagia Sophia. Cullen328 chose "post-1453 Middle East" because of your "highly problematic" edits to Hagia Sophia; Cullen's rationale was cited by Guerillero in their offer of "post-1953 Middle East", and Guerillero's offer was cited by El_C who unblocked you. In fact, GPinkerton, you acknowledged that such a restriction would stifle your edits to Hagia Sophia. But now you say your topic ban has nothing to do with Hagia Sophia?VR _talk 01:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, you have claimed: the intent of "post-1453 Middle East" was to prevent you from making edits relating to the Muslim conquest of Hagia Sophia. No it wasn't, that is simply untrue. Hagia Sophia is nowhere near the middle east, being as it is in Europe. Your interpretation of my comment is false. No-one has ever topic-banned me from editing articles about churches in Europe; that is simply wrong of you to claim. GPinkerton (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked them from the article and talk name spaces. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sorry it didn't work out, truly. I really did think it would, but I guess there you have it. El_C 01:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  El C, what do you mean? GPinkerton (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean, from Guerillero's action as stated above, I've understood that you've violated the agreed-upon topic ban. El_C 01:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I added the text, opposition to which has now evaporated given the topic-bans of the POV-pushing ethno-nationalists, and [170] another editor has violated his own topic ban by adding various POV deletions. Doubtless my confidence they will now be site-banned is misplaced … GPinkerton (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Point of information I am commenting after closure because I was pinged regarding the scope of the topic ban, which I may have been the first to propose. GPinkerton asserted above that "Hagia Sophia is nowhere near the middle east, being as it is in Europe." Hmmmmm. Here are the facts: Hagia Sophia is in Istanbul, Turkey's largest and most important city. Istanbul straddles the Bosporus, a waterway that is part of the boundary between Europe and Asia. Yes, Hagia Sophia is in Europe, strictly speaking, but is is very close to the Bosporus, and indisputably Asian territory is roughly a mile or a couple of kilometers away across the channel. Our article Middle East starts by saying that it "is a transcontinental region in Afro-Eurasia which generally includes Western Asia (except for Transcaucasia), all of Egypt (mostly in North Africa), and Turkey (partly in Southeast Europe)." The Southeast Europe part refers to the small percentage of Turkish territory that is in Europe, where Hagia Sophia is located. Accordingly, I consider GPinkerton's assertion to be disingenuous and highly misleading, and I believe that they violated their topic ban when they discussed Hagia Sophia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A couple of things. I ctrl.f'd GPinkerton's talk page to see if the topic ban was stated as a broadly construed ban (WP:BROADLY) — it was not. I also ctrl.f'd the word "Sophia" and found several queries GPinkerton had made about whether editing it was within the scope of their ban. I was noncommittal, Valereee less so. This is what she said: Hagia Sophia I'd say possibly, as long as you focussed solely on the architecture, pre-1453 history, etc., but again other people might disagree. For whatever that's worth. (Sorry, again, still haven't really had a chance to look at all these recent developments so as to wish to comment further at this time.) El_C 03:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think, given the imminent outcome of the ArbCom case, this is going to be moot anyway regarding GPinkerton, though I note that at least one of the other editors that is about to be topic-banned is still edit-warring as well. Black Kite (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton also said 'no part of 1453 is after 1453'. It's technically correct that the incident being referred to seems to have occurred during 1453. Was there a mistake in applying the topic ban? I'd note Cullen328's original proposal was post-1452 not post-1453 [171]. To me it makes sense that the topic ban was intended to cover the Fall of Constantinople and the events after it.

This sort of seems a moot point, considering GPinkerton is also making the disingenuous claim that the topic ban wasn't intended to cover Turkey or Hagia Sophia even though as our article says, the whole of Turkey including the European part is normally considered to be in the Middle East. As pointed out above, their suggestion that the topic ban doesn't cover Hagia Sophia particularly stretches credulity since when it was proposed in part because of concerns over their editing over Hagia Sophia, rather than saying something like "if you are concerned over my edits of Hagia Sophia, why are you proposing a topic ban that doesn't cover Hagia Sophia" instead they said [172] 'That assessment appears to be based on my editing of Hagia Sophia being "highly problematic", which I don't think is at all justified.' without querying the extend of the topic ban.

So putting aside disputes over the definition of Middle East, I don't see how someone can claim they weren't aware the topic ban was intended to cover at Hagia Sophia post-1453 when they were explicitly aware it was proposed partly in response to concerns over their editing of the topic. Even if they wanted to dispute that their editing was problematic, someone who believed at the time that topic ban wouldn't cover such edits would surely have said something to that effect in addition.

If they believed that Wikipedia operates like a court of law and they could spot a loophole in a proposed topic ban's wording and keep it quiet to use to their advantage later, they're mistaken. If the topic ban proposer intends it to cover Hagia Sophia post-1453 and makes it clear at the time, then we don't give a damn what argument they come up with about how Hagia Sophia is not in the Middle East so it doesn't apply. El C's findings seem to further support that they should have been aware Hagia Sophia post-1453 is covered and make their suggestion even more disingenuous.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I should clarify I'm uncertain if GPinkerton is trying to claim Turkey isn't covered, or just the European part as I'm having trouble following their arguments. Especially how them re-writing and expanding a section concerning one or more Turkish honorary consuls in France, the Turkish ambassador to France, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkish born Jews and their possible repatriation to Turkey was somehow not covered because the original text already said most of that in less detail. (Although notably, The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to have been something introduced by GPinkerton.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They are nitpicking and wikilawyering about the small European portion of Turkey, which is indisputably part of an Islamic country widely considered to be part of the Middle East. The topic ban was formulated in part because of their disruptive editing about the events of 1453 that transformed Christian Constantinople into Muslim Istanbul, and transformed Hagia Sophia from a church to a mosque. That is precisely the type of editing that led to their topic ban, along with similar disruption in the Syria/Kurdistan topic area. The disruption spans 15 centuries but much of it relates to Islam and the Middle East. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there seems to be general agreement that opening the RfC at Talk:Hagia Sophia was in violation of their topic ban, and no one else came out in favour of the proposal. I closed it with no prejudice to someone else who supports the proposal either reopening, or better yet starting a new RfC with no involvement of GPinkerton. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand GPinkerton's topic ban didn't say "broadly construed", but WP:TBAN says it applies by default: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". That is a good policy to have.VR _talk 11:45, 22 February 2021 (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.

Baffling and likely NOTHERE edits by Text mdnp

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.

---

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

I am not quite sure what to make of this user's behavior, but it sincerely appears they are WP:NOTHERE. While respecting that people's worldviews differ, this user's edits indicate that they are a few standard deviations away from the norm and align with the sort of stuff I hear on Mysterious Universe.

Background: This user first came to my attention for their edits on Talk:Alex Jones in which they suggested that the language used in the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia ([173]). Their use of 5-dollar wordsalads makes it especially hard to parse and take seriously. E.g.:

1. Proposing we replace text in Alex Jones with ""Infowars postulates dialectical discourse on news events (based on historical insights to treason/lies/veils) - to widen scope of media coverage, outside of embedded media ("propaganda"), greater good statist military industrial complex mass media bottlenecks"" ([174])
2. "... deserve better than short sighted zeitgeist agenda-lexicons" ([175])
3. "Terms like "conspiracy theories"/"fake news" to wholly describe Infowars/Jones in the intro section - do Wikipedia & Jones a disservice. We need to put words like "postulated media/culture dialectical values/studies" &c. ([176])

Unusual behavior: Reviewing this user's recent edits, the above pattern persists. I found few edits I would consider constructive (e.g. [177]). Some of the more unusual edits included:

1. "Santa Claus as the acceptable bogeyman (swartz piet) "murder in the quantum ghost house"" ([178])
2. "Sub-tabloid type websites as sources for main text is what negated my interest in Wikipedia as anything other than a really good search engine type hyper-concordance &c." ([179])
3. "I did feel I was only changing a para-semantical psi fold issue, ergo a "minor edit"" ([180])
4. "Any sources for ethnicity used as a boogeyman to enforce deals? There is a rarely discussed concept in society, where fear of the "other" (african/asian/mongol), is used as an impetus chaser/driver to strangely deform/enforce deals via "off the books", implied, & "word of mouth" adjuncts to that deal. Does anyone have some sources about this to add to any relevant section of the article? See Taboo; unspoken rule; Zwarte Piet; "Deal with the Devil"; "Blood oath"; Deadline; Penalty (Mormonism)." ([181])
5. ""Jew" is a zeitgeist slang term that must be reframed. There have been many attempts to delegate "Jew"/"Jewish" to a non official name which describes better Levantine/Silkroad migration & politics. This talk archive must have a set of these attempts, so we can collate right sources into a final argument so Wikipedia can use proper nouns rather than contentious colloquial slang as an actual article title. "Yhudeen" type words would be the psi clean ideal? "Jew (word)" &c would remain of course. I am non trying to be controversial or a para-forum weirdo." ([182])
6. "...how the word "Jew" is a oddly ironic anti-Semitic slang term & should be delegated to a section of "Yudheen" type articles/word. The always superstitious cone fade of language over history, delegated the J & Jdr & Dji sound into a esoteric priestly tongue (gate keeper lexicon/jargon). Source in your local frames the words/sounds "Djra Rua" compared to "Ya/Yu" words as what people are always morphing "wind worship" spooky long-psi taurus-field concepts ideas into." ([183])
7. "Using a dialectical lens to explore zeitgeist taboos, ..." ([184])
8. "I appreciate your editing prowess anyway without you resorting to any critique via pazuzu slander politics?" ([185])
9. ""Seiðr" as the ancient learning of sly seething to seek & sort & sleuth. This is a taboo word behind civilisation (seth/semitic/"scyth"/"cyber"/"sino") ... that this word is non in the articles etymology - even as a possibility - is proof at the psi wraparound sets of the very subject that Lucas was exploring with "Sith" in Palpatine-Vader-Skywalker story-arc." ([186])
10. "UNESCO "Intangible heritage rights" to cannibalism, pederasty, kinder-eros, blood oaths/initiation, mystery cults/schools, human sacrifice, torture, inquisitional dialectical training (Satanic ritual abuse)" ([187])

User page: Nearly half (43.4%) of this user's edits were to their own user page. Only 15% were mainspace edits. (XTools)

Their user page ([188]) contained nearly incomprehensible content about "Goo" and magic and

I climb crypto-cognitive trees seeking knowledge. "Wikipedia as tangible legacy of early TCP/IP "Internet" using 2nd hand goods, mailorder, & 6hex magjicke (circa 1k96rdg/AD/CE)". Wikipedia extraneous/expendable to legal spiral global system (non legally binding via national standards unallowed resource by many developed and developing nations) "... para-koru/kuru of glow-ba'al elite". Will Wikipedia survive thee newest world order gate?

That we exist in a crypto-corporate-religio-state long-term inter-stratagisma ("a tulpa land of backroom deals, kuru, & pederasty, &c"). Will Wikipedia succumb to scandal & shunning? Wikipedia is non Draco-Sharia Law friendly per'se; ergo the crypto-quantum streams of Ch-q'AuLLAH'palotel will non tolerate the comradely wiki-gnosis of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is xeno-psi‽

Last, I wish to acknowledge that I will be adopting "pazuzu'd" into my lexicon. What a delightful term; has the same feel as めちゃくちゃ. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I mean, while I suppose it can be somewhat entertaining trying to find whatever the logical thread is behind any of that esoteric stream of consciousness, I think, ultimately, that sidesteps from the heart of the matter. Which is that Text mdnp seems singularly determined to push WP:FRINGE views, doing so by advancing conspiracy theories as well as trying to soften the mainstream definitions of known conspiracists as conspiracists. That, in my view, fails to meet minimal standards for retaining editing privileges. El_C 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• In looking for this editor's contributions to articles in order to judge their quality, I came across this one frpom 2014, in which they admit to having a previous editing identity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the perspective team ... this made me laugh in a good way (genuinely). Having experienced abuse in all settings - & dismissing this as cultural fallout from animal magnetism control legacies - I will non apologise by finding this Socratic irony & veiled debates/deals to social goo tiresome. So I do slant heavily on the esoteric aspect of life ... but only to non be a hypocrite or spreader of malaise & veiled "non knowing" tricky social cues & dues &c ... I am non against any group or historical perception control ideals/actual - just deconstructing stuff to live in truth & love any so called enemies that pop up. I have noticed that my edits to non political articles go unmolested - even using this same belief "that objectivity is possible" ... Wikipedia is great as a search engine & para-concordance type effect ... fair journey to you all, thanks for the craic. Text mdnp (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that WP:Communication is required, and that "communication" means more than typing words in a sequence. It doesn't appear to me that this editor is able or willing -- I don't know which -- to communicate their thoughts to other editors in a way which can be understood. Such an editor is of no use on Wikipedia, and should be indefinitely blocked until they commit to actually communicating with other editors, if they are capable of doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2021 (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.

2800:810:486:9A0B:C5EC:544F:B817:A84/48

A user with the range 2800:810:486:9A0B:C5EC:544F:B817:A84/48 (talk · contribs) has a really long history (2 years) of disruptive edits that has intensified lately. The uses "fixes typos" but it is actually removing credits and personnel from pages,[189][190][191][192] removing sourced content,[193][194][195] or directly violating the BLP policy.[196][197][198] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You need to notify all parties with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

still should be blocked. 4D4850 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Range block

An editor has been disrupting AN/ANI and now my talk page - editing as 107.77.224.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 107.77.224.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 107.77.224.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) so far. Please can somebody range block? GiantSnowman 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Will block /24 range. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: now back at 107.77.223.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)... GiantSnowman 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Even if they are committing unambiguous vandalism, they still need to be notified with an ANI-notice. That is the most common mistake by OP I see on ANI. 4D4850 (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Improperly sourced accusations at Wael Abbas

More eyes on this, please, for accusations that are sourced to a blog. May be appropriate for rev/deletion and other sanctions. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Handled by Fuzheado. Thanks to 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 for reporting this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Historica IP

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

In addition to their other problematic edits, this IP keeps adding information which is sourced to the alternate-reality Historica wiki (also violating copyright by not attributing it properly). Needs block/action of some sort. Cheers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Their draft pages also probably require speedy deletions. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at a few of their drafts, they appear to be almost entirely unsourced, unless one counts the external links. Aside from the possible copyright issues stemming from a lack of attribution, there's the issue of a lack of citations generally. I ran a copyvio check of a few of their drafts, and they range from a short passage or two, to well over half the prose in others. They did post some sort of disclaimer of acceptable use at the bottom of one of them I've checked. As RandomCanadian points out, even if the content is share-alike and acceptable for use, the lack of attribution, as well as the lack of any (let alone specific) citations showing what's been lifted from other projects is very problematic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Somebody went about adding attribution to a few of them. The bigger issue, really, is that these are all from a) open-wikis which b) clearly states that much content is based on video-games and alternate reality... Copyvio or not, this is clearly content which does not belong here. I'd leave a notice at MILHIST just to check with some of the more expert editors on the topic, but in this case it is really not necessary because of the obviousness of the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please notify all parties with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistant Vandalism

The page United States presidential pets has been experiencing persistent, continuing vandalism for quite some time now, since approximately the US presidential election. This has been frequent enough that it got into the news. Could an admin please put some kind of permanent protection on it to stop it? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) SilverTiger12, has WP:RFPP been insufficient? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat and edit warring by Hangsun.577

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.

