Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Syrian Kurdistan, at war again

Initial discussion

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

---

Chronic problems on Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I appeal again for administrator intervention in these issues, which are both maddening and intractable. A previous post here was archived without administrator action or comment, but the concerted tendentiousness of multiple editors in favour of a virulently, nationalistic, and denialist fringe interpretation of the Syrian Civil War which wilfully ignores all evidence presented to it and is explicitly POV-pushing while unashamedly using the most contorted hostile sealioning strategy is too much to bear. Authoritative input is sorely needed, nearly all dissent has been banished from the talkpage by the interminable circularity of what passes for discussion, which has caused other to resign editing from exhaustion. Please help! GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I second this appeal. GPinkerton is refusing to discuss. He have a battleground mentality, and a very rude behavior, which dragged me into his level. Please convince everyone to be civil (and everyone was, tbh, before GPinkerton arrived). GPinkerton is also part of the content dispute, so we need a neutral arbitrator.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• I propose the following: topic bans for the all the relevant editors, including the one above, from the following areas: post-1292 history, politics, and geography of the near and middle east. Their relentless campaign of POV pushing has been called out numerous times, but nothing ever done. I haven't looked at their other contributions, but I have a strong feeling all these editors are heavily focused on Syria-related articles such as these that can be adapted as platform for soapboxing, which is getting very tiresome now and is a net negative to the project, not to mention intellectually abhorrent. GPinkerton (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Above is a clear example of what I mean. The style of this editor is: if you dont agree with me, you should be blocked or banned because Im the only one who have a sound argument and there is no other point of view. Thats why we need intervention.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Examination of the facts will prove the comment above at characteristic variance with the nature of reality. Alas, the talk page must be read from the top. GPinkerton (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for a month, which should at least stop the edit-warring until more lasting sanctions or similar can be imposed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued Discussion

• GPinkerton I'd advise you to reform your request for intervention. The article's recent history is very active, and its talk page has multiple lengthy combative threads going on. Please consider being specific about which editors you're talking about, and provide diffs that evidence the accusations you are making. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  ​re-ping, botched first attempt GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit All the discussion focuses on one issue, from beginning to end. It's been going on for many months with the same handful of editors. It's clear from reading the talk page who is pushing the peculiar fringe POV along the lines of "Syrian Kurdistan does not exist and Kurdistan has never existed, not ever, and is not used by a preponderance of RS". One only needs to read a bit, it repeats after a while and rapidly becomes clear how the page dynamics have evolved over the past half-year or so. GPinkerton (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton, what I see from a skim of some of the later sections is a rambling, uncivil discussion, all parties being exceedingly snarky, with some of them crossing the line into blatant personal attacks. There is a lot of heat, but very little light for someone like me who knows very little about the subject matter, and who is unfamiliar with any of the sources under discussion - if you are calling for editors to be topic banned, you are more likely to gain traction if you are specific about who, and why.

  I will say this though: Attar-Aram syria, your comments about using Arab nationalists if Mehrdad Izady is used aren't appropriate - that approach leads to false balance. It is important to use the best sources available, and to discuss competing viewpoints where they exist, but we don't attempt to 'balance' articles in the way that you suggest. Per WP:GEVAL, we should be aiming to identify and use the best mainstream sources that cover a topic, not seeking out sources because we know that they favour one position or another. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Girth Summit. That rhetoric of mine came as a result of knowing whom I am daeling with, after participating in that talk page for a while (note, I have not add a single word to the article itself). So it was just an empty threat, which I will retract. I would like you to note that I presented three academic sources questioning Izady, and the other user responded with the word: none-sense.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, thank you for withdrawing that suggestion - you might want to go and strike it on the article talk page as well to make that clear. Without wanting to get into the content dispute itself, I'd make the general observation that finding some academic sources that generally question or criticise a scholar's work is not sufficient to demonstrate that the scholar's work is unreliable for our purposes (it would be unusual for a scholar to have received no criticism in their lifetime). What you need are reviews or citations criticising the specific parts of the scholar's work that are being used to support assertions in our articles. Again, this is a general comment - I haven't reviewed that part of the discussion in depth, so I don't know whether or not that is what you have done. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ofcourse, and the sources I brought deals exactly with the book of Izady that is being cited. He is not a normal scholar, but a Kurdish nationalist, so it is inappropriate to use him for Kurdish topics without qualification.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, the main problem at the "Syrian Kurdistan" article are mainly two editors, Konli17 and GPinkerton, the first one is pov pushing a kurdish nationalistic agenda, falsifying history and adding fake maps he has made in MS paint:[1][2], he has edit warred to get these fake maps with unreliable sources into the article: [3], the other problematic editor is GPinkerton, shes strongly pushing a nationalistic kurdish agenda falsifying history and reality. GPinkerton claimed that Syrian "Kurdistan" existed during the French Mandate in Syria, she had added this into the article, I asked GPinkerton on the talkpage to please show me a historical source from the 1920s talking about a Syrian Kurdistan[4] and she dismissed my comment with: "What you imagine to be possible or otherwise is of decreasingly little interest to me and betrays an increasingly wide estrangement from reality on your part. It certainly has no bearing on the content of the article." she refuses to engage in a cooperative discussion, the truth doesn't matter to her. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  Supreme Deliciousness, as I said, I see snarky commentary from just about everyone on that thread. The part you have quoted is far from the worst of it, unfortunately. Why do you say that Konli17 created that map themselves? From what I can see, it was uploaded by a commons editor called Ferhates - are you saying that they are the same person? It would be really helpful if everyone would be willing to tone down the rhetoric about each other here - actual evidence of malfeasance will speaker much louder than assertions about each others motivations. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's difficult to tell whether this is a failure to understand the topic, a failure to control the scope of the article, or nationalist equivocation and sleight-of-hand. A "Climate and agriculture" section? Looks like the opposite of a POV fork, a POV amalgamation of Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, and Kurdish nationalism. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• GPinkerton jumped into this article out of nowhere, and came with a very specific, aggressive POV-pushing agenda. Nobody is saying "Kurdistan has never existed" as they claimed above, don't put words in others' mouths! You have been trying hard to show that Kurds did live in Syria. Well, no one is arguing about that, and Syria has known two Kurdish presidents. However, Kurds have lived in Syria either in big cities (such as in Aleppo, Hama and Damascus), or in small village clusters in three non-contiguous areas along the northern border as a result of intensive migrations from Turkey encouraged by French mandate authorities, as shown by this French comprehensive work (among many others) on Jazira Province (modern day al-Hasakah Governorate). This is another French report also talking about the history of that area and how towns and village were built for the new refugees. This is why serious accounts refer to those areas by the name "kurdish inhabited areas" (see this CIA map). The main kurdish presence is in northeastern Syria, and they have lived there entirely mixed with the population, and have been a minority since they first started to cross into Syria from Turkey. This report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province). Azmi Bishara and colleagues counted 17 such migrations and talk thoroughly about this issue and its origins (here is an English summary). I had inserted this cropped map from Mark Sykes in 1907, specific to the area Kurds call today Syrian Kurdistan", showing the distribution of Arab and Kurdish tribes in upper Mesopotamia with the train tracks separating Turkey (to the north) from Syria (to the south). Note that there were no Kurdish tribes south of the railway (i.e. in what later became Syria). GPinkerton decided to remove this map and inserted the full map (for an "unknown reason"). GPinkerton removed reference to one of the sources talking about invention of "Syrian kurdistan" while inserting documents talking about a "Syrian kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of incompetent comment that this editor has already repeatedly made. Note that the railway shown in the map is entirely conjectural and never existed and moreover note that this editor used a cropped version of the map because the uncropped version shows the words "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria. Make if that what you will. The perverse insistence that everyone pick up the fringe attitude of Damascus and Ankara towards (perhaps also Saddam?) against the continued existence of Kurdish people on the grounds that (like both Syria and Turkey) they did not have a state in the 1920s. This denialism flies in the face of what reliable sources have called the region for a half century or more. Indeed the source quoted above details in depth the long history of the term "Syrian Kurdistan", in stark contradiction of the shrill and either disingenuous or ignorant claims by this editor that it had never been used before 2011, and was cooked up by the west to embarrass the Dear Leader. GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In particular, the claim above that the Syrian part of Kurdistan was Kurdish-minority is a telling admission of yet another refusal to accept reality; all reliable sources attest that the three areas referred to as comprising Syrian Kurdistan were majority Kurdish at the time. The claim that they were all imported there by the French is just a silly lie and not borne out by even the most cursory look at the sources advanced in favour of this POV. Especially cute is the claim were should put "Syrian Kurdistan" in scare quotes, based on that one quote Amr like to strip of context and use as though it supports his position; there has to be some great irony in arguing an encyclopaedia should not be using the English language's 21st century common name and quoting in support of this argument an academic work in which the term appears innumerable times throughout. GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr's opposition to WP:COMMONNAME is relentless. Konli17 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Our problem in this article is that we have people with no prior knowledge or competence but certainly with a strong POV-pushing agenda editing here (see comment on Saddam, etc.). GPinkerton is claiming the Istanbul-Baghdad railway "is entirely conjectural and never existed". Well, this shows the amount of knowledge this user has/does not have. Here is an excerpt from the Franco-Turkish Treaty of Ankara (1921) describing the new border between Turkey and Syria The frontier line shall start at a point to be selected on the Gulf of Alexandretta immediately to the south of the locality of Payas and will proceed generally towards Meidan-Ekbes (leaving the railway station and the locality to Syria); thence it will join the railway at the station of Choban-bey. Then it will follow the Baghdad Railway, of which the track as far as Nisibin will remain on Turkish territory; thence it will follow the old road between Nisibin and Jeziret-ibn-Omar where it... Again nobody is denying the existence of Kurds in Syria (or elsewhere), as Pinkerton falsefully claims above. Moreover, Pinkerton is falsifying facts (or has a serious map-reading problem) claiming the uncropped Sykes map described above shows "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria". I am not sure which tribes they are referring to, probably DINAR KURDS and BARAZIEH KURDS, which are the only Kurdish tribes close to the border! Both tribes are in the Seruj (now Suruc) and Birecik area, which are now just north of the border (i.e. in Turkey). I just uploaded [Sykes demographic map of middle section of Syria-Turkey border. The town of Ras al-Ain is in Syria.jpg this section of the Sykes map] for better focus. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Amr's comments are implausible and betray POV pushing. In the real world, the border between Syria and Turkey actually runs through the words themselves approximating the position of "KIKIEH KURDS". In any case, the map has no relevance to the subject at hand, and was laughably mislabelled as having something to do with showing distribution of Kurdish tribes and as showing a railway line one the border's present location, a proposition false on both counts: the railway line existed only on this map, and it does not follow the border decided more than a decade after the map was drawn. In effect, Amr has produced a map showing a proposal to alter the route of an as yet unbuilt railway which was never built in the location the map describes becuase the propsoal was never enacted. It cannot be used to claim Kurds did not inhabit Syrian Kurdistan, and has no relevance to the article in question except to refute the claims Amr has made about it. GPinkerton (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Supreme Deliciousness and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on Syrian Kurdistan

• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having been sanctioned by ArbCom for infractions relating to nationality and ethnicity a decade ago, arrived at Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as soon as it appeared in 2015, adding an OR tag to the article [5]. But this (northern hemisphere) summer, the saga appears to begin for Supreme Deliciousness with removing [6] as "unreliable" the source of the entirely incontrovertible statement in the lead that Syrian Kurdistan consists of three non-contiguous areas of Kurdish inhabited territory on the Syria–Turkey border, presumably on the grounds that it was The Kurdish Project, a Kurdish-interest NGO of some kind.
• Next, they remove [7] a source to an academic publication by the London School of Economics' Middle East Centre with the misleading edit summary "unreliable source".
• Next they remove [8] a citation to Reuters on the grounds that "Reuters sources does not confirm that part of Syria is Kurdistan" even though the Reuters article states plainly: "Locals no longer call this region northeastern Syria, but “Rojava” - Western Kurdistan." They also add [9] a {POV} tag to the article. Not content, they then add [10] an Ottoman era map of the notional boundaries of late 18th century top-level administrative districts in the empire with the oh-so-decisive caption "1803 Cedid Atlas showing "Kurdistan" in blue on parts of modern day Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The atlas shows no part of Syria being part of a "Kurdistan"" and adds [11] an {according to whom} tag to the lead sentence. After this, they later remove this very Reuters [12] statement from the article on the clearly POV grounds that "This quote deserves no inclusion in an encyclopedia". Still unsatisfied, they added [13] {who} and {according to whom} on some weasel wording established by another to distance Wikivoice from the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" and added [14] scare quotes to all instances of the term in the article with a "so-called" prefix to make the POV extra clear, even more explicit in the succeeding edit, [15], which without explantaion or edit summary replaced the words "While many of the Kurds in Syria have been there for centuries, waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian Al-Jazira Province, where they were granted citizenship by the French Mandate authorities" with the rather more partisan "Waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian [[Al-Jazira Province]] ..." and thereby removing any reference to the centuries of pre-WWI habitation of Kurds in the areas subsequently known as the Syrian Kurdistan. They also removed [16] the remnants of the Reuters source, which they had mutilated in haste, showing the removal of the whole quote and its source were repeated and deliberate attempts to exclude the information.
• They then added the first expansion of their own [17], a history section which acknowledges despite later claims to contrary, Kurds did indeed live in what is now Syrian Kurdistan before the partition of the Ottoman Empire, but which rather emphasizes the post-WWI ethnic changes, all the while referring to entire modern Syrian Al-Jazira province to stress that Kurds were a minority there, nicely leaving out the smaller administrative subdivisions where Kurds were in the majority (i.e. the three districts directly bordering the Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistans). There are good reasons to doubt that the all sources cited fully back the picture presented here, and the potential for deliberate omission seems high. They summarize these changes with the heartfelt "It is extremely important for the reader to see where the people that are advocating for so called "Syrian Kurdistan" to see where they come from, so please do not remove this very important information" and added [18] some further scare quotes and "so-called" prefixing, declaring "you can not present as a fact that an entity called "kurdistan" exists in Syria, you have to put in in quotes because it is imaginary and not real or factual. Please stop your pov pushing." This last was swiftly reverted [19] by Applodion who identified the POV pushing of Supreme Deliciousness in the edit summary.
• Nevertheless, more POV editing [20] ensued, again minimizing the validity of the term, and next a whole sourced statement to a well-recognized academic expert was removed [21] as "POV statement, can not be presented as fact".
• Later, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [22] some most irrelevant stuff apparently motivated to suggest 1.) Kurdish responsibility for the Turks' Armenian Genocide, and 2.) Kurdish non-nativeness in Syria. This was explained as "Very disrespectful of you to remove this important information about the history of northeastern Syria. This is important information directly related to the history of the region." They re-remove the phrasing [23] "Kurdish-inhabited areas were usually only regarded as "Kurdish regions of Syria" before the 1980s", with the rebuke that "I asked you on the talkpage to show me what states and international organizations recognize this pov and you failed to do so." They also added [24] scare quotes to "unification" and "Kurdistan", claiming that "quotes are needed to not present the claims as facts".
• After an edit war, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [25] remotely related information about the Assyrian Genocide with the policy-free edit summary that there was "No consensus to remove" it. A bit more editorializing followed, changing the wording of sourced information [26]to remove mention of the Ba'ath Party, its policy of Arabization and of the Kurdish inhabitants the autocratic Party's forced migrations displaced.
• Supreme Deliciousness re-added [27] their editorializing caption on the irrelevant map, despite it having been removed by Escape Orbit on the very reasonable grounds that it "What a map *doesn't* show, is original research and the opinion of the contributing editor. Therefore relevance it has to this article is equally POV". Supreme Deliciousness retorts that "Its not original research because it is an accurate description of the map."

  

  Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western KurdistanSubject of an edit war

  

  Kurdistan as suggested by the Treaty of Sèvres was located north of the Syrian border

  — captioned by Supreme Deliciousness

  The borders on this map are being given undue weight. The Kurdish areas shown are only the areas of cultural Kurdistan that Britain and France didn't themselves want and didn't think should be Armenian or wasn't already Iranian. The Treaty of Sèvres was never enacted in reality, and was motivated by imperial interests and considerations nothing to do with where Kurds might be located or entitled to inhabit. The map has place in the article but it appears to be being used as a sacred text to deny that there could ever be such a thing a Syrian Kurdistan (not shown but scattered immediately south of the anachronistic modern border of Syria and Turkey)

• The next edit is a minor one, months later, when they add [28] {Request quotation} to a sourced statement stating Kurds have lived in the area since the Middle Ages. After that, Supreme Deliciousness removed [29] the words "Around 80% of Syrian Kurds live in Kurdish-majority regions along the Syria-Turkey border." on the grounds that this source was "unreliable". They then remove what they describe as a "fake map" [30] used on French Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia and uploaded in 2013, followed by some POV changes [31] to the lead. They also restore the erstwhile removed map of the partition of the empire by the Treaty of Sèvres, along with its anachronistic caption, on the grounds that the map itself was "important historical map". Separately and in another context these actions might be commended, but together they evidence a cherry-picking of information and the desire to present one very particular side of this story to the exclusion of al others. With this edit [32], Supreme Deliciousness seeks to give greater prominence to the antique Cedid Atlas map, together with its misrepresentational caption of "Kurdistan in blue" (in fact neither blue area on the map is labelled as such, and for good reason; the 1803 Turkish copy of an earlier British atlas naturally does not show the short-lived Kurdistan Eyalet set up later that century and swiftly reabsorbed into the parent Diyarbakır Eyalet, and the blue is in fact the Mosul Eyalet and is marked as such.
• The next edit was to restore the weasel wording [33] after it was again rightly removed, changing for example "Various areas have been claimed to be part of the Syrian part of Kurdistan" to "Various areas have been claimed to be part of an alleged "Syrian Kurdistan" entity" together with more scare quotes added [34], [35].
• Next came a big reversion [36] of changes wholesale following others' edits with the confusing and ill-grounded summary "Restore version before disruptive forced edit warring without consensus". Supreme Deliciousness again removed [37] the source ''The Kurdish Project'', and though objections were raised to the edit summary of "See talkpage, "The Kurdish Project" is not a reliable source and is non-notable", Supreme Deliciousness failed to establish any rationale beyond the fact the organization does not claim to be a news agency and the fact it did not and still does not have a Wikipedia page of its own. This looks like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of Supreme Deliciousness. They next removed [38] the same source they previously removed, again without explanation beyond the claim that "sahipkiran.org is not a reliable source". Again, this is nowhere explained or justified. The same story occurs next, with the removal [39] of attributed territorial claims. They then forced the lead back into their preferred version with the summary "restore lead changed without consensus". More deletions [40], this time without even a hint of exculpatory edit summary, followed.
• Next, Supreme Deliciousness [41] again removes well-sourced material and less POV text in favour of their own textus receptus. After this I find some sources and expand the article.
• Supreme Deliciousness, seeing this, decides to revert the entire thing, citing [42] "false terminology" in their edit summary: "See talkpage, this kind of false terminology can not be used in an encyclopedia," a really extraordinary response to sourced material to which I supplied citations and quotations, all of them, to a page, using the precise terminology "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Western Kurdistan". Still, Supreme Deliciousness appears to hold dear the unfounded belief that such terminology must not be used without scare quotes and without carefully minimizing the extent of usage (as if sources like the academia of the English-speaking world, the BBC, The Guardian, and Reuters didn't use it often and without qualification). Following the restoration of my material by others, Supreme Deliciousness [43] added an excessive number of labels to show their personal dissatisfaction that such terminology exists and is used in reliable sources, proclaiming that they were a "large amount of falsehoods and historical falsifications added into article".