---

• Hangsun.577 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lisa D. Cook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a post to the BLP noticeboard about Lisa D. Cook at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive324#Lisa D. Cook, I warned Hangsun.577 about cherry picking tweets on a BLP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hangsun.577&oldid=1007990025#Lisa_D._Cook. They replied that "You are a left-wing political hack" and edited my user page to make a direct legal threat against me, which I missed until GoatLordServant pointed it out: [199]. They have again added the disputed edit and were reverted: [200]. They have many previous warnings for edit warring and adding their opinion into articles. Fences&Windows 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They should be blocked for legal threats. 4D4850 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT for this edit EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I was about to do the same thing, EvergreenFir beat me to it. They were warned about legal threats just last month, no excuse for this. (They were also violating WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:EW...). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 22 February 2021 (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.

Vandalism on Zitkala-Sa

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.

---

• Zitkala-Sa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please read the article. Today she is honoured by Google Doodle for her contribution as composer and suffragist in her's 145th birthday. But, the article now experience high level of IP vandalism. See in the history, in less than 15 hours, almost all of edits are vandalism or reverts by IPs. Please invoking at least pending changes protection in the article. 110.137.127.193 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Concur, seems to be a constant issue today because of exposure from the doodle. Guess we'll just have to keep an eye on it. Brightnsalty (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2021 (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 has ignored all 4 level warnings

92.24.242.196 (talk · contribs) - persistently making unsourced changes to articles, ignoring Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 warnings in the process. SK2242 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember to notify all parties to the discussion with ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Forgot. Noted. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Also they have only one level four warning. 4D4850 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a serious flaw in the software: mobile IP editors no receive notifications and will be completely unaware of any talk page messages unless they think to hunt for them. The ticket for this issue is phab:T240889. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 4#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach). So it is highly unlikely that they have read your warnings.— Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that phabricator ticket. I made sure to leave a reply. IP's not getting user talk notifications sounds like a big issue to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely concerning. It makes me wonder how feasible it is for people to continue contributing without an account, when on many other websites account creation is required to participate for good reason. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Even some other language wikis (Portuguese, for one) require a login. Why don't we? - Sumanuil (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

אלכסנדר סעודה (Alexander Sauda) and Sundayclose

The user Sundayclose is constantly deleting my edits, generally as "poorly written".

I participate in the Wiki4climate project. I get an official certificate for making 10 good climate edits in the the "Wiki4Climate" online edit-a-thon in 2020. What can be confirmed by his organizers User:EMsmile, User:EBclimate, User:BethMackay, User:Mcnlisa, and User:TiffChalm100. Therfore, my edits are not "poorly written". I always pass my edits through a spelling and grammar checker until it said that there is no mistake. Sundayclose never explain what is the "mistake".

The user is constantly deleting my edits without reason, what is a Disruptive_editing. As the edits that he revert are always those who are related to climate change, I think that his activity is a classic example of Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Undisclosed paid editing for fossil fuel interests. This is a classical example of "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or Wikipedia:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

Therfore, I ask to:

Permanently block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia.

Below I attach the edits that made sundayclose as proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_climate_change_on_human_health&oldid=prev&diff=1005833053

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_city&oldid=prev&diff=1007796001

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Economic_Forum&oldid=prev&diff=1005832961

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change&oldid=prev&diff=1005832669

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_in_the_United_States&oldid=prev&diff=1002789539

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_climate_change_on_human_health&oldid=prev&diff=997647273

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC) @EBclimate:@Mcnlisa:@Jim1138:@TiffChalm100: @EMsmile:

• He's not deleting your contributions for any reason other than things like "In January 2021 was published a study that shows a possible link between climate change and specifically the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the study due to climate change in some places of the world were concentrated more types of bats harboring corona viruses." are really poor English; yes, it's understandable, but it has at least five grammatical errors in it. (it should be "In January 2021, a study was published that showed a possible link between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the study, in some areas of the world climate change had led to a higher concentration of types of bats harbouring coronaviruses" or similar).
• Similarly "Officially, China declared as a target to build 285 Eco cities. The implementation is not always successful.". Spelling and grammar checkers may produce understandable English, but they rarely produce good English. Also, you shouldn't be using Forbes contributor pages as sources - see WP:FORBESCON. So to sum up, reverting poorly written English isn't disruptive editing, nor gaming the system, nor uncivil, nor sockpuppetry. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @אלכסנדר סעודה: what Black Kite said. You have edit-warred to reinstate your edits, without even changing the access-dates on the references, after running a spell-check on them. It's not your spelling that is unacceptably bad, it's your grammar. I and others have now had to fix your English (and note that no English spell-checker will pick up mistakes in non-English words like Deutsche Welle), and you have apparently missed Black Kite's other point, that blogs by Forbes "contributors" are not an acceptable source. I'm sorry to say that a certificate for participating in an editathon is not a guarantee that your edits will not be changed, or even reverted; see the statement that appears above the edit window in the skin I'm using: "Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Sundayclose was maintaining the encyclopedia. Thank you for the update at Climate change in the United States. But please make your future additions short and simple, use accurate access-dates, and let other editors fix them. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the two comments made before me. The request to block the user Sundayclose from editing the English Wikipedia on these grounds needs to be denied for sure. However, I would kindly suggest that in future, the talk pages of the articles could be used to work out better English for those text additions. So if I was Sundayclose I would perhaps revert the edit but also put in the edit summary "see talk page". Then on the talk page I would start a new section where I would copy the deleted text in question and say to the user "this paragraph is not clear, can you please clarify what you were trying to say?". It is a bit more time consuming but I think this particular editor means well and deserves a bit of extra time, not just a straight revert. For comparison, this is how I did it on an article talk page with another editor: here. EMsmile (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile: I appreciate your comment and will give it all due consideration. I should point out, however, that if I start the numerous talk page discussions myself, I might as well just fix the edits. I certainly don't mind fixing edits for occasional grammar and stylistic problems, but most of this editor's edits are abundant with such problems, as has been noted by others here and on their talk page. I have suggested that this editor post proposed edits on the articles' talk pages. That is much simpler and puts the responsibility on the editor making the edit. But my suggestion fell on deaf ears, as did my suggestion to edit the Hebrew Wikipedia instead of the English Wikipedia. I also suggested that the editor seek a Wikipedia mentor, which often can help both the editor and Wikipedia improve; but again, refusal to consider it. I agree this editor usually has good intentions (except when trying to discuss their problem edits), but as we all know who have encountered this type of editor, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There's only so much we can do to rescue an editor who simply doesn't have the English writing skills to competently edit, and that's what we're up against here. Thanks again for your comment. Sundayclose (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• אלכסנדר סעודה, as noted by Black Kite above, unfortunately your contributions are poorly written. No worries, though. All this means is that you should probably think about proposing some of your edits on the talk page first, rather than making them directly in the article space. I know this can be annoying and burdensome, and causes arbitrary delays for some edits that seem otherwise acceptable and straight-forward, but if you post something that's poorly worded and/or has grammatical errors, someone else (like Sundayclose) has to clean them up. They're not being disruptive, and it's not personal, even though it might feel that way at first. And as Yngvadottir said, any contribution to the encyclopedia can be deleted or modified, and they often are. Rarely does anyone's work stand as is, in the same form as it was submitted. I empathize with those who want to contribute to the English Wikipedia when English isn't their first language, and their language ability is perhaps not as polished as the community expects. But there are always people willing to help, and your English language ability will improve as you contribute (from what I've seen of others in the past). Don't be disheartened. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I will use short and simple edits and I will propose difficult edits to discussion in the talk pages. I was thanked for many of my edits and many of them was developed after. Most of my edits did not meet opposition. There was edits with mistakes and other users help me to fix them and learn. Their reaction was similar to what you said me now.

For example, I learned how to copy in Wikipedia, how to cite from link with Commons Creative Licence. I think that my English had improved and I hope it will be better. I am glad that there are people willing to help me improve my English. Of course I am happy when users fix my edits. I heard that one of the policy of Wikipedia is to help new users and to encourage them to write in Wikipedia. But I do not think that this is the case with Sundayclose. He is not fixing, he is deleting. When I tried to understand what was wrong with my edits, generally he writed:

"I'm not arguing any further. I've made my point. I'm trying to help both Wikipedia and you avoid problems. If you can't accept the reality of your limitations, I can't convince you. You'll just have to keep making the mistakes until you lose your editing privileges."

"As I said, I'm not arguing further. I'm just waiting for your next huge mistake and eventually your loss of editing privileges. Minimizing your problem won't prevent that"

"You are not fluent enough in writing English to edit on the English Wikipedia. Please restrict your edit to the Hebrew Wikipedia."

" You do not have adequate English skills to competently edit the English Wikipedia. You can be blocked after repeated incompetent edits. Please restrict your edits to the Hebrew Wikipedia. "

And as I said, others users acted in completely different way. And If my edits was so hopelessly bad, I probably would not be invited to participate in the Edit-a-thone and would not get sertificate. So decide by yourself if it is "civil", "friendly" and why is he doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A8_%D7%A1%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94#August_2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A8_%D7%A1%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94#Spell_checker

@Symmachus Auxiliarus @Yngvadottir @Black Kite (talk) @EMsmile

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה: Thank you for promising to restrict your article edits to the very simple and propose the rest on talk pages. That may well provide a workable way forward. I see from your user page that you have published on climate change and the environment; thank you for being willing to contribute to the project. But I am disturbed that you are continuing to present Sundayclose as having treated you badly, and although I am not an administrator, I have changed the section heading to a neutral one. Following your links led me to Sundayclose telling you clearly that a spell checker was not going to help with the problems with your English; giving you examples of poor English syntax in response to your query; and pointing out in increasing detail a case where you had drawn an invalid conclusion from the wording of a source. We are here to write an encyclopedia that readers can use. It is vitally important that we use reliable sources and summarize them accurately and clearly. I have participated here for over ten years and from the start I have been impressed with the willingness of editors to help each other. On the other hand, I have found many articles where mistakes, both vandalism and someone misunderstanding a source or making a typo, sat for years because no one noticed. And the worst are the errors of fact. Someone may have very good intentions but be using a biased source, or not understand the source they are using, and then who knows how many readers get misled? For that reason we have particularly high requirements for the sources to be used in medical articles; I believe this should apply to Effects of climate change on human health, and that you should not be using Forbes blogs in any such article, as you did here. But checking for mistakes, especially mistakes of fact, takes a lot of editor time, and we have millions of articles. That's why, with regret, we have a page saying that we expect a certain level of competence from editors on the project. The issues are not with Sundayclose's actions, but with your editing, and I have to tell you again: editathons are for the purpose of encouraging participation and not a good guide to whether your edits are generally good. These two sentences above: "And as I said, others users acted in completely different way. And If my edits was so hopelessly bad, I probably would not be invited to participate in the Edit-a-thone and would not get sertificate." by my count contain two major grammatical errors, 3 or 4 less serious grammatical errors (article and tense usage), two spelling errors, and two capitalization errors. I am sorry to be so forthright, but others have been trying to tell you gently; your English has some way to go, and we don't have paid copyeditors here as do most publishing houses, just fellow editors who have other things they could be doing. And you have been edit-warring and were asking for the editor who spent time trying to advise you to be punished, even barred from the encyclopedia. So please, let those who are willing to help you do so, and realize that that normally takes the form of rewriting, not pointing out the English mistakes and asking you to fix them. Write simply, avoid using blogs as sources, and look at the changes that are made to your additions as a way of learning how to do better. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite blockage of IP user

Incident is here

For no apparent reason, IP user 186.11.22.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) created a talk page on Wikimedia commons to comment You better suck a wood, fuking whuore hoe and prostitute 🖕

I know I’m not one to mince words, but I have absolutely no recollection of encountering this IP user let alone doing anything warranting sexist verbal abuse. I see this person, all but certainly a man, is blocked for a month but since he has already said these kinds of things to two other people, I believe he should be blocked forever. Trillfendi (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, but indeffing an IP is very very rarely done (if it is an IP which has persistent trend for abuse and previous shorter blocks have failed to stop the matter - though even for school blocks it's usually only gradual escalation to blocks of a year or a couple) - especially when it could otherwise be a dynamic IP. As for their comments on Commons that is not, if I may use some legalese, within our jurisdiction. And the IP is already rangeblocked here anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: See also Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie has blocked Special:Contributions/186.11.0.0/16 for a month. If there is also a problem on Commons it should be reported at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Patriot Bible University

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.

---

Some help here, please. I've requested protection and a user block. Looks like a sock farm. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Protection and block applied. Thank you for reporting this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2021 (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.

LMComms

Given LMComms has exclusively edited Chris Loder including uploading an 'own work' image coupled with the actual name it's probable that the editor is WP:PAID or at least WP:CoI. They have made no declaration as such. I'd appreciate some admin advice/support. Qazwsx777 (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of content, it's a dodgy-looking user name. I'll have a look. Deb (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely a conflict of interest of some kind, as it says the subject of the article requested the removal of some of the article content. The other changes were innocuous enough, but if there's any more of it, I'm prepared to impose a block. Deb (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it.Qazwsx777 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Deb:, On the off chance it's any help. [201]. Tiderolls 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can hardly believe this thread - especially the last link to an external website for LM Communications which is NOTHING to do with me. To confirm, the name LMComms is NOT a company name - it is merely my initials 'LM' followed by what I do 'communications' or 'comms'. I work for the office of Chris Loder MP but had no idea I needed to disclose this on every minor edit - in future of course I shall by using the WP:PAID tag. I had no intention of becoming a wiki editor but did so last year when some malicious content was posted on Chris Loder's page which needed urgent removal. I am new to wiki and learning how I go along but thank you for the warm welcome and for giving me the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding LMComms (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

LMComms, thanks for the transparency. If editing the article is part of your employment, then you need to declare this on your userpage and on the talk page of the article. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Connected_contributor_(paid). Thanks. Fences&Windows 15:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the removed material, which appears reliably sourced and fairly straightforward, and the matter (of Loder being a signatory to the letter) is non-controversial. If it's not a BLP violation, and it doesn't somehow intrude on an article subject's privacy, we don't remove material simply because they don't like it. Grandpallama (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thank you LMComms (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

Disruptive edits to "last updated" dates by IP user

A user, editing from several IP addresses has been indiscriminately changing last-updated dates attached to tables and graphs in a number of topics. The IP addresses include 95.12.112.38, 95.12.122.112, 95.12.117.86, 95.12.115.216, 95.12.116.45, and most recently 95.12.118.65.

After the user's second edit to one of the templates, I added the following notice right next to the date in the template code:

<!--DATE OF LAST FULL TABLE REFRESH, DO NOT CHANGE THIS DATE UNLESS TABLE DATA HAS BEEN UPDATED-->

While in many cases, the date changes are just a few days off from the correct date, in others the date changes are a week or month off from the correct date.

For more than a month, the edits have continued despite the user being informed through edit reversion notes and talk page notifications that the "Data last updated on..." or "Data as of..." dates are not indented to be today's date. Unsure of the appropriate next step. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice posted to User talk:95.12.122.112 and User talk:95.12.118.65 - Wikmoz (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See a recent one-week block of Special:Contributions/95.12.112.0/20 by User:Ohnoitsjamie. His block covers all the IPs mentioned above but might need to be longer. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I increased it to two weeks; if they resume when it expires, feel free to ping me directly and I'll extend it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! - Wikmoz (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Che Controversy

The most recent paragraph in the Michael Che#Controversies section has been the subject of several edits and is currently deleted, even though most users seem to agree it should be included (might be WP:WAR). Could an admin help us decide whether it should be important? Somewhat urgent because it deals with current events TheBookkeeper7 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• From an admin point this is edit warring, particularly on a BLP, and it is NOT content that I think it covered by WP:3RRNO (it is not a clear BLP violation given it is sourced content), meaning those engaging in edit warring are easily asking for admin action. The dispute is a content matter which needs to be discussed on the talk page, but a key thing I think applies is WP:RECENTISM - is this issue going to matter within a week or so? We have a tendency to treat every faux pas a named celebrity makes as a major event in their articles when really, they aren't in the long run. But that's a factor to consider on the talk page. --Masem (t) 19:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the BLP issue was a little more pressing than you realize... We were using a quoted tweet “I’m a big fan of humor but, perpetuating antisemitism is just not funny. Your “joke” is ignorant-the fact is that the success of our vaccination drive is exactly because every citizen of Israel - Jewish, Muslim, Christian-is entitled it. Apologize!” without noting that the tweet was tweeted at SNL *not* Che. Leaving out the “.@nbcsnl“ from the beginning of the tweet without adding that context back in changes the meaning in a very significant way. We can’t mix criticism of an actor with criticism of the program they appear on like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that Che does not have an official Twitter account and the context seemingly implied (as The Washington Post reported) that this was a criticism of Che, it seemed appropriate. However, the consensus among admins seems to be to not include this paragraph unless there are significant repercussions beyond just being talked about this week. TheBookkeeper7 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that when I made the reverts it had not occurred to me that this would fall under the Israel-Palestine conflict, in that context I would not have been as forceful about BLP although we are supposed to be forceful about BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• FYI I started a thread on this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Che. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Dubious edits on Melanin theory by User

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 involved- User:Sangdeboeuf

Hello, before I start my position is completly NEUTRAL on wikipedia, I follow the guidelines and have never been blocked or vandalised anything.

This article came to my attention Melanin theory one day and I thought it was interesting, albeit sad. I revisited this article one day and @Sangdeboeuf: had cleared it up, [202] however she seemed to placate the the fact that this is a racist theory under the jurisdiction of WP:IMPARTIAL and re-edited to say how it is 'described' as being racist, which could be construed as a deviation from truth, and is not commonplace around other articles on Nazi racism and other such racist topics. I wouldn't have a problem with this soley, but after viewing said editors other overtly political contributions, I was clearly intrigued. I intervened [203] and was rebuked. [204]

After this, this user included a rather academic and poignant quote from Psychiatrist 'Frances Cress Welsing', I intervened [205] noting that she is a black supremacist and she was giving academic credence to a her without giving context, this was interestingly left out by the users edits. After I called up the user on this she left it on the page, only to remove it in later edits after arduous editing fetching quotes from proponents of said racist theory.[206]

Sangdeboeuf in later edits [207], after reverting my edits, capatilized the B in black which the user said was normal in 'US orientated topics'. This capitalization of B is problematic, this article is on english wikipedia and encompasses all english speaking countries, all which hosts 'black people' who fall prey to this scientific racism, it is not just US specific. This interference is not mandated in wiki per [208]. After doing so Sangdeboeuf wrote on my talk page how I was clearly interested strongly in politics [209] and in a manner of speaking, reprimanded me formally, which couldn't be further from the truth. All I was doing, and ever do, was making the article NEUTRAL, upholding the tenets of wikipedia.

I left it at that for a few months. I have returned to the article and have seen that this user has requested FURTHER information on why this is considered racist, but we know this is racist by the very definition of the word(!!!). This leads me on to believe that this user is acting in a way that is unprofessional on wikipedia, not neutral and is trying to push a certain viewpoint, which this user is doing successfully unimpeded under the guise of neutrality. I ask for someone to intervene as this user will no doubt revert these edits and throw a couple wiki policy tenets in my face. This seems to be a problem that some users can become accredited zealots and continue pushing views under the protections of the policy guidlines on wiki, impededing contributions from others.

None of what I have said is a direct attack on this user, but how I view the situation. I will not be dissuaded by people donning administrator powers and will continue striving for NEUTRALITY. JJNito197 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf is not an admin. The fact that you and Sangdeboeuf disagree on whether or not to capitalize the B in "Black" is not a matter needing administrative attention. Asking for sources for a claim in an article is standard operating procedure. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill content dispute and I suggest you self-close this and open a thread on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Changed to User and it was not soley about that if you actually read what I wrote. This user at hand has already reverted all my edits and I am requesting further help, this is more about the users activity than that article. JJNito197 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

JJNito197, you need to notify Sangdeboeuf about this discussion. See the instructions in the red box at the top of this page. Also, diffs would be helpful to know what (if any) chronic, intractable behavioral problems are at play here. See WP:DIFF. This looks like a content dispute to me as well, but it's impossible to say without actually knowing what was changed. Woodroar (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar I have included the DIFFs now, it might also help if you look at the log for that page for the bigger picture JJNito197 (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

JJNito197, I'm only seeing 3 diffs: you fixing a typo, Sangdeboeuf reverting you once, and the same diff of you fixing a typo. The rest of your links are to old revisions of pages, which doesn't tell us anything. Look, I'll put this bluntly: we're all volunteers here and we're not mind-readers, so if an editor has "chronic, intractable behavioral problems"—which is what ANI is for—then you need to show us clearly and concisely. You can't expect everyone else to go digging for it, especially when we don't know what to go digging for.
Beyond that, I strongly suggest taking this to Talk:Melanin theory. This looks like an average, ordinary content dispute, with some added differing interpretations about sourcing and the manual of style. The article's talk page is still the first place to have that discussion, and then maybe some method of dispute resolution if you can't find a consensus there. Nothing about this says behavioral problem. Woodroar (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar okay I will do and if the problem continues, I will take it up through dispute resolution, regards JJNito197 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar, Beyond My Ken I would have gone to dispute this, but my qualms aren't with this article per say its with this user and how this user is operating. Would a content dispute stop this users behaviour or would it simply stop that users interference with that article. If that user continues operating that way unimpeded the content dispute wont stop anything? I have notified that user by the ping do I need to do that on her talkpage JJNito197 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to use a ping to notify a user that you've filed an AN/I report. Please read the top of this page: you must post a notice on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Okay thanks, have now done. JJNito197 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2021 (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.

Vandalism on Margaret (singer)

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.

---

• Margaret (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In last than few hours after it was posted as TFA, there is high level of IP vandalism, which involves too many reverts. Even one user adding arabic language text in English Wikipedia, which is not suitable for English Wikipedia. Please protect this article to prevent endless and persistent vandalism here. 180.243.208.77 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• 180.243.208.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), thank you. I protected the article. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (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 news

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 concerned about the contributions of User:PatriotIdaho, a supporter of the ex-President of the United States, who altered content on January 6, misrepresenting the events of earlier this year. After I reverted his changes, he left a message on my Talk page with further false statements. Unfortunately, if my understanding is correct, there are many gullible people around the world who will be misled by such content and we need to be on our guard, perhaps for a few years. Do other admins feel that blocking one user is enough? Have other admins seen other "contributions" in this vein within other articles? Deb (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Three edits, I know, but zero patience for this nonsense. El_C 12:25, 25 February 2021 (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:CIR problems

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.

---

Silver1500 (talk · contribs) has been warned numerous times this month about failure to discern constructive from disruptive edits. They restored vandalism I'd reverted at least three five times, and warned me twice. Whether or not the user is editing in good faith, they don't appear competent to be doing routine housecleaning here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:39A7:29FF:2C49:3CF2 (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Deceptive misuse of template [210]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:39A7:29FF:2C49:3CF2 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm leaning towards the IP's side after seeing the reverts. There have been warnings on the user's talk page not to revert without an edit summary except for edits that any user would consider inappropriate. Steve M (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  They've been blocked indef by El C Steve M (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2021 (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.

More poor behaviour from Stephenfryfan

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 think based on the edit summary here of "Stupid black muslim guy makes me take OCD medication" that Stephenfryfan has used up his talk page privileges as well as general editing privileges. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

He's already blocked - and rightly so. Deb (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2021 (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 User:79.79.143.58

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.

---

Please can an admin look at the contribs and the talk page of the IP user, they are not responding to any of the messages that have been left on their talk page regarding marking edits as "typos". I have reported them twice to AIV however both times it was purged off the list. Thanks all Nightfury 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• They are editing using a mobile device so there's a very good chance they won't see any of the messages you are leaving for them (see here for details of why IPs quite often have no idea you're leaving them messages). Since the IP has only edited once the last 7 days, I will monitor them. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite: Two edits yesterday, same again. Nightfury 13:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them from mainspace for a month. The edit-summary thing would merely be irritating if their edits were positive, but they often aren't. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2021 (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.

Suspicious behavior by User:বাঙালি মোল্লা 2

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 brand "new" user (new account, see contributions here). After 21 edits they opened a GA review at Talk:Ranjitsinhji/GA2, something a new user wouldn't likely know how to do. That article was nominated for GA by User:Jashlore who is now blocked. As one of their early edits বাঙালি মোল্লা 2 they removed the sourced caste of Gurbachan Singh Salaria with the dishonest edit summary that it was an "unsourced claim". That made me suspicious because there has been attempts dating back at least to July 2020 to alter the caste info of that person by various IPs, new accounts, and confirmed socks of User:Punjabier. I suspect block evasion. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suspect this is a sockpuppet, as well. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 00:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked as the editing is a match for RoyalBazi, who was globally locked as a sock of LTA Eliko007.— Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2021 (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:HunsletMid - yet again uploading and displaying nonsensical images

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 on from archived discussion here user is still displaying their need to be blocked, per NOTHERE. Has uploaded a copyrighted inappropriate image and pasted it on to their user page. Have asked for it to be deleted on Commons. Please can someone review and take appropriate action. Thanks Nightfury 16:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed - that first edit to their userpage seals the deal. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2021 (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.

Vandalism at Feminazi

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.

---

Since this is an article subject to sanctions, I'm not going to revert more than one edit. But please block the vandal and restore the last good version. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:39A7:29FF:2C49:3CF2 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (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.

Personal attacks by User:Iam adityarajput

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:Iam adityarajput had added unsourced defamatory content on BLPs like this and this, which were reverted. When warned, they resort to personal attacks and curses [211], [212]. It seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, clearly WP:NOTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2021 (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.

Wikieditor19920

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.

---

• Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I understand that WP:CIR can be a fraught thing to bring up because saying somebody lacks competence can be taken as an assault on their intelligence. Let me start out by saying I do not in any way doubt Wikieditor19920's intelligence. He is perfectly capable of making his arguments heard. However, he seems to lack the basic level of understanding of our policies that make collaboration possible. We all agree to follow certain things when we edit here, most obviously WP:V. Wikieditor19920 has been repeatedly making a mockery of that policy, so far to the point that I see no reason for him to be allowed to continue to do so. This will center on Talk:Palestinian enclaves and the contention on including bantustan as an alternate name. We can have arguments about NPOV and LEAD and WEIGHT and all sorts of things, but what we have here is an editor claiming what is quoted from multiple rock solid reliable sources is not verifiable, and a discussion at RSN with unanimous agreement that the sources are in fact reliable for what they report as fact that no such consensus exists and the statements are not verifiable. I honestly do not know how to argue with somebody who says what is quoted from a multiple books published by some of the most respected university presses on the planet is not verifiable. Here are some of the problematic arguments by Wikieditor19920:

• 15:58, 23 February 2021: The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable," especially absent any other evidence of widespread usage and contradiction in objective news sources and other academic articles.

This about the following sources:

• Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
• Harker, Christopher (Associate Professor at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London) (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa

These sources have been discussed at WP:RSN with, besides Wikieditor, unanimous agreement that the sources are reliable for the statement at issue. Wikieditor has continued to challenge that there is such a consensus, despite the unanimity of opinion against him at RSN. See here. But Wikieditor continues to insist that these are not scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise in books published by respected academic presses but rather "active participants" and "biased and partisan", and on that basis what is quoted from them is anything but 'verifiable' .

• 02:24, 18 February 2021: I don't think their unreliable per se, but I think they are overrepresenting how widely used the "bantustans" terms are because of their bias on the subject. They may simply perceive wider usage than evidence supports, and they really don't offer anything but a conclusory statement to back it up. This is contracted by reporting from the NYT and other outlets which attribute this analogy to Israel's critics, probably are more capable of offering a mainstream, objective take.

The idea that we allow editors personal opinions to say that scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise are making things up and on that basis claim that they do not support what they report as fact is a direct assault on WP:V. The entire basis of this place is that we do not prove or disprove sources with our personal beliefs.

• 02:50, 17 February 2021: what makes these sources so high quality? Because they are written by academics with strident views on a particular subject? They are certainly usable, they are also limited by the fact that they are written by individuals with sharp and occasionally inflammatory views on the subject matter.

This, again, about academics writing in the area of their academic expertise in peer-reviewed journals or books published by respected presses. Basically, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But Wikieditor insists that they cannot be relied upon for verifiable facts, in direct contravention of WP:V and WP:RS. The repeated demands that we prove sources correct is likewise in direct contravention of WP:V. The opening paragraph of WP:V says [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. We have an editor demanding that we bow to the beliefs or experiences of editors over that of actual scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise. The attempts to get Wikieditor to edit according to these basic principles have gone unheeded and I feel it is long past time that such editing be dealt with.

He has also repeatedly modified others comments in a blatant display of WP:OWN over an RFC. See here, here, here. Or here where he tells somebody to follow instructions. Idk about you, but I certainly would not appreciate being spoken to like a child. After being challenged on sectioning off somebody else's comments he continued to demand his position be the one enforced. I feel that WP:CIR is an issue here and that there is nothing to be done besides removing Wikieditor. Given that he already has other topic bans I think this is not necessarily a topic specific issue but a Wikieditor19920 issue and that another topic ban will only lead to disruption in some new topic area. nableezy - 17:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This complaint breaks down into two issues. First, that I am somehow wrong on a content issue, to the extent that it violates policy. Perhaps half of the commentators at the ongoing RfC, which currently leads with a slight majority aligned with the views I've been expressing, should be reported as well? I stand by all of the arguments on content I made above, which were agreed with by other editors in an active RfC and supported by sources. If Nableezy thinks I am wrong on content, they are free to disagree, and they have been, vociferously, as opposed to reporting my arguments at ANI.

The second is that I have "edited others comments." This is absolutely false. I have not modified anyone's comments. The RfC was formatted to include a vote section and a discussion section. Nableezy has repeatedly attempted to merge this section with the votes section and equated adding logical breaks in the discussion with "editing another's comments." Nableezy says me asking editors to follow the same format that everyone else had been following is "speaking to them like a child." If my comment conveys a tinge of frustration, it's in the face of repeat edit-warring and completely irrational resistance to good faith efforts to organize the discussion with logical breaks and dedicated sections, not by editing anyone's comments. A well-formatted RfC allows everyone's views to come across, including Nableezy's, so this behavior is harmful to all sides.

And finally, another point worth noting, Nableezy's tone and commentary have been persistently belligerent and uncivil, which is why I and others are reluctant to engage whatsoever.