Overall, I do not think this user's user's contributions to this article space have been an improvement, bar maybe one or two. Surely a net negative to the project? GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Complete ridiculous wall of text and misrepresentation of the diffs and my editing history. I'm not even gonna bother with a reply. If any admin is wondering about any specific edit I have made, then bring that diff forward and i will reply to that admin only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I can only support GPinkerton on this. They must have invested quite some time in this edit, and an admin should take a look. I have invested quite some time, too by only finding out Supreme Deliciousness sees the territories liberated from ISIL by the Kurds as occupied by the Kurds, and maintains this view from January 2015 until November 2020. GPinkerton here has invested way more time.

P.S:With ISIL I mean the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the by far best known terror organization in the world.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• If someone would like to look at this and take the appropriate action that'd be a great help. GPinkerton (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton

Vandalism: According to admin consensus here and relevant talk page discussion here, User:GPinkerton doesn't understand what vandalism means. An admin thought they should be indefinitely blocked from editing until they show understanding and retract their remarks.

Edit warring

1. In 6 March 2020, they edit warred on Bulgaria during World War II: [44], [45], [46].
   • They were warned by the other party here (among other warnings).
2. In 9 May 2020, they edit warred on Basilica: [47], [48], [49].
   • They were warned by the other party here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as no violation (of 3RR in particular). A warning was issued to respect BRD. See here.
3. In 15-16 May 2020, they edit warred on Catholicity: [50], [51], [52] (manually).
   • They were warned by the other party here.
4. In 28 June 2020, they were blocked for 48h for edit-warring on Vashti: [53], [54], [55] (manual), [56].
   • See the relevant report at WP:AN3 here.
   • They appealed the block twice, being declined once and accepted the other.
5. In 24 July 2020, they edit warred on Hagia Sophia: [57], [58].
   • They were warned by the other party here and later by an admin here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as content dispute. The closing admin thought it qualifies for a block, if not confounded by other parties involved.
6. In 28 July 2020, they edit warred on Mehmed the Conqueror: [59], [60].
   • They were informally warned by a third party here.
7. In 26 September 2020, they edit warred on Constantine the Great and Christianity over which English spelling variety should be used: [61], [62].
   • They were informally warned by an admin here.
8. In 19 November 2020, they were blocked again, this time for 24h, for edit warring on Murder of Samuel Paty: [63], [64], [65], [66].
   • The blocking admin sought consensus for the block in light of an appeal by GPinkerton. Consensus was granted unanimously.
9. In 21 November 2020, they edit warred again on Murder of Samuel Paty: [67] and [68] (manual).

Ad hominem and harassment

1. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, they said: Can you read?
2. At 17:40, 12 May 2020, they were warned of harassment and WP:OUTING for disclosing another user's real name.
3. In Talk:Hagia Sophia, they said: a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
4. During a discussion with me in Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty, they said: Is English your first language?
   • See my reply.
5. In their own talk page, they addressed me and other editors who disagreed with them as a lobby and then as vandals who are involved in groupthink and me in particular as an anti-blasphemy ringleader who is weaseling [scattered, among other insults, throughout their prolonged comment] (just because I discussed on Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty that Charlie Hebdo Cartoons were [sic] controversial and that their publication can be attributed as a motive for the terrorist, for which I filed 2 RfC).
   • I tried to point out their uncivility here. They deleted my remarks, in opposition to WP:DELTALK.

Nonadherence to BRD: GPinkerton has a long-lasting habit of not stopping editing to start discussion, in opposition to WP:BRD. Here are some example disputes:

1. In Bulgaria during World War II, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
2. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, a voluminous dispute as shown here. The other party started discussion here.
3. In Basilica, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
4. In Catholicity, as shown above. A third party started discussion here.
5. In Vashti, which led to the block shown above. The other party started discussion here.
6. In Hagia Sophia, as shown above. The other party started discussion here and here and an external admin did here.
7. In Murder of Samuel Paty, which led to the block shown above. The other party first started discussion here and then yours truly did here.
   • Having been unblocked, despite the 2 RfC already ongoing, GPinkerton maintained editing, in some cases contestably (see these automatic and manual reverts). Only some strange-sounding OR was given in edit summaries (clarification is a type of amendment?). Discussions were never started on the page by GPinkerton.

Canvassing

1. At 19:02 12 May 2020, they were warned of canvassing.
   • While admitting the canvassing they did, it turned out they didn't know what that is: thought the policy of not rephrasing RfC content while notifying of them is a bizzare stricture.
2. At 09:32, 19 November 2020, they accused me of canvassing another editor for a discussion.
   • The discussion about which they expressed their concerns was started more than a day after the diff they used as evidence.
   • The diff used as evidence was an RfC template used as-is to notify a contributor previously involved in discussion of a whole other section different than what they expressed concerns about, which wasn't even an RfC.
   • The purportedly canvassed contributor first edited the article at 21:35, 19 October 2020, while my first edit was at 20:13, 23 October 2020.
   • all of which meaning that either GPinkerton probably still doesn't understand what canvassing is or is using such arbitrary charge disruptively.

Proposal and final comment: Although I admittedly lack the necessary experience to argue for what the most appropriate action is, it'd still be plausible for me to propose either a serious warning or a (topic) ban for GPinkerton. For the time being, I'd specifically stress on a one-page ban for Murder of Samuel Paty. They have been blocked for edit warring there two days ago, but still went back to disruptive editing today. As of now, GPinkerton has heavily engaged in 4 discussions on the page, yet zero of which was started by them. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, this editor is just cultivating an ideologically motivated battleground mentality in the hope of foisting their anti blasphemy campaign to censor Wikipedia in general and the Murder of Samuel Paty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular, where an ill-concieved RfC is not reinforcing Khidr's agenda of equivocation. This vendetta against me is just bad tempered sour grapes. GPinkerton (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is also telling to note that in all the misdemeanours alleged so vindictively the topics all involved editors who consider themselves Wikilawyers repressing the Almighty gratis (or on one instance the National Honour in the Second World War). So it's peculiar to affirm that because neutrality and historical reality often angers those with a crusading bent or a persecution complex, that the whole project should cave into the religious special interest group and proud Balkans republics who consider it a article of the national faith that their (Axis-allied) country never laid a finger on its Jewish people. This desire to express sympathy for the killer of Samuel Paty is and apportion blame to the victim is, I submit, yet another example of exactly this style of vindictive POV pushing which I have oftentimes resisted. GPinkerton (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that despite the claim above, I was blocked for little over 3 hours, not 48. The editor is clearly trying to intrude their self-declared belief into the article, and is upset that other editors do not agree, and is apparently also upset that opposition to his views was not removed permanently. This report consists of nothing but evidence of grievance on his part. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you just came off a block and have been blocked twice now in recent months for edit warring, and quite a few experienced editors at WP:AN (including me) have expressed concern about your misunderstanding of how vandalism is defined on Wikipedia. Can you please address these concerns and make a firm commitment to abandon edit warring and false accusations of vandalism? Opposing nationalist POV pushing is well and good, but you must use the proper tools when doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Gladly. Still, it should be fairly obvious that this report is motivated by the OP's desire to be rid of dissenting voices and his dissatisfaction with the progress of his RfC, and not by anything I have done that has not already been discussed aplenty long ago. I have also only taken up contributing much to editing this March or so. I've seen users that have been blocked annually or more for fifteen years running (or thereabouts) ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If you don't understand what was wrong with what you just said, I'm afraid you're too inexperienced to be editing here (WP:CIR). --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please expand on "gladly". I am very concerned that you chose to point out that other editors have been blocked more than you. If the implication is that it is acceptable for an editor to be blocked once a year, then let me disabuse you of that notion. It is unacceptable. Most productive editors have never been blocked, and I need you to explain your current understanding of edit warring and vandalism, in light of your recent blocks and the feedback on vandalism you received at AN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I only mention that particular editor because I thought he might turn up to add his uninvited remarks. Below, you can see he did. I was blocked for engaging in an edit war begun by Debresser, who was himself blocked (nth time). Ever since, he has stalked and harassed my every turn, dragging his contrived grievances like a ball and chain and rattling it whenever he thinks someone will be inclined to listen to his hypocrisy. I urge action. The OP here appears to be pursuing the same warpath, likewise driven on by the flame of pious wrath having been crossed in a content dispute. To answer your question, yes I do get it, and yes I recognize that that my edits before were not reverting vandalism, only ill-sourced NPOV violations to be deleted by someone else. And no, I was no suggesting I thought it was a acceptable, though I think the idea pursued below is a rich seam of hypocrisy whose merits and motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves 🤣. GPinkerton (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please be aware that any editor can comment on this noticeboard and nobody needs an invitation. Nobody can possibly force you to edit war. Comments like this do not help your cause, and neither do emojis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm only pointing out that these editors' attacks on me are all hypocritical and motivated by a desire to win their own battles (in every case they're complaining about, consensus has turned against the affronted editors) and not by concern for Wikipedia policy or for improving the encyclopaedia. I have never suggested that I was forced to edit war. This report is all a stale set of grievances being used as a tactic win a content dispute against consensus. There is nothing new here. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, the "attack and denounce the OP" tactic is not a good look for you. This discussion is about your behavior. Start a different thread with convincing diffs about the OP if you wish. Try self-reflection and a firm and explicit commit to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism instead. That is far more likely to lead to a good outcome for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 I am the OP really, this is just a pile on section (see above, and the most recent archive page). I have already explicitly committed to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism, and I do so again. GPinkerton (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Permanent block

Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month of the last year:

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#March_2020
2. User_talk:GPinkerton#April_2020
3. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020
4. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_2
5. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_3
6. User_talk:GPinkerton#June_2020
7. User_talk:GPinkerton#July_2020
8. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI-notice (August)
9. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI_2 (September)

He has been on WP:AN3 a lot too:

1. AN3 Archive 408
2. AN3 Archive 411
3. AN3 Archive 413

And another 4 reports he openend (1,2,3,4), which also clearly shows how bad he gets along with people.

He has been on WP:ANI too:

1. ANI Archive 1047
2. ANI Archive 1044

And another 3 reports he opened (1, 2, 3).

And now this report. And all of that for the last year of a little over 2 years of editing on Wikipedia. Please do the right thing and indefinitely block this user. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Speak of the devil and he shall appear, as they say. Funny, I just had you in mind when I was thinking of the longest block log from the most committed edit warrior I'd ever seen, and your previous relentless attempts to take vengeance against me for slandering you favourite biblical characters with neutral scholarship. Do you think this will be your lucky day? Your unwanted contributions has been noted as such on occasions before this one. Honestly, I think there are excellent grounds to permanently block Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GPinkerton (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Debresser is a problem editor who should have been banned years ago. Doesn't change the fact that he's correct in this case. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are correct GPinkerton, then Debresser should be blocked as well, not instead of you. So all you did was give another example of incivility. El Millo (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Random passerby comment - X: "Y should be banned!" followed by Y: "No, X should be banned!" to begin a discussion is likely not going to lead to a good end. Interaction-ban and topic-ban them both, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I ran into this editor a while ago by chance, since we do not usually edit the same topics. The experience was highly unpleasant and left me with the clear impression that this person is not ready for community editing. Have not ran into them since, but their talkpage was still on my watchlist because of that incident. Debresser (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See? Couldn't resist going out of his way to pursue a vendetta he has engineered for himself to pursue. And yes, banning Debresser is a fine suggestion. GPinkerton (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser has listed ANI reports I made about vandalism which resulted in proper action against others, and is trying to claim this as grounds for his continued campaign to insert biblical literalism into Wikipedia being allowed to continue while my contributions are barred. This is really very silly and ironical. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton has shown that he either does not understand Wikipedia policies or he has chosen not to follow them, he also has a history of making disparaging comments about other users. Both could be overlooked if he had shown the willingness to change but that it not the case. Hardyplants (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per personal unpleasant experience with this editor and proven, long-term battleground mentality, resulting in the conclusion that this editor is not ready for community editing. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for perma blocking GPinkerton from Wikipeida. The user has recently wreaked havoc at the Syrian kurdistan article introducing a large amount of nationalistic pov edits. The user refuses to engage in a cooperative manner at the talkpage.[69][70] There is no end in sight to this users disruptive behavior.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Editors should again note the POV pushing causing the issues here is in large part the responsibility of the editors above, who are quite desperate that their respective bias be reflected in Wikivoice. This has already been discussed to death by the tendentiousness of these editors. Spreeme Delciousness is avowedly determined to suppress NPOV in relation to the Kurds, and has explained their crusade a number of times. GPinkerton (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Do you mean "siteban"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The user lacks the necessary civility to be able to cooperate and compromise. He resorts to insults and attacks and have a battleground mentality. I for once could not restrain myself and treated him as he treats others, then suggested that he show respect in order to get it back, for which he replied with: I have no need of what you imagine to be respect from yourself. This user is impossible to argue with, as for him, any editor that oppose him is full of nonesense and the only accepted arguments are his own. See these diffs where he calls every argument he does not like "non-sense", or reject it without any willingness to understand other parties' arguments: 1, 2, 3, here he outright reject to discuss despite being urged to!- In short, this editor, with his rude childish behaviour and battleground mentality is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Just read his replies to other users here in the compliant, and it will give you a clear image of how he goes around here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is another editor whose edits have only been to pursue the bizarre conspiracy theory that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist or should not be referred to as such in the encyclopaedia. It is hardly surprising that this editor, whom I have reported for tendentious editing, would seek to have me removed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have taken a look at the evidence presented and although there are certainly some behavioral problems and some CIR issues, I see nothing that would justify an indef block or a site ban at this point. Much of the case consists of heated content disputes which is not, by itself, actionable. Things like "Can you read?" in an edit summary qualify as mild incivility but certainly not harassment. Some other diffs indicate more substantial episodic incivility but not harassment. Of the three ANI threads opens regarding GPinkerton, one [71] was quickly closed as "No violation". The third [72] was closed as "Content dispute, no action". The second, filed by Debresser on June 27, 2020, [73] was closed as 48 hour blocks for both parties. IMO, Debresser's participation in this thread and his presenting of evidence above has already poisoned the well in this discussion. His own behaviour appears to be at least as problematic in these disputes and his block record is much much longer, plus there is a pile of Arbcom restrictions on top of that. If there are any indef blocks to be handed out as a result of this thread, I think it would have to be to both of them, but I don't believe that's a good idea. ANI is a poor venue for handlinging entrenched POV disputes of this kind, they belong at ARBCOM and that's where the parties should be dirtected. We might consider a two-way interaction ban between GPinkerton and Debresser. Some of the other participants in this discussion so far appear to be deeply involved in the said content disputes themselves, and to have POV agendas of their own. E.g. the first thing one sees at the talk page of Supreme Deliciousness is them strengously arguing that West Jerusalem is not located in Israel, User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2020/October#West Jerusalem. Enough said. Nsk92 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Looking a little closer at some of the diffs provided by the OP under 'Edit warring', diff number 1 [74] for Bulgaria during World War II appears to be an effort by GPinkerton to clean up language that had been white-washing the level of complicity of the WWII Bulgarian government in the persecution of Bulrarian Jews at the behest of the Nazis. While edit warring is never a good idea, I have much less sympathy for anything that has even a slightest whiff of Holocaust denial. Seeing these diffs being used as exhibit A in this report reduces the credibility of the report in my eyes quite a bit. As I said above, if the parties really want to pursue this matter further, they should file an Arbcom case and duke it out there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI that article, Bulgaria during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), before move I performed, had the title Military history of Bulgaria during World War II, which was used a vehicle for exactly what Nsk92 suggests. GPinkerton (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The page The Holocaust in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), until I rewrote nearly all of it and initiated a move discussion with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, gloried under the extraordinary title Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews. Between the two pages, there was no mention of Bulgaria's involvement beyond "the Nazis made the tsar do it". GPinkerton (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Just for the record, the sequence of events given above is a plain timeline, meaning that the order of their display shall imply no priority for their significance. To think of the first event as exhibit A in spite of the dates being shown is less a consequence of logic, I'm afraid, than empathy. I'd still appreciate that for the sensitive nature of the topic, but I don't think such emotional bias should ordain admins judgments of adherence to policy. Long story short, I believe we should make sure we aren't withstanding dangerous POV pushing with POV pushing of yet another sort. Guardians of content in a specific area can wreak havoc on other topics. As is well-known, Wikipedia is meant to contain all human knowledge. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• • It should be noted Supreme Deliciousness was at ArbCom 10 years ago, being given a topic ban for national/ethnic disruption to the encyclopaedia's coverage of middle east. Presumably, they have been at it the whole duration of the Syrian Civil War. GPinkerton (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose as per Nsk92. My only experience so far of GPinkerton has been around Syria articles, where they have been smiting the nationalists hip and thigh (and deservedly so). GPinkerton is a breath of fresh air who has a commendable impatience with those who would subvert this encyclopedia for their own ends. As for the rest, I get the strong impression that GPinkerton is more sinned against than sinning. Konli17 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha. Funny how user Konli17 can accuse others of being nationalists. Look at their user page! This user (Konli17) currently has FOUR WP:ANEW cases against them: here, here, here andhere, edit-warring alongside GPinkerton. This is a great timely reminder to admins to look into Konli17's edit-warring behavior and close these cases. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment User: Assem Khidhr edit warred on Murder of Samuel Paty. (the schoolteacher beheaded for teaching his classes the classes on free expression a history of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as required by the national curriculum. He repeatedly sought to change the text to his preferred version, here, here again, and here again. I was blocked for 24 hours ... GPinkerton (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support This user has aggressive battleground attitude, and i don't see if he will calm down.Shadow4dark (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose indef but GPinkerton, I suggest you take very seriously the comments about incivility, edit warring, and learning to recognize vandalism that you've received here and other recent threads. Stop commenting on other editors' motivations. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Noted with thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Nsk92. I understand the frustration, and hope the involved editors will take a little break long enough to regain their proper editing composure. The advice given here is definitely good food for thought. Atsme 💬 📧 14:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nsk92. There's a whole lot of garbage behaviour in these subjects, and frankly, many of the editors commenting in support are themselves well on the way to blocks and topic bans for their own poor behaviour. On Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty alone there are two active RfCs concerning article content that many editors can't stop edit-warring over anyway; I'm considering full-protecting that article until the discussions conclude, or just handing everyone a limited partial block to deal with it. Broadly, I don't think any of this cesspool will be properly addressed without a full Arbcom case and investigation. I'm not impressed that Assem Khidhr quoted me at least twice out of context, both times that I see twisting my words to fit their narrative, and didn't think it would be worthwhile to notify me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  That having been said; @GPinkerton: your next ad hominem will be your last. Stop. Now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton: I strongly suggest that you step back from this entire thread for a while. You do have the right to defend yourself but the basic facts have already been brought out, and at this point some of your comments here are doing you more harm than good. Better let the discussion proceed at its own pace and have more uninvolved editors comment here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Ivanvector: I'll make that clear. My understanding was that directly pinging an admin who was more likely to approve of one's proposal would be understood as pushy. In case you noticed, I also refrained from mentioning any other editor I quoted. I actually thought this would be understood as more professional, until your comment here. As for context, your first remark was relevant because you were almost the only admin to raise the concern I was bringing here: failing to understand a core policy, such as that of vandalism, is too dangerous that it deserves a block until otherwise is proven. Since your comment was split into two edits, I chose to link the second so that the first would thereby also show as prev, not to take anything out of context. I was also keen on addressing the entirety of it by the paraphrase until they show understanding and retract their remarks, lest it be understood that you're calling for a block whatsoever. Apropos of the 2nd quote, you being the closing admin, the comment you left post-closure was at the centre of the thread. I paraphrased it as explained below. Finally, I don't think I'd be having any extra energy and time to go for ArbCom. I'll merely withdraw from contributing side-by-side with GPinkerton, hoping that what I've proposed here will be enough both to alert the community and to urge GPinkerton to cease. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What's a "permanent block"? The only thing that can really be called that are certain WMF bans which cannot be appealed. (AFAIK, the WMF doesn't specifically say what results in such an unappealable ban but it's probably mostly child protection reasons.) If someone wanted such ban, they would need to speak to the WMF. We could do an indefinite community site ban here. But indefinite is not supposed to mean permanent. While it's hard to imagine some long term socks who have cause untold disruption coming back, if they stop and 10 years down the track they make a very good appeal, perhaps they'll be allowed back. In any case, if we're discussing implementing the ban here it's unlikely it's reached that level. More likely it's a regular community indef site ban. Such site bans often can be successfully appealed in 6 months to 1 year. If it's just an admin indefinite block and doesn't involve any socking there may not even be a minimum appeal period although it would depend on what happened before and the chances an admin can be convinced the editor will change. This isn't just an aside since when making proposals, it helps if you have some understanding of community norms since otherwise people like me think the evidence isn't worth looking at. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nil Einne: Please note that the editor who opened this subsection is different from the OP, which is me. I actually didn't even vote here. Yet, while I don't approve of its content, moving it to another section by me would very likely be interpreted as aggressive. Deleting it altogether would be even disruptive. It's readers' responsibility, I believe, to resolve the ambiguity. It takes a look at the signatures. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Assem Khidhr: I don't understand your point. Although I'm sometimes careless with the word OP to mean the OP of a subthread or even unmarked subdiscussion, I don't see where I said anything about OP or original poster in my comment above. And as far as I can tell, User:Debresser is the one who use term "permanent block" and also who made the proposal I'm commenting on namely to "permanently blocked" GPinkerton [75] because "Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month" and "He has been on WP:AN3 a lot" etc with only a passing mention of "the report" under which they started this proposal. There are a bunch of other sub discussions here including the original starting thread by you where you suggested action without suggesting any specific action since you weren't sure what (which is fine). I make no comment on them. It seems to be the quicker we dismiss this nonsense proposal, the better we can deal with whatever other issues may or may not exist. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Nil Einne: I thought it was the evidence I put forth that you believe isn't worth looking at, as if it was being scapegoated for this subsection. Pardon me then. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a permanent block, because GPinkerton has made many valuable contributions to wikipedia. But GPinkerton should be given a warning of a topic ban on "Muslims and controversy" if they continue their behavior. Consider:

• At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim"[76] or "true-believers"[77]. An academic's religion (or race, gender etc) must never be a factor in their WP:Reliability, period.
• At Talk:Hagia_Sophia/Archive_5#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_August_2020, GPinkerton pushed a ridiculous and false anti-Muslim story (Drmies described it as "anti-Muslim propaganda") and edit-warred to have it inserted into the article (warning against said edit-warring).
• At Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty GPinkerton pushed, what WhinyTheYounger called, the idea that "Islam is incompatible with free expression", refusing to recognize that is both possible to be a moderate Muslim who condemns the murder but also condemns the publication of the cartoons.
• Anytime GPinkerton disagrees with someone, they make allegations of extremism. When GPinkerton edit warred against three users, they accused their opponents of a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia"[78]. Later they accused Assem Khidhr of being an "anti-blasphemy ringleader"[79]. This creates a toxic atmosphere for Muslim Wikipedians.VR _talk 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• The first point of this is absurd. The story is a well-known cultural myth, and at this point it is really very silly that even though the material exists throughout Wikipedia, Vice regent has argued that it should not appear on the article that deals with the building in which it is set and which is a crucial part of the well-known trope. Oddly, Vice regent also tried hard to force a phraseology that emphasized the wrongs of the 4th Crusade in looting the building than the Turks, even though the same school-age history (without fotnotes) suggested by him as the source also states that Mehmed the Conqueror personally destroyed the altar, a legend Vice regent mysteriously never sought to include in Wikivoice. I pointed this out on the talkpage and Vice regent abandoned the dialogue. Drmies was in point of fact wrong to describe the tale, which was accepted as fact by everyone in the West from 1453 to Voltaire, as anti-Muslim rather than anti-Turk since the ideological purpose of the story is to complete the legends surrounding the origin of the Turks in Greek folklore and the fulfilment of prophecies originating in the 7th-century Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, which itself is predicated on seeing the predicted fall of Constantinople as an event at the end of time in which the Muslim armies (understood as deviant Christians) are the agency of God's destruction of worldly things. The first part of this is explained in the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and nether should the history of the middle ages be bowdlerized because of the feelings of people might be offended at non-events centuries ago. Vice regent is wrong to imply that I presented the information as true; the wording I used stressed the attribution to introduced, Wikilinked medieval people and chroniclers and unambiguously stated they were apocryphal. Vice regent you should amend your comment on this matter. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• The second point is also unfounded. Vice regent is wrong to suggest WhinyTheYounger was right to characterize my arguments in this way. I never mentioned Islam, or Muslims, until I replied to this very allegation. Vice regent and WhinyTheYounger confouded Islam and Islamism, an illiberal political ideology rooted in theocracy which wholly different from any religion itself.
• The third point is just exaggeration and misrepresentation and again confuses Islamist ideology with Muslims. Can you find any articles involving discussions which do not deal with terrorist attacks motivated by Islamist doctrine on blasphemy law which show any evidence of such a claim? Seeking to kill because of cartoon images is ipso facto extremist, and is seeking to ban images on the grounds of blasphemy is ipso facto extreme and in dire contravention of the concept of human rights. This cannot be gainsaid. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose After I engaged in a lengthy back-and- forth with GPinkerton, the editor has committed to avoiding edit warring and false accusations of vandalism. The editor should be warned against personal attacks and sweeping generalizations problematic editing about Islam, and should continue editing with a less vehement and dogmatic tone, embracing the letter and the spirit of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have struck through "sweeping generalizations" at the request of GPinkerton here and in discussion on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: Thank you for your comment but please amend it; I have never made sweeping generalizations about Islam; that's not true at all. Islamism≠Islam and Islamists≠Muslims and I have never suggested otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, who is a trusted editor and who is not a Muslim, concluded that you were engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda" at Hagia Sophia, so I will not amend that part of my comment. The amendment that I will make is to say that you should also be warned against tendentious editing including bludgeoning and posting endless walls of text. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: Drmies did not say I was engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda", they said that story is anti-Muslim propaganda, which is a statement about a medieval legend I have nowhere presented as fact. GPinkerton (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• You argued at length to keep that false story with all its lurid details in the article. Q.E.D.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• NED! I continue to argue that the well-known legend, which was repeated by everyone in Renaissance Europe by everyone from the pope on down, deserves discussion in the article. It is treated of elsewhere in Wikipedia and "anti-Muslims" have nothing to do with it. I repeat further that I never once gave even the slightest suggestion the story was anything other than false. The two sackings of Hagia Sophia are massive events in cultural history and to pass over the impact that one of them while of treating the other in depth is weird and imbalanced. The lurid details are an inevitable part of the Renaissance need to see the event as a mirror of the fall of Troy. How not to include the story may be seen at articles where it has considerably less relevance: the Fall of Constantinople and Constantinople articles. In neither case is it attributed to mediaeval people, as in the text I used, and in neither instance are the internally contradictory and mythic elements described or explained as was done in the text I proposed. I am not going to reveal my position on religion and I am not going to describe myself as a subject matter expert on Islam, even though my second postgraduate degree is in Islamic studies from a world-leading university and have a much greater understanding than many other Muslims, but I am not going to accept labelling as "anti-Muslim", that's just not possible. I realize I've said a lot on this thread but this point really must be stressed and brought home. GPinkerton (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban, support warning - for reasons explained by others above. It's not a siteban-level problem, but the concerns raised here are real, and the problematic conduct should not be repeated. Lev¡vich 17:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• I have recently seen GPinkerton do some useful stuff, and in fact I was wondering why I remembered their name: August seems like years ago. But when I look over that discussion again, at Talk:Hagia Sophia/Archive 5, yeah--if that is how GPinkerton operates, that's severely disruptive. It may have started here. Note "apocryphal" where the unimpeachable secondary source says false (and here--look for "propaganda", "entirely spurious"). Read the archived talk page discussion again, if you like, and you will see denialism and editorial interpretation to pursue a POV of sorts in all its glory. And GPinkerton makes just really elementary mistakes: a story is told with some fabricated details added to it, and other writers repeat it--and somehow that makes them independent witnesses, it seems. What you will also see is bludgeoning: who wants to get involved in a discussion with that editor?