• Can you read that quote? often referred to as Bantustans. Well, how about can you read WP:BURDEN? This is what that says: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'll repeat, is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used.
• WP:RSN has, outside of you, unanimous agreement that the sources are reliable and directly support that the term bantustan is widely used. Any part of that summary in dispute? A patently untrue statement, since users at the relevant talk page commented at the referenced RSN and did not "unanimously agree."
• What you have is a propensity to demand your personal position be given equal weight to actual scholarship.
• Your view on bias of sources is backed by literally no policy. Yes, a consensus exists at RSN that these sources are reliable for this statement. You not liking that is unsurprising but also unimportant. nableezy - 14:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

These comments above are mocking, uncivil, and show a level of anger and disrespect that should be considered unacceptable. There is an active RfC with a slight majority opposed to the views Nableezy expressed above. That could change, and I would accept the outcome. But if it doesn't, I am absolutely sure that Nableezy will not accept the outcome. This needs to stop. I do not claim to be blameless and am happy to step away from this page for a bit, but no editor should be expected to submit to this relentless bullying and misuse of process. Once it does, we can all move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

No other editor that I have seen has been claiming that what is quoted from several sources is not verifiable. That is not a content issue, that is a competence one. I accept there are arguments to be made for and against any position. Your arguments however have been bastardizing our policies, and that is why I am here asking for relief from you and not anybody else. And yes, unanimous agreement outside of yourself. Proof. nableezy - 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to double check that RSN discussion, because I see two editors in the beginning of the discussion directly disagreeing with you. As for WP:CIR, rather than simply implying anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, consider that I am raising the exact same arguments from a prior move discussion which resulted in consensus in favor of those positions and moving the page to "Palestinian enclaves." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, an opportunity to demonstrate that CIR is an issue. Which two editors here said that the sources are not reliable for the statement? nableezy - 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems me like attempt to eliminate editor with opposite POV from the WP:ARBPIA area --Shrike (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, Nableezy's repeated accusation (insults, really) of incompetence is based on his assumption that you were in full agreement at his RSN thread. Feel free to clarify. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Shrike didnt say one word about the reliability of the sources at RSN. Do you have two editors who said the sources were not reliable for the contested statement? Because above you said there were two. Was it Shrike and the editor who said I don't think anyone is questioning the reliability of university presses or Routledge? Because like it or not, they didn't disagree with the reliability of the sources, and any person who actually reads the discussion will see that. And will see that your repeated rantings about there not being any consensus are just a further example of disruptive editing. nableezy - 19:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike, this appears to be an attempt by Nableezy to get rid of an opposing editor through the misuse of AN/I (must be something in the air today; see above and below). This is a content dispute, and should be sent back to the article talk page as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It very much is not a content dispute. An editor is saying what we quote from sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable. He is saying what is in black and white is not there. How is that a content dispute. I understand that there are a lot of words here, but this is way beyond a dispute about content. That something deals with content does not make it a content dispute. An editor engaged in tendentious editing is always editing content. That does not make tendentious editing something that cant be dealt with here. nableezy - 19:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

An editor is saying what we quote from sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable. He is saying what is in black and white is not there. is not an accurate summation of Wikieditor's arguments on the talk page, as shown by the very same quotes by Wikieditor that you posted in the OP. Wikieditor is making an NPOV argument, not a V or RS argument (as I and others have pointed out in the past). That NPOV argument is at least plausible, and thus this is a content dispute. You are repeatedly straw-manning Wikieditor's argument in an attempt to re-frame it from an NPOV objection to a V or RS objection and then arguing that based on this, Wikieditor has a CIR or POV-pushing issue. I can read what Wikieditor wrote and it doesn't match what you're reporting. Bottom line: the argument that some of the proposed language for the article doesn't meet NPOV is a valid argument, and even if you disagree with it, the editors who make that argument are not being disruptive by making an argument you disagree with. Ordinary dispute resolution, such as the ongoing RFC, should be allowed to conclude to resolve this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, cmon man. I posted the above sources and quotes here. His response here was The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable". But you are going to tell me that he did not say that it is not verifiable? Am I insane here? What did he say there? We can have an argument about NPOV, about WEIGHT, sure, and I am not here about that. But when an editor says essentially that the sources dont say what they say how is that even possible? He has repeatedly said that the statement is not verifiable, a statement that is explicitly verified. That is the CIR issue here, not a content dispute. nableezy - 19:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Because context. Those two diffs you posted are what you wrote, and what Wikied wrote (all emphasis in the original):

• Nableezy: Can you read that quote? often referred to as Bantustans. Well, how about can you read WP:BURDEN? This is what that says: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'll repeat, is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used. You are bastardizing our policies here, and I really hope an admin does something about it.
• Wikied: The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable," especially absent any other evidence of widespread usage and contradiction in objective news sources and other academic articles. Posting the same block quotes over and over again is absurd. The fact that a warning is logged against me for showing a tinge of frustration with this open belligerence is so absurd.

Nableezy, you're just wrong about policy in your statement. You point to WP:BURDEN but you're actually making an WP:ONUS argument. Burden is about who has to provide citations for a challenged statement. But just providing the citation doesn't mean the challenged statement must go into an article, nevermind in wikivoice. That's what ONUS is all about. You ignore it.

It right there where you say: The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used. Just because one source (or multiple sources) say something doesn't make it a "verifiable fact". There are more than two, or three, or five, or ten sources on this subject. I personally posted like 18 sources on that talk page. So claiming that because some of them say something, it's a "verifiable fact" and anyone who disagrees with that has CIR concerns... well, no. This is a content dispute about the proper weight of (many) sources.

It's perfectly acceptable for editors to say that one source or even multiple sources are not enough to meet ONUS, or that a particular author may be unreliable, or may be "a biased or partisan source", and it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to argue that a biased or partisan source does not (or should not) be used to verify a statement in wikivoice. To say "the claims of biased and partisan sources ... [are] anything but 'verifiable'" is not the same thing as saying that, as you put it, "sources published by Oxford University Press is not verifiable". That is not what Wikieditor is arguing.

Frankly, you shouldn't be having so much trouble understanding that Wikieditor is arguing that the particular sources you point to in order to support a statement in wikivoice are insufficient to support a statement in wikivoice. You might disagree with that argument, but you should be able to understand it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no, when a source says something is a fact it is a verifiable fact. This is crazy town if people can just say no I dont believe the source. And Im sorry to say your context reading lacks context. I responded with burden because he said the burden is on me to demonstrate that the term is widely used. Frankly, it should not be so hard for you to see that Wikieditor is claiming a statement is not verifiable when he says the statement is not verifiable. How is that even in dispute now? I get he's on your side of the dispute here, but thats a level of intellectual dishonesty I did not see coming. And yes, he flat out said what is directly quoted from a source published by OUP is not verifiable. I legit do not understand how you can pretend otherwise. nableezy - 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You are still ignoring WP:ONUS, the common part about verifiability not equaling inclusion. You have so much experience working with content, and I'm 100% sure if I dug I'd find a diff where you were making the ONUS argument to some other editor about how just because something is in a source doesn't mean we include it in the article (esp. in wikivoice). I know you understand "verifiability does not equal inclusion". I don't understand why you are describing this argument as some disruptive, novel, or "crazy town" argument. Accusing me of intellectual dishonesty reminds me of the other things you've said that we discussed recently on my talk page. Then as now, this is what makes me bow out. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Parting thought: You say "'bantustan' is 'widely' used". Other editors say "'bantustan' is not 'widely' used". You say "sources support 'bantustan' being 'widely' used". Other editors say "sources do not support 'bantustan' being 'widely' used". What's the next step? RSN? ANI? No! It's to make a table, and list the sources and quotes from the sources, and see how many say that "bantustan" is widely used. Do 15 out of 20 sources say "widely"? Then we should say "widely". Do 3 out of 20 sources say "widely"? Then we should not say "widely". Resolving this content dispute is simple. I really think the most productive thing that everyone could be doing, rather than discussing who should get sanctioned for what, is to just get to work on the source analysis table and get on with it. Everyone's already posted some sources and quotes so the work is half done. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledging that there are sources that directly say widely used would be a start. Acknowdledging that those same sources were found reliable by RSN for that specific statement would likewise be useful. I said, we can have arguments about a whole host of issues on whether or not the name should be bolded in the article. I am not here because of that. I can argue ONUS, I can argue WEIGHT. But when an editor says that the sources dont say what they say, when they say that scholars writing in the area of their expertise are combatants in the arena and as such cant be used for facts, thats when it is not a content issue. I am not ignoring ONUS, not even a little. He isnt making that argument. I have not brought anybody making any other argument here because I am not just looking to remove an opponent. He is making arguments that are fundamentally incompatible with our base policies. That is why I am here. Can you acknowledge that he has in fact repeatedly said what has been quoted in multiple sources is not verifiable? Can you acknowledge that has in fact been verified? It would help immensely to know we are all playing on the same field here and not some universe where what was said was not really said and what is written is not actually written. nableezy - 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich has done an apt job summarizing the debate, and Nableezy is still misrepresenting my arguments. I already openly acknowledged the sources provided and the language they used. By Nableezy's logic, anyone who questions the neutrality of a source is violating policy. That includes basically everyone on the talk page who at some point has suggested bias in one source or another. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there are sources that directly say widely used. And you're right, we can discuss the bolding and whether to say "widely used" in wikivoice at the article talk page, not here.

I don't agree that "those same sources were found reliable by RSN" — it's still open, some of the sources (university publishers) never really had their reliability in dispute, and the actual issue (author bias) has not yet been really discussed, nevermind concluded with a result ("found reliable by RSN").

"... when they say that scholars writing in the area of their expertise are combatants in the arena and as such cant be used for facts, thats when it is not a content issue ... He is making arguments that are fundamentally incompatible with our base policies." — I disagree with both those statements. Wikieditor is making an argument per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources.

"Can you acknowledge that he has in fact repeatedly said what has been quoted in multiple sources is not verifiable?" - yes and I understand that "not verifiable" in context means "not verified by enough neutral sources to say in wikivoice/bold in the lead"

"Can you acknowledge that has in fact been verified?" - Nope, I think "widely used" is an opinion held by some scholars, but I don't think it's the scholarly consensus or the mainstream view. It very well may be a significant minority view, or it may need qualificiation (such as "widely used by critics", "widely used by Palestinians", "widely used in Israel", all of which are formulations I've seen in one source or another, and I'm not sure which if any are the predominant qualification). Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont see how the idea that when scholarly sources report something as fact that a Wikipedia editor can dismiss that as an opinion held by some scholars is something we can allow here. I dont see how when somebody says something is anything but verifiable one can say they did not say that it is not verifiable. But maybe I am insane after all. nableezy - 20:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Supposin' we look at 20 sources. 3 say "often called bantustans", 17 say "sometimes called bantustans". Is it a verifiable fact that they're often called bantustans? Or is it a verifiable fact that they're sometimes called bantustans? That a scholarly source reports something as fact doesn't make it an undisputed fact. We have to look at all or most of the sources.

For example, in the discussion Talk:Palestinian enclaves#Lead sentence, I posted three example sources, and Nishidani wrote, One cannot write a lead without summarizing the existing source base ... Choosing just two or three texts to do so is pointy ..., and Selfstudier wrote in response to that, Thank you, that saved me some ink. We have sources that point to enclaves going back to Allon ... and better still would be an attempt based on all relevant sourcing ... Wikieditor homes in on critics of "bantustan" but omits the critics of enclaves .... Both of them (as I understand it) are making the same exact argument that Wikieditor is making: we can't just look at two or three or some sources, but instead we must look at the entire "source base", and "better still would be an attempt based on all relevant sourcing". Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Both of them (Nishidani and Selfstudier (as I understand it)

Wow, Levivich. Did you write that with a straight face? I wrote that the article's 60 plus first rate RS using the descriptor 'Bantustan', per LEAD summary style, obliges all editors to use that term in the lead, since it occupied most of the article. Wikieditor (a) admits he reads the talk page, not the massive sources used and (b) challenges 3 sources that provide precisely the evidence for text he won't accept. Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That isnt where we are though. And personally, if we were there, I would say we would be on safe ground just saying also known as bantustans the end. You are making a weight issue, but to your question, both are verifiable statements. A statement is verified when a reliable source directly supports it. It may be challenged by other reliable sources, but that does not make it not verifiable or even verified. But that is again going in to the weeds of the content issue. The behavior issue of denying what is in fact a consensus at RSN (things dont get closed there generally, and even you admit the sourcing is reliable), and denying what has been verified is verifiable is still what I'd like to address here. Nobody has ever said anything is undisputed fact. What Ive said is that it is verifiable fact, and the response is that what multiple sources flat out say as a fact is anything but verifiable. nableezy - 21:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Much as I appreciate the valuable points raised by Levivich, this has devolved into a content debate, as expected. Nableezy, when multiple other editors are telling you that a point of view is valid, maybe it's time to drop this already dubious position that anyone who disagrees with you must be thrown off the encyclopedia for incompetence. And, look, yet again another double standard. Nableezy describes the RfC, which has a small majority in favor against the positions he's advocated here, as unsettled because it is not yet closed. The discussion at RSN, which drew smaller participation and remains open, and which did not indicate "unanimous disagreement" (Shrike and Levivich raised the same points there as they did here), Nableezy describes as "settled" and "consensus." Which is it? Is "settled" a flexible term that adapts to whether or not a user likes the outcome, or do we wait for closure in all cases? Clearly neither are true, yet only the former describes the distinction drawn here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Here is an example edit by Wikieditor. This one claiming that the outcome of a still running RFC is a forgone conclusion and that this should therefore be reflected in the lead right away. Wikieditor is ad nauseum repeating claims that are rather distant from WP policy, one assumes in an attempt to influence the outcome of the RFC. Having only recently received a logged warning from an admin and asked to dial it back, Wikieditor agreed to do so only to once more engage in provocative editing practices. Trawling the entire page is work but a flavor of what's going on can be found here and here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I really dont want to get in to why the edits are problematic, only why the arguments he is making are fundamentally opposed to our core policies like WP:V. Can an editor repeatedly claim that what is directly quoted from multiple reliable sources is anything but verifiable? Can an editor repeatedly claim that academics writing in the area of their expertise are participants in a dispute and thus are not usable for factual statements? Can an editor repeatedly demand that others prove or disprove the factual statements made by reliable sources? Those are behavioral issues, not content ones. nableezy - 19:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that this has nothing at all to do with content.Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

{{{1}}} Striking this for the sake of moving forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• One cannot seriously expect uninvolved editors to spend the necessary time to read and parse all that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it is a complex issue meant for article discussion. The RfC was opened for some headway. I for one do not care what Nableezy calls me, and I do not care if the RfC determines I (and others) are wrong. What I ask is that the users above -- Selfstudier, Nableezy -- with or without warning, please stop messing with the formatting of the RfC. I have seen:

• Users merge discussions into the vote section, making it impossible to sift through
• Users hide some sources and delete subheaders from the ToC, and then highlight other favored ones
• Users argue under votes and counter every argument until the vote thread is totally disrupted

If we're going to make any progress, this behavior has to stop. Clearly Nableezy and I, or Levivich and Nableezy, or anyone, are not guaranteed to reach a compromise. The RfC can help that process where the breakdown fails elsewhere, but only if it's allowed to proceed. So please, I don't care about sanctions, warning, or tit-for-tat -- just stop with these changes over formatting. I've done my best to organize it in a manner that gives everyone a fair shot. Assume good faith and try to do the same. If we can accomplish that, and the RfC proceeds to completion, then I think this will resolve itself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my long-held belief that it is nearly always a bad idea to launch an WP:ARBPIA complaint at ANI as opposed to at WP:AE. But, for my part, for once, I'm not going to touch this and am going to let it otherwise play out. But I'm pretty sure it's gonna end up being a timesink —not due to the case's merits or lack thereof (of which I simply do not know enough about to comment further on)— if it hasn't become one already (likely). To sum up, for the most part, ARBPIA + threaded discussion + no word limit = fail. El_C 23:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I did not file the report here but I could have done so and I did think about it. It says at the top of the page that "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Well, it's obviously not urgent. And my past interactions with Wikieditor inform me that his behavior is not in any way out of the usual for him. Not that I blame anyone for not wanting to trawl that page (and there is more in the archive) and if time does not permit that then might as well just close this and be done with it.Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree nothing will come of this now, which is unfortunate. An editor has repeatedly made a mockery of our policies, but because it touches on content the conduct is being ignored. Just like every other instance of Wikieditor19920 relentlessly bludgeoning discussions with nonsensical arguments, this one will be ignored. Hooray for Wikipedia. I didnt file on AE as I was here asking for a wider remedy as I think Wikieditor19920 has demonstrated across topic areas that he is unable to edit according to our base policies. nableezy - 23:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just allow this to conclude without the polemics and accept that differing opinions are permitted. I really have nothing else to add other than my request to stop messing with the RfC format. It's continuing to attract opinions from a broader audience, and hopefully that's a good thing if I'm wrong on the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2021 (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.