  So yes, I stand by the point that I made at the time, that there was some serious POV editing and manipulation of sources happening in article space, and a kind of intransigence littered with misunderstandings on the talk page where the purpose appeared to be to get everyone bogged down and simply give up. I think I would support a topic ban from Islam-related topics. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I again strongly deny this allegation and repeat once more that to speak of me being "anti-Muslim" is a clear oxymoron which I ask Drmies to retract. In addition, I can only point out again that I never once made any suggestion that it was true and have explained this before and repeatedly. The story is at present repeated as though true at Fall of Constantinople, a fact I have nothing to do with, and the way I described it has never even suggested that it was true, a fact I pointed out at the time. I have not once suggested for moment anything like the claim that different textual witnesses suggest multiple eyewitness accounts, and it's not fair to suggest otherwise Drmies. I tried to point this out at the time and expressed a desire that better wording could be worked on, but my appeals went unheeded. GPinkerton (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here, and on my own talk page, GPinkerton claims I'm calling them "anti-Muslim". You all can see I said no such thing. I believe they have a POV which is an impediment to neutral editing, yes, but I have not accused them of being a Muslim hater or whatever. I do not understand why, in a discussion that may well lead to sanctions, they continue to be so ... well, what is it? Belligerent? Careless? Unencyclopedic and uncollegial, that certainly. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked a bit into the Syrian/Kurdistan articles this week, where there is currently a great deal of feuding going on, I can't help but notice that some Support & Oppose votes here are falling into sides I see edit warring on articles. I hope this decision as serious as a siteban would not be overly influenced by editors active in disputes in this subject area. This is a decision that should be evaluated by uninvolved editors and admins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • My feelings exactly. My impression is that if we are talking about POV related topic bans, several other participants in this discussion deserve them at least as much as GPinkerton. I can't support a topic ban for GPinkerton in this situation, where his accusers escape similar scruitiny and are allowed to sit in judgement over GPinkerton here. IMO, POV related topic bans require careful and slow examination of evidence by uninvolved editors. ANI is completely unsuited for that purpose. If there isn't an active Arbitration case with Discretionary Sanctions in place for which an AE request can be made, then a new WP:ARC request should be filed and any relevant topic bans should be handed out there. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban I've had sharp disagreements with GPinkerton, who can certainly be very rude, acerbic & agressive. I notice most of the diffs at the top come from May or earlier, & I think he has calmed down somewhat. Some of the editors complaining the loudest are in no position to cast stones. At the same time he can be a useful & energetic force for improving WP. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per Konli17 and Nsk92. - Daveout(talk) 02:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the user has serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and persistently edits disruptively. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Another editor from the Syrian Kurdistan dispute. GPinkerton (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, valuable contributor who upholds NPOV in multiple contentious topic areas. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Stong Support Indef block. I hate to say this, but this user is not here to contribute positively, collaborate or debate in a civilized way. Even worse, they have a confrontational mentality powered by an aggressive behavior and personal attacks. Out of nowhere and with no prior encounter anywhere, this user opened a case against me simply for disagreeing on topics. Well, that might not sound too bad per se, but the problem is that this user reverts to personal attacks and rude wording when their argument fails. I am quoting some of their personal attacks in the one thread they opened against me:
• Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. 02:59, 11 November 2020 (side note: I am really offended by this accusation. In my 10 years here I never edited in favor of Assad, and I challenge Pinkerton to show one single piece of evidence to support their baseless claim).
• Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Can you read? Or do you only spew? 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion, the edit-warring behavior of Pinkerton is obvious in every article they edit. I think an indef block, although severe, is sometimes unavoidable like in this case. Otherwise, a really-long ban would be necessary. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose can't believe a user even has the idea of a block for GPinkerton. He has a sharp tone in discussions but is a rather experienced editor. At Syrian Kurdistan at least better than me where GP (I'm thinking of a Grand Prix for GPinkerton) argued with multiple academic sources for an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, while Amr Ibn and Supreme Deliciousness clinged to a book review of a no-name Phd candidate as a source for a denial of Syrian KurdistanParadise Chronicle (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Here we have an case of actual ideological opponents clamoring for someone to be sitebanned based on their POV, and that they view the editor as obstructive due to their opposition. This isn't in the usual way that we casually throw around the term "ideological opponents", and I don't say this lightly. While it should be fully acknowledged that there are real issues with GPinkerton's editing, especially in terms of their combativeness, hopefully they can take advice on board, and possibly change that. But I echo the statement of Konli17, that they have been "more sinned against than sinning". This issue is largely more about assorted editors with strong nationalist sentiments invested in this issue, and an entrenched view regarding ethnicity and national identity in the region. For Supreme Deliciousness to say that this is a case of "Kurdish Nationalists" pushing a POV is absurd, and indicative of what I'm talking about. I'll also note that other editors have given to calling good-faith edits "vandalism" in their edit summaries when reverting. Drama aside, this is not a controversial term outside of internal Middle-Eastern politics, where fears of a nascent Kurdish irredentism is a persistent bogeyman. GPinkerton has been trying to maintain what I think is a consistent NPOV in an embattled environment, and has skirted the line of problematic editing, but I think this is more calling out fire in a crowded room, when there's just a few smouldering coals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Note that I've had to repost this due to the formatting issues here. And if it wasn't clear, I'm primarily talking about the edits in Syrian Kurdistan. Their exchange with Drmies is unnecessarily combative, and a mischaracterization. I have no opinion on Vice regent's suggestion of a topic ban on Islam-related articles at this time, as I'm not sure that POV editing is a persistent, intransigent issue in that topic area. That's a very broad topic, even if it were narrowly construed, and I certainly don't think this is likewise an issue in every subject that they edit, calling for a siteban. But they could do with a formal warning for their behaviour, generally. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment What strikes me the hardest is how the attention of both admins and users simply shifted into a peripheral comment, albeit significantly less organized and poorly structured, only because it can be tackled in the form of a simply binary survey rather than a nuanced discussion. This is probably a stark example of WP:STRAW. It also shows, unluckily, how much tolerance is left in the community for topics deemed as potential flame wars and how many presumptions are in place about editors still interested therein. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Response to GPinkerton

I wrote this in response to GPinkerton comment above:

User: Assem Khidhr edit warred on Murder of Samuel Paty. (the schoolteacher beheaded for teaching his classes the classes on free expression a history of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as required by the national curriculum. He repeatedly sought to change the text to his preferred version, here, here, and here. I was blocked for 24 hours ... User:GPinkerton (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It was moved to avoid interference with the other discussion. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I'm truly glad you finally started quoting diffs, though you didn't even bother to put them in a chronological order and only presented them after a plethora of ad hominem claims. Here's a comprehensive timeline of what happened at Murder of Samuel Paty leading me to take notice of GPinkerton's behavior and leading to their temporary blocking:

1. 16:23, 10 November 2020 GPinkerton introduces the statement Protests were held in X against Macron's defence of human rights. (X being Syria, Iraq, and Libya) in the article for the 1st time.
2. 05:06, 18 November 2020 I came across the vague statement. Being WP:BOLD, I tried to reword the reporting of the protests in Syria section with WP:ATTRIBUTION to Macron.
3. 05:33, 18 November 2020‎ I noticed the same statement verbatim in Lybia and Iraq sections. I did the same replacement, gave rationale, and omitted attrbution for redundancy. (notice that the two edits were consecutive without any intervening edits by another user).
4. 06:52, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts my edit.
5. 07:07, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton further deletes the attribution to Macron, qualifying it as editorializing.
6. 07:10, 18 November 2020 Proceeding in BRD, I reverted GPinkerton, citing in my summary The Guardian's article with an exact wording (my 1st revert).
7. 07:10-07:36, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton makes a series of edits elsewhere in the article: [80], [81], [82].
8. 05:44, 19 November 2020‎ Almost 24h later, GPinkerton reinstates the same statement witout any discussion.
9. 08:32, 19 November 2020 Moved by the absence of WP:REVEXP and BRD WP:STONEWALLING, I further reverted GPinkerton again while alluding to the manipulation of WP:3RR as per WP:SPADE (my 2nd revert). This was indeed a violation of the exemplary 1RR.
10. 08:54, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts again.
11. 09:11, 19 November 2020 Further proceeding in BRD, I started a discussion 17 mins after their 2nd revert. I declared my intent to withdraw from any further reverts.
12. 09:14-09:51, 19 November 2020 Another editor tries to wP:HANDLE here. They were reverted by GPinkerton here.
13. 09:58-10:46, 19 November 2020 Yet another editor opposes GPinkerton in [83], [84], and [85], only to be reverted by GPinkerton in [86], [87], [88], [89]. This user was warned of edit warring by the blocking admin here, for which they apologized here.
14. 11:07, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton is blocked for 24h for edit warring, as shown previously.

Knowing that I'm not much well-known in the community here yet, unlike GPinkerton, who was actually praised by some admins in the AN thread I mentioned before, I'd also like to mention a piece of data in refutation of the endless disparaging remarks they made. Although I shouldn't be in a position to defend myself, I do think that such fervent demagogic attacks with an overwhelming amount of proofs by assertion can end up leaving some implicit associations. I firstly encourage anyone to browse through my edit history. I'm a Muslim Egyptian/Sudanese pharmacist who is interested in social sciences. I wander through the project trying to utilize my more or less diverse background to give back to the encyclopedia. In fact, Murder of Samuel Paty was the first and only flame war article that I involved with. However, please note that in contradiction to the claims of campaigning and lobbying:

• My authorship of Murder of Samuel Paty is only 0.1% vs. a gigantic first-ranked 29.8% for GPinkerton (evidence here).
• I first edited Murder of Samuel Paty in 22:13, 23 October 2020 (See here) vs. 02:56, 10 November 2020 for GPinkerton (See here). I stayed longer yet added way less.

Finally, here is a comment about my attitude on the page from a disinterested user whom I've never contacted and who never engaged in relevant disputes previously and just came for the RfC. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Assem Khidhr: Saying you have taken less action to improve the page than an editor you are trying to have excluded from editing seems like an odd perspective to me. As I've said, Khidhr is here arguing I should be blocked twice for the same edit war in which he himself violated 3RR. As point of fact, your claim that I was in contravention of policy by reverting your unsolicited comments on my talk page are incorrect, and I am under no obligation either to reply or to retain your remarks where you put them. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A further consideration is that the protesting extremists, some of whom are now in jail for glorifying terrorism, are protesting about the implicit refusal of the French head of state to throw out his country constitutional freedoms and pander to their demands for Paty's head. They are not riled up that Macron said as much, but more about the fact it was victim that got the legion d'honneur and not, as they would see it, his martyred murderer. Trying to pin the blame for Paty's killing on Macron is what Anzarov did in his martyrdom video, but we should not be crediting his perspective. Note that all the sources say the protests were directed at France with a boycott of French things imposed in some areas. The protests reflect the status of free speech in a democracy an its incompatibility with the concept of blasphemy law, not anything Macron has done to bring about this century-long constitutional situation. In any case these arguments do not benefit from rehearsal here, as they have already been considered and dealt with appropriately. GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Debresser interaction ban

Assem Khidhr referred to an incident at AN3 (archived here, Assem's link didn't work) in which I declined to block GPinkerton because it was an obvious "gotcha" report by the editor they were involved in the same dispute with (the "you shot first" theory of edit warring, which I do not subscribe to), but Assem failed to interpret from my comments that I also declined to block because Debresser appeared out of nowhere just to cause trouble. They torpedoed the report so that it was incomprehensible, while their entire argument for sanctions was that GPinkerton should be blocked in that instance only because they had been blocked before. By Debresser's own admission here they "do not usually edit the same topics" and "not ran into [GPinkerton] since" (referring to some incident I don't know about but clearly long in the past), yet here is Debresser for the second time in six months jumping on a dispute they're not involved with in any way to attack GPinkerton. That is harassment, and since Debresser won't knock it off on their own, they should be banned from interacting with GPinkerton. (Edited to add: this is a proposal for a one-way interaction ban) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Ivanvector: this is actually the third time Debresser has advanced this line of attack, once before on this noticeboard and once on my talkpage recently. GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Per Ivanvector's justification. As I understand it, the proposed ban is a one-way interaction ban; this point probably deserves to be made more explicit. Nsk92 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  I thought it was clear but yes, that's correct. Edited to be specific. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way. I'd oppose making it two-way, as this is clearly Debresser following GPinkerton around trying to bait him, not a two-way street. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I proposed a permanent block here for GPinkerton now, because at an earlier date admins, like Ivanvector, were not yet ready to see the underlying problematic attitude of GPinkerton. It seems that admins already see what I meant then. That justifies my post. If one were not allowed to ask for sanctions against a longtime problematic editor, then Wikipedia is really in trouble! Ergo, I strongly oppose an interaction ban based for this reasoning. There is no need for an interaction ban on other pages, since we don't as a rule edit the same articles. As stated above by Cullen238,[90] forums like WP:ANI are not restricted to admins, and anybody can post here, and Ivanvector's claim that I posted here "just to cause trouble" is a bad faith assumption. To the contrary, I posted here to try and make Wikipedia a better place. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen the same almost spammy comment twice for now. On a side note, @Ivanvector:, my link above still works for me, as of now. Also, I did interpret and deliberately addressed what you mentioned in your comment by confounded by other parties involved. To reiterate, by "involved", I meant all the editors who were involved in the AN report, not only those who engaged in the edit war. Idk whether you read this part, but I'm honestly shocked you thought of it as a twist. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't punish editors for raising valid concerns. Lev¡vich 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Levivich that this isn't the appropriate time for a boomerang. Debresser was correct in bringing this to the community in light of the behavioral issues and was filing a sensible and legitimate case. This iban proposal is redirecting the thread from the real problem at hand to unrelated and less significant matters. Krow750 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While an editor should not follow another everywhere, there is a deep root for these reports against GPinkerton: his incivility. This is what should be addressed. This isnt really about the content disputes, but the provocation and impoliteness of GPinkerton, who have no understanding of the meaning of discussion, civility, or cooperation and compromise. This is stressful for other editors, and this should be handled, and thats why Im against this ban, because Debresser brought to light examples of the toxic behaviour of GPinkerton, whom Im sure will respond to my comment in his typical rude way full of accusations and intentions interpretations, while never understanding that its his rudeness, battleground mentality, pushiness, and lack of understanding of whatever goes against what he is convinced in, are whats getting him here. If he is not forced to respect other users, he will be back here over and over again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - wouldn't wish that on my worst detractor. Admins have tools to stop HOUNDING - don't need no iBans. Atsme 💬 📧 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. GPinkerton is the one who needs to be blocked here, not Debresser. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why this is necessary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest that a previously unvolved editor close this thread now. It seems clear, at least to me, that none of the proposals put forward are going to generate consesus. I think the discussion is well past the point of yielding anything constructive. I still think that the disputes raised here are best suited for Arbcorm and for WP:AE. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support no sign of improvement yet. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be mutual. Just that you are nominated for a sitewide block, and I for an interaction ban with that same editor, who is nominated for a sidewide block. See the difference? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support (would support a one way interaction ban, i.e. Debresser disallowed to interact with GPinkerton, too): Debresser's recent behaviour w.r.t. the New Schubert Edition article, including edit-warring and retaliation, makes me doubt whether they are here to build an encyclopedia. The evidence of their failing (to put it mildly) behaviour towards GPinkerton is clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is just an attempt at revenge for me calling you out on your WP:OWN issues at that page. Low. very low. Even for somebody from the Low Countries. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Close with warning

Proposal: Close this report with a warning to GPinkerton to avoid incivility and edit warring, and that further problems may be met with sanctions without additional warnings.