Bacondrum

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,

User Bacondrum does not seem to respect NPOV. For several months, in infoboxes relating to nationalist parties where the political spectrum includes right-wing to far-right, he systematically withdraws the right-wing label (even when there are references) in favor of the far-right only (1, 2, 3 are some examples while these articles are stable for months or years) arguing that right-wing is not a position (very debatable and which would require a broad consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics) but a broad/catch-all term, that editors who bring right-wing to far-right are trying to "sanitize"/"normalize" this kind of parties and that the far-right is on the right-wing (which is not wrong in the latter case). In some cases, a consensus has been reached in talk page for only including far-right in infobox like at Vox (political party) or National Rally so there is nothing to complain about. However, he never does the same thing for anti-liberal or communist parties where left-wing to far-left are still present (like in Portuguese Communist Party, La France Insoumise, Communist Party of the Russian Federation; in this logic, he should also withdraws left-wing label for the same reasons as for nationalist parties otherwise there are double standards).

In addition, and it's even more serious, he does not respect the obligation to have polite and civil language, by making threats of 3RR blocking against users who disagree with him : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (@Helper201, Jay942942, and Mellk: have experienced it).

I perfectly know that editorial disagreements aren't the matter of administrators, but in this case, to avoid further problems could you apply a partial topic-ban on him concerning political parties ? Regards. --Martopa (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So the complaint here appears to be based on the fact that you disagree with the edits Bacondrum has made, and that he doesn't make the kinds of edits you want him to make. (No editor is obligated to make any specific type of edit just to please another editor.) This is clearly purely a content dispute, and no sanction against Bacondrum, least of all a topic ban, is warranted. A trout for Martopa for attempting to use AN/I to win a content dispute seems in order, however. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: To be honest, I was initially reluctant to take it to ANI, but you can't deny that talking about 3RR blocking is excessive and non-civil (it isn't the good way to resolve content disputes, especially considering that Mellk hasn't break 3RR), and can be seen by the 3 users mentioned above as potentially aggressive. --Martopa (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Mellk has been edit warring, that's the only problem and they are on the verge of breaking the 3RR rule, so I was warning them - it's a friendly act, I could just wait for them to revert again and they would be blocked for edit warring [213]. This is a content dispute and Martopa is just pissed off that they've lost a few debates over the "right-wing to far-right" tautology, this is a retaliatory and vexatious report. This should WP:BOOMERANG Martopa is using ANI to get revenge after losing content disputes. Bacondrum 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Also this tagging in editors who you think will agree with you, it's a shifty tactic (like taking content disputed to ANI): [214]. Surely there's a sanction due for Martopa for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - they lost some debates, they need to accept this and move on. Bacondrum 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Also this tagging in editors who you think will agree with you, it's a shifty tactic (like taking content disputed to ANI): [215]. Surely there's a sanction due for Martopa for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - they lost some debates, they need to accept this and move on. This is petty harassment, at best. Bacondrum 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You claimed that I "crossed the 3RR red line", which was not true. I made one revert that day. I asked you to explain your reasoning, but you haven't. Mellk (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You have reverted the same content 3 times despite seeing a number of other editors disagree.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1008386529
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1007769226
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1007786998

As you can see the claim that Mellk has not been edit warring is false. I was warning them not to cross the line as it would result in a block - which is what we are supposed to do. End of story. Bacondrum 20:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You got 2 diffs from 19 February and 1 diff from 23 February. This is not within a 24 hour period. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I was referring to your claim that I "crossed" the line with WP:3RR. Mellk (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITWAR thoroughly. I was warning you so you could avoid a block, not threatening you. I know it sucks when numerous editors disagree with you, but you can't edit war. Bacondrum 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand it was not intended to be a threat, but you told me: "You've already crossed the 3RR redline". You said the same thing in the edit summary of the other article. From what I understand, you accused me of violating WP:3RR. Note how you were talking about 3RR specifically. I did not violate 3RR (more than 3 reverts within 24 hours). Mellk (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bacondrum has never edited the three articles you mention (Portuguese Communist Party, La France Insoumise, and Communist Party of the Russian Federation). Are you suggesting it's an NPOV violation to edit articles about right-wing/far-right groups and to choose not to edit articles about left-wing politics? Wikipedia editors are allowed to choose which topics to edit and there is no expectation that they must edit some topics in order to "balance out" their contributions. Editors must follow NPOV on the individual articles they edit, but if an editor is only interested in contributing to articles about far-right topics that is perfectly allowed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, If I saw "left-wing to far-left" as a position but there was no evidence of a dispute over their position evidenced in sources then I would argue that is akin to a tautology and thus an inappropriate synthesis of sources, but unlike Mortopa if the consensus at talk was against me I would accept that. Also yes, as a leftist myself I'm not that interested in Left-wing party articles, I find the opposing right-wing ideologies more interesting to read about. Bacondrum 21:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I also fairly heavily focus on right-wing topics and don't edit that much in the left-wing topic area. I'd be peeved if others were accusing me of POV for choosing to spend my volunteer time and energy towards researching and editing topics that interest me personally, and not topics they think I should be editing. It would be one thing if you were editing those three articles and showing evidence of bias through how the edits to those pages compared to your edits to right-wing topics, but the suggestion that you are contravening NPOV by not editing those pages is bizarre and not based in any policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GorillaWarfare, I feel I'm being targeted for harassment here. Bacondrum 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bacondrum did make this edit where they named a party as right-wing without a source. I removed the information with this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia You can't be serious? Quick, call the police!Bacondrum 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And I didn't just add it, I restored it. Bacondrum 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You said "The center-right is right-wing, it's a tautology", that is not an excuse to restore unsourced content. If the information added by Storm598 was wrong then you could have just removed it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It also isn't a tautology. Maybe in some limited contexts, but it's mostly a distinction which, otherwise, is not the same thing. The Right-wing politics and Centre-right politics pages explain all of that pretty well, I think. El_C 23:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll expand a bit further: the centre is generally more fluid. For example, to an average person in Western Europe, Biden is centre-right, but to an average American, he's centre-left. El_C 23:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

hi El C, I understand that it’s not a tautology, but I believe it’s something similar, one is a subset of the other. My issue is that an article stating that a far-right party is right-wing is not evidence of a dispute or that the author is claiming the party is not centre-right - the far-right is right-wing, the centre-right is right-wing, simply finding a source that describes a far-right group as right wing is not evidence of a dispute about their position, as Loki pointed out at another discussion “it’s like saying something is located somewhere between Los Angeles and California”. I hope that makes sense. Regardless I’m sure this isn’t the place for a content discussion. Bacondrum 23:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I don't think this complaint is, at the root, a content dispute. It's about you responding civilly, politely and in a nonthreatening manner to other editors. I know the environment editing in U.S. politics on Wikipedia is very combative but not everyone you disagree with is the opposition. Every editor is entitled to be treated with respect unless they are committing vandalism. It can help if you try to deescalate disputes and not give editors a reason to bring cases against you to ANI or AE.

I know after 2020, editors who work on political subjects are a bit battle-scarred from seemingly endless debates but please remember to AGF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I suppose I could be a little friendlier with some of these editors, but it's hard when they go about filing vexatious ANI reports and pinging others in for a pile on. Mortopa's efforts here to have me topic banned in a vindictive manner (without discussing any of their concerns with me directly first) do nothing to raise the level of civility, quite the opposite. Bacondrum 06:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to dialogue with you because you do not take into account the opinions of others, you systematically revert them (and sometimes talk about 3RR blocking), which tires some editors (Helper201, Jay942942 who don't want to have problems with you). On the Yellow Vest Australia you have no consensus, there was no debate on talk page, you simply remove sourced content unilaterally. In addition, it is not forbidden to ping whoever we want (and I have pinged you and Loki even if I kow perfectly that you support "right-wing to far-right as tautology"). This will be one of my last messages here. --Martopa (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you are being petty and vengeful after losing a few debates over this issue - absolutely nothing else. Of course you no longer want to respond, this whole ANI report is a farce and should never have been started - just like this rfc you started after consensus was against you at the previous one - Buidhe even pointed out to you that the discussion had been had already "This is a dumb RfC, we already discussed the question above and came to a consensus based on how academic sources describe the party's political orientation." - shifty tactic, this report should WP:BOOMERANG. Your mate was edit warring, that's a fact, we are supposed to warn people not to edit war if they are doing so, that is also a fact - claiming that warning people not to edit war is somehow a threat - yet another shifty tactic. Your vindictive attempt to have me blocked here have made it a real challenge to assume good faith with you - yet another shifty tactic, ANI is not a place for you to settle grudges. This whole ANI report is a personal attack as far as I'm concerned - Martopa launched this ANI as an attack on me because discussions have gone against them several times, nothing more. Bacondrum 20:17, 25 February 2021 (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.

Martopa

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 Martopa started this ANI discussion full of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". They set about demanding I be topic banned because...well they didn't really produce anything warranting sanction. As per WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS under section "What is considered to be a personal attack?"..."Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". Martopa's ANI report was clearly an accusation about personal behavior that lacked any evidence and is thus a personal attack. unlike Martopa, I do not seek a block or a topic ban, I am not seeking revenge - I would like them warned not to engage in personal attacks or to use ANI reports to seek revenge when discussions do not go their way. The guidelines are very clear on this, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. Bacondrum 20:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That discussion was closed by Black Kite who said it was not vexatious. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To be precise, what he said was that it was "not exactly a vexatious filing" (emphasis added), which is not quite the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The part of the report harping on political disagreements was frivolous and closing that was clearly the right call. However, the part about misuse of EW templates was more serious. I'd presume that was what "not exactly" referred to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hang on, Martopa was calling for sanctions against me and making demands in total absence of evidence, it is a personal attack as per WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS under section "What is considered to be a personal attack?"..."Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links" I’m not asking for sanctions just a warning and by extension some documentation of this personal attack, in case there is more of this type of attack. Bacondrum 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In the original thread, you accused OP of edit-warring and posted a 3RR to their page, even though you were repeatedly reverting him. To boot, he had not even violated 3RR. This alone is disruptive and something I've seen you do numerous times, and your claims of being "targeted," "harassed," and the subject of a "vexatious" report are even more dubious. My suggestion to you is to let it drop. Having been on this merry-go-round with you before, I'm disappointed to see you're still doing the same exact thing. As before, I don't think admins will do anything about it, but maybe you should learn to drop something and move on rather than trying to hammer the final nail into the coffin of every editor you cross swords with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

you falsely accuses me of “repeatedly reverting him” I did no such thing, Where’s the diffs of me “repeatedly reverting”. Can you produce even two? No, because it’s a lie. Bacondrum 23:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, you edit very aggressively, and you've been reported before for it. Recently you've been insisting that parties aren't allowed to be called "centre-right" because that just means right-wing, and in fact is a tautology. [216] (That's not what tautology means.) I was surprised that Black Kite closed the discussion with no action. It isn't sensible to re-open it to try to shift the focus. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, it looks like this dispute involved another user, even as you were in a dispute with OP ("Martopa"). You placed a 3RR template on the user Mellk's page, yet the page history at Liberal Democratic Party of Russia shows that you thrice "reinstated" or "restored" material and "undid" another change. Both of you may carry fault in the edit war, but only you technically reached the 24H 3RR limit based on what I'm seeing (that does not mean he's not at fault, but it doesn't look great to be throwing out a 3RR template). Martopa complained about your use of EW templates and uncivil comments. So maybe the lessons are to calm the edit-warring, and that throwing templates at users you're in a feud with will only raise, not lower, the temperature. Telling another editor you're doing it to "help them avoid being blocked" does not come off as sincere. Ditto for this ANI report. I've said what I have to say on the matter. Cheers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2021 (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.

Persistent POV editing without sources, past final warning

The protected article on Pagoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is being targeted by Ananta5421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who insists on changing things to suit their viewpoint, without providing any sources to back up the statements. I'm no expert on pagodas, and the user may well be correct for all I know, but it's impossible to verify as sources are claimed to exist but never seem to materialise. This has been pointed out repeatedly, including the final warning issued, but the user persists (and gets pretty argumentative when this is flagged). I'm not sure if all this counts technically as edit warring, because the edits get re-entered rather than restored by reverting, but the end result is the same. Could be that I've the wrong end of the stick here, but would appreciate if someone in the know could take a look. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The same user is also engaged in disruptive editing at Gautama Buddha. Teishin (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 24 hours for persistent edit warring, original research and adding unsourced materials. Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Canterbury Tail: however, the same stuff continues on Pagoda, this time under IP — the edit notes bear a remarkable resemblance to those of the blocked user. These are easier to catch, given the article's protection, but perhaps something could be done about these, too? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ananta5491 has resumed disruptive editing at Gautama Buddha.Teishin (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits on Lush_(company)

Not sure if this is the best place to report this, but I want to report disruptive editing on the Lush page. After 4 reverts today, two by myself, we asked for this to be resolved on the talk page. This was ignored and instead the IPs went down the route of accusations and reinstating the reverted edits.

It seems to be a carbon copy of what happened on the Britannia (TV series) and a lesser degree, Jez Butterworth. Worth looking at the banning/activity of SethRuebens and also the recent sockpuppet investigation the connected IPs were involved in. Not sure if it’s a breach of the ban, since that also seemed to be for disruptive editing. Unsure what the next steps are.LittleMissFashionista (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please notify all parties to the discussion with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding to watchlist and reviewing edits now. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the changes seem constructive EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am more concerned about LittleMissFashionista being questioned twice in relation to CoI/paid editing and not responding both times. SK2242 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Unreasonable application of WP:GOLDLOCK

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, can someone please remove the full protection that has been placed on this article Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? Those of us who regularly edit that article do so respectfully and without significant conflict or disruption. Recently this user Jfraatz just turned up out of the blue and started edit warring and did not engage in any conversation at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I don't see full protection as necessary, it seems like a massive overkill, why cant we just block the disruptive editor: Jfraatz? They turned up, started edit warring and never discussed anything at talk, why are we all being punished for their poor behavior? Can someone please remove the full protection and apply sanctions to the disruptive party rather than locking out all the non-disruptive editors who regularly contribute to this article in a civil and constructive manner? Bacondrum 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like there has been quite a bit of reversion and edit warring on that article the last month and a half, not just by this new user. Anyway the first stop for this is to ask CambridgeBayWeather as they're the admin that placed the protection. You shouldn't bring it here until you've had a response from them. Canterbury Tail talk 02:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Canterbury Tail. So why not just WP:BLUELOCK the page? Regular contributors should not be locked out until March because of the poor behavior of others, locking the entire article is way over the top, IMO. Bacondrum 03:38, 21 February 2021 (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.

As an addendum to this, can anyone explain why the Ronan Farrow article is gold-locked until May? There appears to have been some edit warring in December 2020 that warranted the lock, but there as been no activity on the talk page then and one of the accounts responsible for the edit warring has since become dormant, so I think that continued full protection is unwarranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: the admin who protected the page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

On that page, there has been some edit warring over a fairly sensitive BLP issue (it's not offensive, per se, but it certainly is the sort of thing that Wikipedia has an obligation to get right). If another admin is willing to keep an eye on it and reinstate protection on an as-needed basis should the problems come back, I have no objections to that admin removing the protection if that admin thinks that the problem has passed. --Jayron32 12:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for the protection be lowered at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ronan Farrow. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Dervaaaz reported by Shadowwarrior8

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Dervaaaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user known as @Dervaaaz is vandalising the Wikipedia page "Wahhabism". He kept constantly deleting data despite the data being backed up with sources. I warned him multiple times to reach consensus using Wikipedia rules and guidelines yet he turns a blind eye and keep on deleting the posts. An unknown bot with IP 31.164.10.41 is also doing the same and @Dervaaaz is coordinating with him.

In the first of attacks , ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wahhabism&diff=1008256071&oldid=1007983154 ) the bot did this. He accused "Wahhabism" of shirk/excommunication like a theological opponent. "(even though it is based upon Shirk)" For about three times he deleted edits , (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dervaaaz&redlink=1) this being the last time. I called for talk with him twice, yet he refused. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahhabism#Why_was_the_quote_by_Iqbal_deleted%3F

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahhabism#Last_warning_to_user_%40Dervaaaz_and_https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecial%3AContributions%2F31.164.10.41

No response, just deleting, deleting, deleting. I urge to take sufficient actions muting these two accounts. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadowwarrior8 has a history [217] of disruptive edits on Wahhabism and is bringing a lot of changes to the article that are OR and POV based. He uses self published sources and disrepresents sources. He should bring up these to the talk page before making such changes. He has been warned before and his extensive changes can be found in the history section of the article. Dervaaaz (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can an admin at least shut down their edit war? Both need a time-out and possibly a page ban. Shadow has made significant revisions over the last 10 days that are either a sign that the article had glaring errors and POV problems or their edits have introduced POV problems. Slywriter (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, so I've just frozen the article for 3 days. Any sensible changes can be requested on the article Talk page and will need to be implemented by an admin. Deb (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So I have not been editing much in the past few days, and have been caught by surprise of this edit war between the two fellow editors on a page I watch and infrequently edit. I have had one or two past dealings with the accusing user, Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs), which mostly focus around improper use of source material (i.e. citing sources and yet stating infomation not found in the source) as well as potentially biased editing, especially in relation to Iran and the Shi'a. You can see an edit I made here where I communicated these concerns to him. In response, he reverted my edit (which simply implemented an NPOV and OR article template to the top of the page). To be honest, I did not feel like taking this any further, have not had the chance to and I felt that I had been too harsh. Other than this, I reverted and criticised him for leaving misleading edit summaries once, and I reverted an edit where he brought an unreliable source on the article of a prominent Shi'i scholar. He seems to have a history of adding large amounts of content to more controversial topics, especially in relation to Shi'a Islam. Other editors have also had issues with him, and at other times his edits have led to page protection being put in place, his edits being classed as disruptive - see here.

However it should be noted that Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs), has been adding much content and detail to many WikiProject Islam articles such as Rashid Rida etc. and he has been using sources, unlike some of his earliest edits, although I have not checked as to whether the content added reflects the sources. It is clear then that he has good intentions in improving articles, but simply needs to be more aware of Wiki policy, avoid OR, Synthesis, maintain neutrality and decorum in preventing edit wars. He has also added copyrighted content in the past - I see from all of this confirmation that he simply lacks experience editing and dealing with other users, and that with time we should see these issues go away. I recommend he reviews a lot of the help pages, and Wikipedia policy pages.

As for the user being reported, Dervaaaz (talk · contribs), whilst I have no experience of him, it seems the cause of Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs)'s frustration against him is that he is alledging that Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) is making improper use of source material, similar to what I have said to him in the past. Both are at fault from edit warring according to the page log and seem to lack experience on how to resolve an edit war. A good example I would give, on a related article, is my interaction with another editor here. Whilst like many disputes this started off with a misunderstanding, but with discussion on the article talk page we both arrived at a compromise.

So, I suggest that there is no issue, as Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) does not seem to actually be vandalising anything, it seems he simply disagrees with Shadowwarrior8 and believes his edits are not reflecting the source material. However he has not engaged with Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) on the article's talk page, and I recommend that he should do this as well practically show (on there not on here) how his edits do not reflect the source material, maybe giving an example. Moreover, I note that Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) does not edit often, but both he and Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) should be aware of the revert rule. I would suggest that they both discuss the issue they are having on the talk page, which they can still do regardless of page protection. Also Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) you should give reasonable time for Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) to respond to you - you made those comments on the talk page just yesterday. Perhaps Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) has work or is otherwise busy and so can't respond right away - consider waiting until the weekend.

In summary I feel no action needs to be taken against either editor by the admins. Whilst I can corroborrate the sentiments of Dervaaaz (talk · contribs) against Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs), I suggest this is just an issue of not being fully informed of Wiki policy and suggest that he should try discussing the issues he has with the edits on that page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs) should relax and tone down his rhetoric, but it is understandable that he feels annoyed. I would be happy to join in to discuss and evaluate Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs)'s edits on the talk page.

Happy editing, ParthikS8 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced material by Yash Chandrashekhar Shetty

• Yash Chandrashekhar Shetty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been making disruptive, unsourced edits for many months, including WP:NPOV violations, cheating with deceptive edit summaries ([218], [219], [220]), hiding the disruptive major edits as minor, making unsourced edits, but most frequently WP:BLP violations in Siddharth Nigam, which (s)he has been making since 18 July 2020. The page is indefinitely protected because of the chronic, incorrigible BLP violation, but unfortunately the user is confirmed and still keeps adding unsourced information to the article (the only link ever provided by the user is a broken link to Instagram), ignores all warnings and requests to stop, including final warnings. I can't see any other way of convincing the user that ignoring WP:BLP and WP:V is unacceptable than blocking him/her from editing.—J. M. (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks J. M., I've added a partial block for Siddharth Nigam. That can be upgraded to a general block if they persist on other pages. Fences&Windows 21:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war

I have just reverted three separate removals of cited material from Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war by Kullanıcı İsmi, in each case with an edit summary of "m". Then I noticed that the page was subject to WP:1RR. So I am turning myself in. However, as I am taken down, could I suggest that an eye be kept on KI's behaviour. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is exempt from edit waring restrictions, and blanking 3 large sections of the article with no explanation whatsoever is obviously vandalism. Since User:Kullanıcı İsmi has already been blocked twice for disruptive editing and page blanking vandalism I think an indef is in order. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Kullanıcı İsmi for two weeks and would certainly consider an indefinite block if the disruptive behavior resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor(s) encouraging disruptive editing

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 think some editors are encouraging (and possibly applying) disruptive editing behavior. I find this "The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until either they get frustrated and either get bored and stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned."[221] to be problematic, please advise. Feynstein (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I noticed Alexbrn simply because he was part of the discussion. I think input from him can be valuable to the assessment of the situation. Feynstein (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BOOMERANG, the disruptive editor here is Feynstein, who has been pushing the "lab leak" conspiracy theory regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 against NPOV, and has engaged in repeated personal attacks against other editors. For those unfamiliar with the recent goings on surrounding the "lab leak" controversy, It has essentially turned into a mirror of the Race and intelligence topic area, where there is extensive offsite canvassing and SPA activity attempting to influence Wikipedia by people who do not edit with the neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: This is not about me, I respected administrator advice in all cases and I even apologised multiple times. And this is clearly not a conspiracy theory, we have one MEDRS candidate [222] and multiple RS saying it's not. You encouraging stonewalling until editors get topic banned is counterproductive to the current RfC and discussion. I'm sorry, but even I am not doing that. Plus I had no idea there was off-site canvassing on the subject. My last year edits on the subject kinda prove I wanted this subject to be properly adressed from the start. Feynstein (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reading the source, the conclusion is that either is possible, which while not saying it's definitely natural, still isn't conclusive evidence it was a lab leak, as well as the fact the scientific consensus is that Covid is naturally occurring. Therefore, we should just say the lab leak is a conspiracy theory. 4D4850 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@4D4850: A lab can leak a naturally occuring virus. This is not the goal of this btw, it's about a user encouraging stonewalling on a legit RfC (which you should participate if you want to weigh in). Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all Feynstein (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Stonewalling a discussion is bad, but ANI discussions can and will change course. Overall though, I say OP should be blocked for POV-pushing. 4D4850 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And by OP you mean? Feynstein (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Original Poster. So, you. 4D4850 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's about you. Read WP:BOOMERANG. Almost your entire editing history on your account from its de-facto beginning in May 2020 (with one prior edit in 2011) has been dedicated to pushing the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. You are a Single-Purpose-Account, in common with most other accounts who push the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we please not accuse every party to the discussion of everything. Still, consensus on the RfC appears to be that the lab leak hypothesis is considered a conspiracy theory, and the article on pubmed doesn't decide either way. 4D4850 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw the MEDRS requirement means editors can completely overlook RS about this? It's demonstrably not a conspiracy theory, I didn't want to get into it but since you're accusing me of POV pushing I might as well. [223] ... It seems like common sense doesn't apply to this subject it's so weird. Feynstein (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, right, tell that to my involvement in the WP:DRN and my work on industrial radiography. And read WP:NPA. This is pathetic mate. Feynstein (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the things you mentioned to support your case apply in this scenario. 4D4850 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What scenario? That editors are actively stonewalling and that it might ressemble POV pushing to go against it? That's fair. Feynstein (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean how the ANI discussion is currently going. 4D4850 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I really don't get your involvement in this, I'll let it play out without responding to you any further because I feel like I'm getting WP:BAITed. Seeing the comment below I think it's precisely what's happening gday to you. Feynstein (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I think that this needs to go to WP:ARBCOM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Why not mate, I know I have wrongs but I always listened to admin advice. Yes I came here in 2020 first because I didn't like what I was seeing and wanted to contribute (misguidedly at first of course). But then I went and stopped working on COVID, and continued to participate in many other pages, including WP:DRN until I got the hang of edition. You're completely disregarding my other work by picking the very start of my history. You're also disregarding how I translated a page into french wikipedia. And how I casually contributed to small edits like image caption and stuff on wikimedia using the mobile app. I recently saw legit peer-reviewed papers that weren't included in the article and wondered why. Then I saw signs of WP:STONEWALLING on talk pages. People using derogatory language qualifying editors of conspiracy theorists for something that clearly became mainstream[224]. I mean whatever you think of me I know I have done everything in good faith and this subject actually started me on a track to edit stuff I know about. I'm ready to face any WP:BOOMERANG that would come my way, but certainly not for false accusations of being a one purpose account by someone who didn't even care to look at my entire history. Feynstein (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that I talked about myself because you went there, why don't you explain why "The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until either they get frustrated and either get bored and stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned.". Please enlighten us. Feynstein (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is for behaviour, not content. This is a content issue, although some editors seem to be unhappy that they're not convincing others, so instead of waiting for the RfC which was launched to end, they're 1) disrupting it by making fictional consensuses [as involved editors] and 2) making an ANI thread accusing that editors who are legitimately not convinced by their arguing are stonewalling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What I get from your comment is that Stonewalling and Canvassing (with proof here) is ok when you agree with the view? Then it's called what? Like "legitimately not convinced"? Cool, cool. I wonder how legit this RfC is when there's evidence of a concerted effort to block a viewpoint. Meh, maybe I'm getting paranoid eh? Feynstein (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS explains what is considered canvassing or not, —PaleoNeonate – 10:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the deep insight mate. Stonewalling (which there's evidence here) probably involves some form of implicit canvassing. It's not in the definition of course but using tools like critical thinking can lead you there. Feynstein (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK. let's back off on the back and forth personal comments and instead think about how an RfC works. The "stonewalling" advice is just an opinion, but nonetheless it is bad advice. Yes, there are times when SPAs disrupt RfCs. 90% of the disruption consists of the other editor responding to them. The best way to deal with SPAs is to not respond other than tagging the SPAs with Template:Single-purpose account, and ask for an experienced and uninvolved closer. The closer will almost always follow the advice found at Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Strength of arguments, and in the rare case where they don't you can appeal the close. The system works. RfCs are not broken and do not need to be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A close was asked for, as the discussion has now become exhausted, and yes there was stonewalling, but not by any user named here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Slatersteven: @Guy Macon: What's the takeaway then? There was/is stonewalling but it's okay? It's ok for editors to label other editors as conspiracy theorists even if the telegraph has an article on the subject saying multiple biologists agree it's possible? Clearly nothing's broken, nothing to see here, move along. Feynstein (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The solution is to close the RFC as quite a few people are getting a tad heated. I am not at all happy with a few users over there who basically refused to accept any other opini0so but the ones they wanted to hear, and tried to close it with "but my side has consensus if we ignore all the views elsewhere". Neither side here has been conspicuously policy compliant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @Slatersteven: Yeah that wasn't a good idea I agree. How the question is formulated is also probably to blame. However evidence of stonewalling and maybe canvassing probably means the whole endeavour is cooked. Editors still saying it's a conspiracy theory and treating it as such in WP is not in the best interest of anyone. That's why I think editors thought it was ok to do shady stuff like that. It's not ok, we're not talking about flat earth or chemtrails here. So yeah no steps will be taken by admins because wikipedia eh? Great. Feynstein (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
          • This is not the venue to go over the content dispute again. But you need to wp:agf. "shady stuff" (as I said) was done by both sides. I would suggest the RFC is close, and maybe no edits without consensus be added as a DS for now added.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
            • I get that, it's hard to assume good faith though. Considering what I reported. It kinda ruined it for me. I might as well "either get bored and stop editing". What I think happened here, considering the sections below, is no admin wanted to get involved because of how a clusterf*** this debate is. And since stonewalling is actually called "status quo stonewalling" the status quo and its proponents win. Its not broken (insert gif of dog in flaming house saying "everything is fine"). Feynstein (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal could we consider salting COVID19/COVID-19/coronavirus to prevent new article creations so that the admins and community can focus on the hundreds of articles that already exist and prevent further forks, POV or otherwise? (Feel free to direct me elsewhere) Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is not article creation, but article content. But I agree though to salt any further article creation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Further evidence: I've found other evidence of a concerted effort consisting of indications of what to do in edit summaries. It has already been pointed in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. "(User:PaleoNeonate Think it's unecessary to refute every argument obsessively, try to comment as little as possible and only if there's some new, drastically different argument.)" [225]. And all of this is with everything that's going on at the fringe noticeboard. Editors are giving themselves the right to mess with the debate because they consider every aspect of the lab leak hypothesis to be a conspiracy theory. And on the other side there's evidence of SPAs and bad practice. Meaning that the anti-fringe editors are bound to mount a very solid defense against people trying to push legit conspiracy theories. I get that. But I demonstrated multiple times that there's a fine line to draw between a part of these theories and all the other nonsense. It's all explained in here. [226]. All of this ends up with me being labeled a conspiracy theorist. I'm not, I'm a physicist fgs. I'm very sick of it. Can we do something about that?
• Proposal 2 Let's try to create a "group draft" for an article with editors from both sides involved, separating the legit RS science and media coverage from the real conspiracy theories. Also documenting Trump's and US official statements and such. Political controversies and all. There's LOADS of stuff to document on this. And when the truth finally comes out, either way, we'll write the conclusion. "How is this relevant to WP:ANI?". Good question! This kind of middle ground will most probably bring the shady editing practices to an end since everyone will have an open space to work on and with other editors of the opposing viewpoint. Feynstein (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• That would be a good idea, if it weren't for editors like me who accidentally replace everything they touch with incomprehensible text walls in the talk page, as well as the people out to not constructively contribute to Wikipedia (for example, vandals.) Still, if it was appropriately community moderated, it would be a good idea. Also, should we put this and the other proposal in a proposals section? 4D4850 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That misinterpretation of the edit summary I left is anything but AGF. I was making a point about WP:BLUDGEON. If you wish to go ahead and think there's a WP:CABAL somewhere preventing your 'opinion' from being advertised on Wikipedia that is none my concern, just keep it to yourself. As for your proposal of a "group draft": there's already an article about it, instead of asking for a new one where you can try to impose your views from the start, let's keep working on the current one. That involves accepting the outcomes of RfCs/MfDs and not trying to prematurely close them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So, were you replying to me, the OP, or both? 4D4850 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• @RandomCanadian: I interpreted it as you giving pointers on edition strategies to another editor. If you think there's a bludgeon, why would you choose to "hide" your comment in a summary? I'm AGF here, I genuinely want to know. It's weird to tag a user in a summary. I don't think there's a WP:CABAL, I think that editors hanging out in the fringe noticeboard are like-minded and collectively think they have the legitimacy to WP:GAME the process in order to prevent what they view as conspiracy theories from getting undue attention on WP, which is a good intention. However, when there's misunderstanding of the subject itself it will lead to situations like the one we're in now. Where multiple RS sources and MEDRS sources talk about a very precise possibility and don't dismiss the possibility, in that order, of a phenomenon. As to if there's really a WP:CABAL of politically motivated editors, that I don't know, and it's probably impossible to tell. That's why I AGF and suspect a misunderstanding. Feynstein (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true, and if you look at my interactions with some of the others there you would see that. The problem is here is that we are not talking about Cryptids or UFO's, people are dying. So many of us are a tad less willing to give the benefit of the doubt to (for example ) fringe views. We want to differentiate between "We need to make sure" and "IT WAS THE CHINESE! ITS A FACT!".Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't get your point. "We need to make sure" is exactly what (at least I) want to do with the subject. Like, there's enough RSs and the MEDRSs are pretty clear that we don't know if there was another sample inside the lab. Here: "Dr Lucey still believes that Sars-Cov-2 is most likely to have a natural origin, but he does not want the alternatives to be so readily ruled out. "So here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source," he said. "So, to me, it's all the more reason to investigate alternative explanations." Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did? "Not everything that's done is published," Dr Lucey said."[227] and here: "In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list."[228]. That's precisely the kind of stuff we need to put in WP. Those are very serious RS, we're talking about the BBC and the Telegraph! And we're still having this debate. This is exactly why I started this thread on WP:ANI. There's evidence of WP:STONEWALLING and some editors are blocking those quotes as per the ridiculous MEDRS requirement (which is applied arbitrarily btw). Scientists won't publish a paper because they don't know and "Not everything that's done is published". So we're basically stuck. We can't write about it and some editors are self-rightously using the fringe label to dismiss it and the editors who genuinely want WP to report on this as conspiracy theorists and WP:PROFRINGE. Great. Feynstein (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

But scientists have published papers specifically on the lab leak ideas, in excellent sources like virology journals. They call them unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories, and note they are being pushed hard by inexpert ideological believers on the internet. Which is - like you. This is why the Project would be better off if you were banned from this topic area, because your contributions are a time sink. Alexbrn (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely ... However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation."[229]. In our view, there is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV. It is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a recombinant CoV generated in nature between a bat CoV and another coronavirus in an intermediate animal host"[230]. "A variety of weapons from the quiver are used: conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan, China, a special phraseology regarding an ‘invisible enemy’"[231]. "It was previously reported that, insertions and deletions near the S1/S2 of Coronavirus Spike can occur due to natural evolutionary process (or prolonged passage or sub-culturing [42-44]. However, in order to generate such virus through passage, a “progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity” needs “prior isolation” [40]. Introduction of a polybasic cleavage site specific to hACE2 requires repeated sub-culturing of this virus in cell culture or animals with hACE2. But neither such progenitor virus nor sub-culturing based polybasic cleavage to hACE2 has “previously been described”.[232]. This is from your own sources. And finally the review paper (MEDRS) you are stonewalling These investigations indicate as expected that it is possible to adapt bat viruses to infect human cells or various animal models, and that chiropteran CoVs have the potential for direct zoonotic transmission to humans, particularly if they acquire an adapted proteolysis site, which requires only a few mutations or the insertion of a short sequence rich in basic amino acids (Hu et al. 2017). This hypothesis has been put forward by Sirotkin and Sirotkin, who developed the hypothesis that the virus might have arisen from serial passages, and accidental escape from the laboratory (Sirotkin and Sirotkin 2020)."[233]. All of these MEDRS say exactly what we're trying to include in WP. You can then take your personal attacks "inexpert ideological believers on the internet. Which is - like you." and respectfully archive them where the metaphorical sun don't shine. You're purposefully interpreting all those papers based on your own ideological views without any lightroom for in-context as a minority viewpoint information inclusion about this. And I have evidence of a concerted effort at stonewalling this information. *drops mic* Feynstein (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• sub proposal Topic ban Alexbrn as per WP:NPA. Feynstein (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, that Telegraph item is an opinion piece (whose authors are a pusher of the lab-leak idea and a businessman whose takes have aged poorly), and their litany of names actually ignores what those scientists have said in detail about the difference between possible and probable [234][235]. The paper by Sallard et al. is clearly not a review since it contains (an attempt at) novel research, and it's not in a MEDLINE-indexed journal, so there's no grounds to call it MEDRS-compliant. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to say the amusing bit that the Telegraph item seems to have been so sloppily edited that they didn't get the year right (early 2020). XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sub-Sub-proposal: Feynstein, I'm quite confident all these points have been raised and rebutted in quite a lot of detail on the relevant talk pages so if you'd mind not having this repeated argument for the ten billionth time that would also be helpful (since it's already been explained to you many times, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to disagree with your view point; repeating it is unlikely to bring much except more boredom and annoyance - see also WP:DONTGETIT). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is what going against a WP:STONEWALL [236] looks like. QED. I'm done here now. Feynstein (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

For repeatedly pushing a WP:FRINGE theory and blatantly ignoring WP:MEDRS (as demonstrated above), Feynstein is topic-banned from COVID-19 articles, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: As per WP:FRINGE/PS: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream.". This is not fringe, I'm not pushing the bioweapon theory, your accusation is bogus unless there's a distinction between RS and MEDRS "fringes". Also, if there's a concensus from editors who aren't involved on the fringe noticeboard I'll remove myself from editing anything covid-related. And probably from WP. Don't worry. I don't have time for this kind of garbage anymore. Feynstein (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Fringe and pseudoscience are different claims. Pseudoscience is the stronger claim. You cannot argue that something is not fringe because it is not pseudoscience. There are plenty of fringe claims that are pursued with scientific rigor by their proponents, but are still fringe because they are not considered plausible by mainstream researchers. ApLundell (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's literally the distinction WP:FRINGE/PS makes with "alternative theoretical formulations", and the one there's evidence of a concerted effort at stonewalling. "They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective". Feynstein (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Support — the discussion above about sources, including the statement, That's precisely the kind of stuff we need to put in WP. Those are very serious RS, we're talking about the BBC and the Telegraph!, demonstrates Feynstein doesn't understand best sourcing practices, especially for COVID-19, especially for lab leak theory. With less than 1,000 edits, Feynstein has already been blocked twice (I see in the block log, the first unblock was "per agreement to avoid Covid subjects" so I'm not sure what happened to that agreement), and their editing has already led to multiple noticeboard threads. They have become a timesink and should to learn to edit in other topic areas first, preferably topic areas that are non-medical and non-controversial. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominems are easier eh? Feynstein (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: because the hominem is what's under discussion here, you will find editors engaging in argumentum ad hominem. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not self evident that it is the case though, looks to me like the inclusion of the theory in WP:FRINGE is at the root of the problem. And in this proposition, it is assumed that what I was doing was pushing a fringe. Due process would require at least concensus on what constitutes the fringe I was pushing. But I'm not kidding myself about due process right now so yeah, cool. Feynstein (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose -- tired of seeing this group of editors misrepresenting MEDRS by trying to apply it to the historical origin of the virus, which is actually general (not biomedical) information per WP:MEDDEF. Geogene (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not about applying WP:MEDRS to historical origin of the virus, it's just applying regular old WP:RS, particularly WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG, plus regular old WP:NPOV. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Support The patience I've seen of other editors and the upholding of WP:AGF towards Feynstein is to be applauded. Enough is enough. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note If I'm going to be banned over this and since the question is about me pushing a purportedly WP:FRINGE theory. The minimum due process would be that there's a concensus over the classification of this theory (the simple, non bioweapon, accidental release of an unpublished virus) inside of WP:FRINGE. For which there is none. At least on the covid misinformation page. If a consensus is made over there that this is in fact a political conspiracy theory I'll also remove myself from the subject. I don't think me being passionate about something for which there's still no concensus would warrant a ban. In particular over a controversial issue. And, to be clear, if this is the case and I get to be banned over this, my faith of wikipedia will be lost. I already had to take a break from this issue last year because of how useless the process was. If this year, with all of the new legit sources, editors still consider it a conspiracy theory, I'm done. I mean, are people really dismissing the peer reviewed papers I presented? Do people really think the BBC, the Telegraph, the bulletin of atomic scientists and all the other mainstream RS are pushing a conspiracy theory? If so, you guys better do a very good cleanup of your perennial reliable sources, because it means that those sources can't be trusted for covid. Feynstein (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support For repeat engagement in personal attacks towards other editors, uncivil conduct, failure to understand why high quality sourcing in the topic area is required and not editing with the neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk)
• Oppose might as well get into it if the other involved editor is doing it. Let's go full Kangaroo court. There's no concensus around the inclusion of the simple lab leak theory in fringe. I presented multiple peer reviewed studies for inclusion and presented arguments for the inclusion of sentences from MEDRS research that were met with the very same kind of opposition I'm dealing with right now. I also don't accept the legitimacy of this particular survey and find it very insulting, akin to bullying. People are basically piling on me with fallacious arguments. This is perfect. And a perfect example of why Wikipedia is broken. Feynstein (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Let's see: "kangaroo court", denial of FRINGE, "illegitimate", "insulting", "bullying", "piling on", "Wikipedia is broken". Yep, support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah of course you do. Read the section below. Feynstein (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course I do. Read the sections above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) Support. For the reasons stated above, especially TIMESINK and IDHT, and also for his constant BATTLEGROUND approach (like repeatedly gloating "#toldyouso") and ABF behavior. As Levivich pointed out (see also the first diff), an "agreement" about avoiding COVID-19 topics was made last year, but this user has again found himself on ANI for exactly the same things, so I am doubtful a self-imposed "ban" would really last. I also think his general approach to disagreement is problematic, like taking criticism of an idea personally and in particular when he feels other users just don't understand his argument and if only they got it he'd be vindicated. I know many of us have a compulsion to over-explain when we feel we're misunderstood, but being able to rein in those emotions is a crucial part of editing collegially and unfortunately I don't think Feynstein has demonstrated he can do this, at least not until after significant time has been wasted responding to him. JoelleJay (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unsure*Support, the little spat below makes we want to say yes, the bad faith Covid 19 editing leaves a nasty taste in my mouth and smacks of wikilawering. But he did not (as it says) breach any sanctions. At the very minimum, they now do need to have it made clear that if they continue to try and push fringe theories over Covid 19 they will get a topic ban. Also their general tone here is hardly a good sign they will in fact not just start up again.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Ginve the fact they have (in effect) said they are getting into a battleground mentality and that they want to stop being able to edit in this topic area I now think a TBAN is in order. It's clear they are far too involved in this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, very reluctantly. The IDHT is just too strong. Per the comment quoted below, the need to not rely on primary sources was explained last June, and it apparently hasn't sunken in yet. In this very thread, they've made repeated claims about peer reviewed papers and multiple peer reviewed studies, completely failing to engage with the explanations that had already been made about why those papers were unsuitable. A scientist, even one from a different field, should be able to understand the existence of mediocre journals, the primary/secondary source distinction, how opinion columns in general-interest media aren't always the best at reflecting the scientific consensus, etc. The statements below make it pretty clear that they want to use Wikipedia as a platform for synthesis to advocate a non-mainstream view, and any attempt to uphold policy will be met with politicized hostility. I am normally inclined to take someone at their word when they say they are leaving a subject behind, but per JoelleJay's comment above, we have reason to doubt that will be the case here. (I know that I myself have the compulsion to over-explain problem, and it's definitely possible that I could go down this path myself; if that ever happens, I hope somebody will trout me upside the head before it gets too bad.) (Non-admin comment.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Your comment is the most empathetic here. You're probably right. Getting emotionally involved makes you lose sight of your confirmation bias. I guess my problem is that I read the papers from both sides and couldn't see how people came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy theory. I think the word itself and it's usage by editors is what got me involved like that. I take it very personally. I get into arguments with them on twitter all the time. And our curfew is really not helping. I really have to much time on my hands and I'm really sick of all this. Also I know about mediocre journals, but I did my due diligence and BioEssays has an impact factor higher than Virology. But they're primary sources. There's another thing though it's not clear that it is really a conspiracy theory, no one can really say, even those on the other side of my point. Dr. Rasmussen here: This is a wonderful thread about why we should reject conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. No, we can’t rule out laboratory origin. Yes, we need an unbiased investigation into origins. Just because lab origin is plausible doesn’t mean it’s probable.[237]. I hope we could include this quote on Wikipedia because it really looks like my position. But it's not what is reflected on WP. And probably because of the pushback and my "obv. stronger than yours" tendency to overexplain stuff. I looked like those SPAs who were pushing it. The problem I have right now is that I don't know where to start editing anything else. I lack inspiration. If you have any ideas where someone like me could be helpful I'll take it. Anyway thanks for trying to understand. Feynstein (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per XOR and Levivich. I’d add my own words in length, but I’ll save the closer the repetition as my thoughts have already been expressed. TIMESINK and IDHT have been met by persistent bludgeoning and failure to understand content policies. Such conduct is corrosive to a collaborative atmosphere (as I expand upon more generally in the AN thread I started about this issue). I believe learning to edit in less controversial, non-medical/COVID topic areas will be helpful for both Feynstein and the encyclopaedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for immediate closure

I retract everything I said in this post. I will be self excluding from talking about the lab leak only (in case there's something I can write about covid radiography that I know about). I just found out editors think the lab leak theory is a Trump talking point. I didn't know it was seen as a talking point to hide his covid response and really didn't care because I don't watch US News. But I get it now. I won't be able to change anything. I want an administrator to hold me accountable to my word. I don't care anymore. I genuinely don't. Feynstein (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

After reading UTP threads from May, June, June again, two weeks ago, two weeks ago again, and this thread, I don't think anything short of closing with a TBAN is a good idea. An earlier promise to refrain in May was followed by a change of heart by June (Boing! wrote in the "June again" thread: When I unblocked you on 21 May, it was after your agreement to avoid Covid-19 subjects. Now, the unblock was not actually conditional on that, so I'm not going to issue any sanctions based on the fact that you changed your mind and have been active in that area. However, I am disappinted to see that you have been very actively pursuing a fringe subject (the allegations of a lab origin for the virus), against the balance of reliable sources. You have been doing this using primary sources, and even preprints which are expressly forbidden for use in Covid-19 articles.). I'm counting three different admin issuing advice/warning/blocks, plus who knows how many editors on the content side. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this should proceed on its course. Feynstein's turn-around above seems disingenuous at best, and similar to assurances already given (and broken) in the past. The question isn't about whether the lab-leak theory is a "Trump talking point" or not (I certainly wouldn't characterize it as primarily that - it's primarily Yet Another Unfounded Conspiracy Theory), but about Feynstein's behavior. We can't do anything about the existence or promulgation of the Lab Leak Theory in the wider world, but we can keep it under control here, and restricting Feynstein's access to editing about it is part of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I edited any article on this recently tbh. "Restrict my behavior" all you want, I told you I don't care. And I probably won't write anything about it on radiography. I had a paper in my head from medical physicists I know but I won't be doing it. This pilup is making me sick and acting out. And the more you do it, the more I act out. I can't help it. It's who I am. Just end it. Feynstein (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you "just can't help" acting this way, perhaps we should be talking about a site ban. An editor who lashes out whenever they encounter opposition to their views is not one who will thrive on Wikipedia. The statement above should be remembered the next time Feynstein is brought up at AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You're being ridiculous. I was talking about this thread. Why are you exagerating? Plus lashing out would involve a personal attack don't you think? I fail to see how your statement can be perceived in good faith. Feynstein (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Denial of fringe? So there's a distinction now between RS and MEDRS fringes is that it? Or is it the same fringe all of a sudden. Because there's at least a few RS sources about it. Would the BBC talk about a conspiracy theory? Would the telegraph, the bulletin of atomic scientists? It's like words don't mean anything anymore. I explained multiple and multiple times and I detailed the peer reviewed papers about what would precisely be possible. How can you come to this conclusion and accuse me of being some sort of conspiracy theorist? Just explain exactly how this is not baiting me. Feynstein (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Would the BBC talk about a conspiracy theory? ← yes. In fact this situation is parallel to somebody using such a BBC source to argue that the "second shooter" idea is plausible, and creating a fuss at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories saying it's "not fringe" and should not be referred to as "discredited". Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Except the public record files released by the FBI pretty much closed the case on this. It is demonstrably discredited. While there's still some room for a lab leak. And the WHO saying: "Yeah we talked to them, it's fine! No leak here! It could really come from imported frozen food though" really isn't convincing. Big wig scientists have a ton to lose if this is true. Funding will basically come to a halt. That's why when I read papers that virologists publish and they're saying stuff like "The virus has a natural origin it's impossible it escaped from a lab" while their data actually can't tell where this virus lived before starting the pandemic I also get very suspicious. The language used in those papers is very weird. Their data can tell it has a natural origin, that's it. It tells them nothing on where this lived before or how it evolved to be human transmissible. But yet their language is so unusual. My bs-o-meter is saturated. I read science papers daily. Anyway, I don't want to care anymore. You guys are clearly exporting your Trump grievances in here. It's always about US politics isn't it? Feynstein (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

My point is to refute your suggestion that if the BBC airs a view, it is not a conspiracy theory. I think the problem here is that you (in common with much of the recent influx of lab leak proponents) fundamentally mistake Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia is not part of some front-line in a war of ideas, but plods carefully behind those lines, conservatively relaying solid mainstream views as relayed by the most reputable sources. The fact that you're suspicious of the WHO, detect "strangeness" in the writing of reliable sources, or think you know better than a journal how to categorize its articles, is all part of the problem of you trying to be a participant in the debate rather than cautious, disinterested observer. I think a TBAN would probably be good for everyone concerned. (And incidentally, I really don't care what happens over the water in American politics, though I am aware this stuff is somehow mixed up with that.) Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that it's not some front line of a debate. Except when it is. Especially if there's peer reviewed papers. I don't think I know better than a journal how to categorize a paper, in French it says "synthèse". Tell me with a straight face this is not "review" in English. And do you really think scientists believe the WHO in private? Yeah they don't. But please can we just stop now, at this point I'm in reactionary mode and I don't like it. I already said up there that I will stop. Just ban me I don't care anymore. This is stupid and really against common sense. Feynstein (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

And do you really think scientists believe the WHO in private? Yeah they don't.

And there we have it. You have substituted your own assumptions of what's going on inside the heads of scientists all over the world, rather than what's actually been published in reliable sources. This is why things have come to this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I wasn't intending on substituting all opinions of scientists. When I wrote this I was thinking about biologists I know from college who told me they're really unconvinced by the WHO's investigation, but would not comment publicly on the issue. By extension I think it's reasonable to believe at least a significant amount think like that. But can we just stop all of this now? This is getting ridiculous. And it feels like editors are a bit sadistic about it. I said go ahead and ban me, I don't want to care anymore. Feynstein (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for admin to impose TB agreed to by Feynstein

• Note - Feynstein has agreed to the topic ban. Can we get an admin to finalize this? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: I'm wondering though. And I want your input on this. (1) You guys are using points on this thread to incriminate me (self incrimination). If there was baiting at play here I don't think it would be reasonable to ban me, since I mainly responded emotionally to the pileup. Tbh I had a breakdown yesterday. (2) The proposal relies on the assumption that there is a concensus about considering the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory instead of a minority scientific view. (3) I did not really modify any article on covid since last year, all I did was argue in talk pages. If editors consider this a waste of time, why did they answer consistently to my arguments. I did not show any willingness to partake in edit warring. Feynstein (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

And I want your input on this.

I will not be giving you any. Please allow the admins to impose the topic ban, as you requested. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be a minimum for me to consider this whole endeavor a good faith attempt at protecting the encyclopedia. Feynstein (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2021 (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.

Heavy non neutral propaganda in Pablo Hasél

In the article of Pablo Hasél, there's an user who is constantly removing Spanish in the nationality infobox to put Catalan (Catalan Nationality) like if that exists, as his nationality is Spanish because he is a Spaniard born in Spain from Spanish parents.

His arguments are a "consesus" made by himself and another user trying to make his point why the Catalan Nationality exists, which is nothing more than propaganda of the pro-independence Catalan movement who claim that Catalans are not ethnic Spaniards. This is affecting wikipedia and WP:NPOV as there is nothing such as "Catalan Nationality" except in the agenda of the independence supporters. Can an administrator do something? This is ridiculous. --154.28.188.241 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You must notify users you are discussing here of the existence of this discussion. That said, administrators do not settle content disputes, you need to discuss this on the article talk page, and failing that, move to dispute resolution. What matters is what independent reliable sources say, not what you or the other user or I say, as we will not settle this sort of dispute here. 331dot (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious user

So I've come across a user User:MasterD.D. Patel that I'm finding troublesome. Almost every single one of their edits has been reverted by one user or another, they don't communicate and they're very ensconced in Star Wars lore. They were created on the 21st Feb and I find this edit in particular very suspicious. I'm thinking there's some quacking here, other than the general disruptive lack of competence, but I don't know who of. I know User:CensoredScribe's latest socks were blocked on the 19th Feb (2 days earlier) but I'm unsure if there's a connection. It could be coincidence, and their current editing pattern is likely to lead to a block before too long anyway, but I can't shake the feeling there's something else here. So I put it out to the hivemind, anything going on here? Canterbury Tail talk 14:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Attention-seeking block imposed for a few hours. Otherwise, SPI-it at your own discretion. BTW, to the philistines: there's only one truly great Star Wars movie (and, no, it isn't The Empire Strikes Back), which is, of course, the Star Wars Holiday Special (praise be). El_C 15:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes sir, Captain Tightpants. Jack Frost (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's a blockable statement right there, we should have zero tolerance for that kind of vulgar content. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Philistines! Oh, what do you know? I used to be the Calypso king of Kashyyyk. El_C 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User Islam16121997

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.

---

Islam16121997 (talk · contribs)

Blatant WP:NOTHERE. While all the edits from this editor are poor, see especially [238][239], and the response to a final warning [240]. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable behaviour from this editor. I would call them 'BLP violations' but that's probably being too kind. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by El C. Pahunkat (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked indefinitely plus revdeletions. Also, there seems to be a pattern lately whereupon I get edit conflicted before I get to post a summary of my action — note that I will always follow up here, so there's no need to preempt me. El_C 17:44, 28 February 2021 (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.

A trolling-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.

---

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

This user is very clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Their contributions consist solely of gibberish, nonsense, vandalism, trolling and personal attacks. Nothing constructive at all. An obvious candidate for an indefinite block.—J. M. (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

the dued's rebuttal

So I added the Etymology of the Word "Video" to Video! Now you J.M Think I'm trolling! Over the years I've really not paid any attention to the finer details of which articles receive Etomolgy sections! So I'm Overly Curious as to why Video may not receive an etymology section! as an A/v nerd myself, it seems Logical! However, Since it has become a sustained issue with J.M I will leave well enough alone!

As For Trolling, The answer is No I am not!

Raising issues for Simple submissions is unwarranted! Sorry if my text is not always clear!

I just have no idea when we Limited Etymology!

Thedued (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Thedued (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User contributions speak for themselves. A very obvious trolling-only account with no constructive contributions, just nonsense, vandalism and personal attacks. Their interpretation of their edits in Video are of course completely wrong, too (this was not about an Etymology section at all), and Thedued knows it very well, as this has been repeatedly explained to them. For anyone wanting to know how serious Thedued is about the Etymology section, see their message on my talk page. This is just clear, unambiguous trolling.—J. M. (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, My bad I will never add etymology again!Thedued (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't know where Etymology can be added. So again Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedued (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, this is not about adding Etymology at all. This report is about persistent trolling and disruptive edits. This account is used exclusively for disruptive editing, adding nonsense, trolling on user talk pages and elsewhere, personal attacks and vandalism, and the user is either not getting it, or (much more likely) trying to weasel out of it. Nothing to do with etymology at all.—J. M. (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

[[User:J._M.|J.M] Clearly has yet to answer my hypothetical question and has yet proceeded with bothering the trolling board! An attack no! I clearly was asking why! a statement of Emotion clearly seems to have upset [[User:J._M.|J.M]! so I'll just leave all alone!Thedued (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, what Thedued says is not true at all. Thedued has never asked any (meaningful) question. In fact, Thedued even repeatedly acknowledged my explanations (for example here and also on this page), only to start trolling (and pretending that they never acknowledged anything) again and again and again. The user is clearly gaming the system (this alone is a reason for an indefinite block) by lying and trying to fool people who are not familiar with their edit history.—J. M. (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

According to this thread here on this board and according to J.M I'M NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT MY OWN PAGE! and anything I say on my page is trolling!?! I'm confused! \ Look at the edits on the Articles User contributions clearly not trolling!16:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Thedued (talk)

No idea whether it's a WP:CIR, language barrier or trolling but either way, their edits do NOT appear to improve the encyclopedia. For bonus points, their user page appears to misrepresent their contributions to wikipedia (unless they have amassed a vast record of equally troubling edits as an IP) Slywriter (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Enough's enough on this. blocked for NOTHERE, trolling etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2021 (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.

Persistent promotional intent at Michael Harris (producer) and related topics

My second trip here to report this account in the last week. KillerWhaleGuy (talk · contribs) is the most recent WP:COI account at Michael Harris (producer), with the attendant killer whale articles, as at Luna (killer whale). Now restoring promotional and unsourced content, so I'm requesting an indefinite block, and article protection as needed. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This again? I guess nobody really followed up on this except for you, IP. Anyway, I've started the WP:COI ball rolling. Several partial blocks imposed, for now. El_C 05:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I know, El_C. I'd imagined that the issue was done, but that was a dim hope. When I look at the history going back a decade, it's evident that this is a very long term campaign. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

IP, can you link to those older contributions, because that account's first edit was less than 10 days ago... El_C 06:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, this seems interesting. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 11:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, here are some WP:SPAs, all of which are now dormant. I doubt they're all the same person, but they share a common purpose. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• NewEverettRobotMan (talk · contribs)
• Pansyboy (talk · contribs)
• Tommy2bucu (talk · contribs)
• Mrjoshuawells (talk · contribs)

Similar interests. Babywildfilms also worked on this [241]. 'This is Indian Country' was the title of a program produced by Mr. Harris.

• OrcaFan2000 (talk · contribs)
• WildScience1976 (talk · contribs)
• Babywildfilms (talk · contribs)
• 67.170.86.252 (talk · contribs)
• THISISINDIANCOUNTRY (talk · contribs)

Hmm. Per the above, there does seem to be some kind of a long-term advocacy effort, possibly even a campaign of sorts (coordinated or otherwise) when it comes to several pages relating to this topic area. So, perhaps, it would be best if we were to forgo a more relaxed approach in favour of some sort of an escalation... El_C 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sunni zealot

Can you take a look at Talk:Destruction_of_Kashmiri_Shias#Missionary_WikiWarrior_Alert where an editor claims me and another editor to be Sunni zealots (indirectly). Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Some guidance offered, so hopefully, that will do it. El_C 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, he is misrepresenting sources claiming that since a newsreport claims it is not yet certain whether an incident was motivated for personal or sectarian reasons, we can anyways take the latter. And, he is reverting me as a vandal (check edit history). His talk-page is also full of warnings by Kautilya3. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I see Kautilya3 warned him months back for similar personal attacks. He thinks anybody who oppose him is religiously motivated. This is a pattern. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not mobile diffs! (The bane of my existence.) Anyway: //Investigating. El_C 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, El_C. I do not know how but he has also created a blank userpage for me. The history only shows him but no content. This is creepy stuff. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: - would you like that blank user page deleted? Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If that can be done, I wish for it. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: - I've warned Dr. Hamza Ebrahim not to recreate your user page on pain of being indeffed. Suggest you let El C investigate the complaint for now. No need for futher engagement with Dr. Hamza Ebrahim. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• What is important about creating a user page for TrangaBellam is to notice his vandalism and wikilawyering on other pages. He is doing a similar job at Hindu related pages as he did at the page about persecution of Kashmiri Shias. He also seems to have friends who tag each other and vote. This is what they did before when I provided a scholarly source about a fact they didn't like to appear in an article. Same people were called on again and I recognized them. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• I meeting you for the FIRST time on the article of Kashmiri Shias. Have never come across you. Please provide links that we had interacted earlier. Also, who are "them"? More attacks. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Dr. Hamza Ebrahim, if you're trying to bring attention to TrangaBellam's alleged vandalism and wikilawyering, the correct thing to do would have been to file an ANI report here (in this case, a separate subsection somewhere in this discussion) with the appropriate diffs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

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.

---

Asa ca mars de gunoi imputit addressed to me at [242]. Mars is how Romanians cry at dogs to get away. gunoi imputit means filthy garbage. Please revoke WP:TPA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I removed the diatribe/personal attack directed at Tgeorgescu. Can't revoke TPA or revdel it since I'm not an admin. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

TPA revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2021 (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 by possibly hacked user

Tauntobr (talk · contribs), retired since 2008, is suddenly back, vandalising Milton, Ontario (here and here, for example; the recent vandalism by IPs and one new account seems directly related). This suggests to me that the account may have been hacked, but I'm not sure what to do with this, so I hope this is an appropriate venue to bring this up. Lennart97 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Judging by this edit by a brand new editor on their account. It's likely something is going on yes. And Ritchie333 just beat me to blocking Tauntobr's account. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Lennart97, Indeffed, obvious sock Circumventinator (talk · contribs) likewise. I await their unblock request with interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the swift action. Lennart97 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Though I understand the urge to vandalise Milton :) Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It does seem to be a generally popular target for vandalism. Not being familiar with the town myself, is it really that bad? Lennart97 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

They're back at it again with Circumventinated (talk · contribs). I do like the original socknames. Lennart97 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi for a bit? Canterbury Tail talk 14:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. New sock has already been blocked I see, but who knows what other clever usernames are still available. Lennart97 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've semi'd for 24 hours. I notice it's been protected recently for vandalism. Hmm, is it the start of the school day in Milton (sorry, can't remember if it's Eastern or Central). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Eastern, so it's past the start but close enough yeah. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a block for Circumnavigated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well? I hear quacking... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We can and we have. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore - thank ye kindly! ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and cooperation in learning how to circumvent your systems. I will be back later with more fun for you :). Enjoy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circumtranslated (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know to keep a lookout :-) Pahunkat (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How did they find their way to ANI? Pahunkat (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've emailed checkuser@en-wiki to get a range block. If you're on a system with multiple IPs, blocking with "account creation blocked" will only block that IP, which I can't identify, because I'm not a checkuser. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. If any more edits like this come back, please let me know so that I can take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the account would be hacked, the last two edits made by the user prior to 2021 in 2007 and 2008 are also vandalism, the latter literally being a total blanking of the article and being replaced with "YOU SUCK" and the former also relates to Ontario which reverts previous vandalism but also adds the line "It is considered to be the greatest high school in the world". It seems much more likely simply a reactivation of the account from the same person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)