• Support as proposer - other proposals above aren't getting traction; perhaps this is where consensus is at this point. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per the discussions with and remarks by Cullen328, Ivanvector, and Drmies. Assem Khidhr (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is time to move on and go improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a warning seems useful here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per Levivich's reasoning on getting a consensus, and Cullen in moving on. I would add that Levivich's wording should be amended to 'will' as opposed to 'may'. Any content issues that User:GPinkerton may have, or any narrow but valid points in their arguments on content that they may make, should be made within the boundaries of WP:editwar and WP:civility. Simon Adler (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  <pedantic wonk mode>The problem with "will" is that because we're all volunteers, we cannot require an admin to issue a block. The most we can do is agree that if there are future violations, an admin has consensus to block without further warning, should an admin volunteer to do so at that time.</pedantic wonk mode> Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, <pedantic wonk advice> duly taken. Simon Adler (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Such was already the conclusion of the #Permanent_block section above, so no need to propose this separately. For the record, I think this is a mistake, and that we will yet have grief from this editor. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I hope he will learn how to discuss with respect, discuss sources and arguments not persons and intentions, and to stop putting other point of views down instead of trying to understand and argue in a civil way. Hopefully he ditch the childish teen manners (unless he is a teen...) My hope is weak though.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I was repeatedly called a Islamophobe and also after a final warning the editor wasn't blocked initially but only after my insistence. This (as to me) is way worse than asking one if he can read or speaks English as first language. Then, I also have faced heavier edit warring than this so called edit war here. Mine goes on since May, and there is no action taken even though the opposing editor refuses to answer at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose closing with no action; we clearly need to do something here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Again attacking: Ivanvector, you told GP that "your next ad hominem will be your last." Well, despite the cases here, despite discussing a warning for his lack of civility, he did it again a few hours ago: You're showing your ignorance again. I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia. I am not inclined to listen further to your griping. This was a sample of a long relpy of his full of attacks. For how long? Is civility not a policy of Wikipedia? Drmies, Girth Summit, Cullen328, Levivich, would you care to see this?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

While people here have been discussing user Gpinkerton behavior, that user was continuing their rude, uncivil personal attacks elsewhere. Here are some examples: here, here, here on top of their previous attacks. This shows there is no cure for their addiction to this aggressive behavior and they don't belong in an encyclopedia. I hope a strong action will not delay any further. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

All of that seems like fair comment to me. They're attacking sources, and any comment they've made in these edits that is directed to another editor is limited to criticism of their choice of sources. I'm not going to act on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think "You're showing your ignorance again." is "fair comment", or that an editor's action can be described as "griping", especially in an area with discretionary sanctions and ongoing conflicts between editors, then you are part of the problem, and I think other admins should state their opinion on this as well! Debresser (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Damnit Ivan. I count nine PAs in that one single diff. How are you possibly saying any of these nine comments are "fair"???

1. You're showing your ignorance again.
2. your absurd POV
3. Why aren't you capable of reading sources?
4. I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia.
5. This fantasy project of yours will not gain traction here.
6. This project is built on the use of reliable sources, not the strenuousness of your denialism.
7. It will not be necessary for you to comment further.
8. Your quotation of this document is specious misinterpretation, which is either wilful or incompetent, and I am not inclined to listen further to your griping.
9. The extract you have quoted nails the final nail in the coffin of your ideology.

That's all from one comment! How are these anything other than ad hominem attacks? You should adjust your idea of civility looks like. This is not civil.

Frankly, the fact that more PAs were made while a proposal to warn for PAs was ongoing (with near unanimous consensus) makes me want to pull my support for my own warning proposal and support a TBAN instead. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, the moderating admin Girth Summit found it uncivil. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Why aren't you capable of reading sources?" is about as personal and uncivil as it gets... Drmies (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from GPinkerton about this comment. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think all the hearing from them you'll get is down at the bottom of this page. As for the list of ad hominems above, I interpreted all of them as directed at an editor who was selectively choosing and serially misrepresenting sources, as pointed out by several editors on that talk page who were not GPinkerton, and in which case a comment like "why aren't you capable of reading sources", while not very nice, is valid. Anyway, Girth Summit seems to be perfectly capable of moderating that dispute and pushing block buttons if needed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• This comment is adapted from one made on my talk page.I'm mystified at the way this situation is developing. I thought these processes worked better than I am coming to realize. Why is my choice of language so fascinating when the issue at hand is just being ignored? Is the discussion intemperate? Yes. Am I the one that created this situation? No. Look at the months of furious argument that squabbles on long before I ever made an edit. Am I the only one more interested in improving the encyclopaedia's coverage of the subject than this comedy of manners? Hopefully not. Am I unique in making accusations of bias and agenda pushing? Not a bit. I invite, nay, beg, editors to ignore for now this superficial (and partly confected) issue of courtesy and examine the real torrent of problematic editing which has been running in spate below the recriminatory rhetoric. If I am to be blocked for disruptive editing (viz. imncivility), an idea I am saddened even to have to defend myself against, how would Wikipedia be served by allowing other parties to this dispute continue editing? As was my original point in raising this whole issue here weeks ago, they are not suited to building an encyclopaedia. Uncivil language is not excusable, but this isn't about me being impolite. Was anyone watching when عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote:

• "This is scandalous attempt to convert Wikipedia into a Kurdish propaganda blog and completely adopting the Kurdish nationalist rhetoric. This text is cherry-picking and completely ignores ..."
• "Furthermore, this problematic, POV-screaming edit suggested by Pinkerton is designed to draw our attention away from the most important thing we are discussing right now, which is the name of the page/territory, and whether that is universal or not."
• "Since you seem to not read what you are adding ..."
• "This is another one of your comments that confirm that you don't read before jumping to conclusions."
• GPinkerton, if all the evidence we presented did not convinced you, nothing will, and that's your problem. Before you showed up here with your editing behavior editors here had a consensus that this term is used by some and disputed by others. Again, as usual, you make arguments and jump to conclusions before doing your homework.

Or when Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said:

• "What GPinkerton has done throughout this entire article is to cherry pick sources that use kurdish nationalist names and narrative and she tries to disregard other sources. And in some cases she is not even following her sources in regards to history as seen above."

Apart from the reliable sources I have added and the wilfully tendentious misinterpretations and Ba'athist ideology regurgitated back in return, there is actually nothing but incivility interspersed with a catalogue of unanswered pleas for administrator intervention, which has been going on for months (years?) before I ever clapped eyes on it, and would certainly continue unabated, just as it has been allowed to do for over a decade, if I were blocked. Blocking me would make absolutely no difference, the disruption would just continue. Happily, Ivanvector has perceived that I am not alone in identifying the real problem. I urge anyone else to look at the contents of the discussion, at the two ANI reports on this page as I write, and at all the other fora this ridiculous war over a warzone has spilled over into. GPinkerton (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please everyone look at the Talk page in question for yourselves. The bottom line here is that user GPinkerton is presenting the Kurdish nationalistic narrative for this area of Syria as a fact, and as the ONLY fact. What we are trying to do is balance the article by presenting sourced content for other views on this. What I am providing there is pretty much quotes from French and British sources relevant to the era in question. What I get in response from this user is kind of "this X Kurdish author said this" and "this Y Kurdish institute mentioned that", and of course a ton of personal attacks (for the last ten days or more). On top of that, GPinkerton is mispresenting information, taking things out of context (e.g., leaving out important parts), or even adding/changing dates compared to what's mentioned in sources, one of which I explained in the edit here. This comment by Fiveby (who is not part of the dispute and has not edited the article in the near past) summarizes the situation: GPinkerton are you purposefully obtuse? If not you can look at the index from Tejel here under "Syrian Kurdistan, terminology" and view those pages, or Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria#Polity names and translations. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And here is another edit from Fiveby describing user GPinkerton's mission at the article: And 'Syrian Kurdistan' has other meanings, implied and explicit, notably Kurdish nationalism#Syria. From your added content, you are writing an article not about that portion of Kurdistan in Syria, but through bludgeoning and equivocal use of sources an article about a multi-ethnic region from the perspective of one ethnic group. The ambiguous title and scope of the article allows a selection of content from Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, Kurdish Nationalism, Rojava, Syrian civil war, etc. to form the article implied by this title: a Kurdish only nation of Northern Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support reluctantly. Concerned that a warning is too weak and sends the wrong message as this editor badly needs to cool it, at least in this area. But it also seems clear that this problem is a two-way street. Taking action against one side only would send a worse message. Hence my support. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

One last thing

I had another fresh look at the talk page today, at a revision before Valereee did a good job clerking and cleaning up old discussions. Going back a month or more, the talk page basically looks like a long, repeating pattern of comments exactly like the two above from GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum): deeply personalized partisan sniping over a real-world ethnic/cultural conflict, and little to do really with constructing an article. Other editors have occasionally responded in kind but it's just these two who have been doing basically nothing but this the whole time they've been editing that talk page. GPinkerton's first edit on that talk page was on 17 November (a pure personal attack), while Amr ibn Kulthoum's disruptive sniping goes back much further, way back to 28 July (also a personal attack). I have three non-exclusive proposals which some editors will find extreme, but the goal here is to get the talk page back to a state where editors can discuss the content free of this partisanship.

1. GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum) are partially blocked from editing Syrian Kurdistan and its talk page for three months, to give other editors time to resolve open discussions.
2. GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum) are banned from interacting with each other anywhere on Wikipedia, indefinitely.
3. GPinkerton is formally banned from publishing any comment that any editor reasonably interprets as a personal attack. (Yes, I do know WP:NPA is policy, but this formal ban would be logged at WP:EDR and make it less up to interpretation as to whether any such comment compels admin action, as we saw yesterday. I also know "civility parole" is a discredited approach; I hope this is not that.)

Thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• The asymmetry of this should be slanted to other way in my view. I don't see why the heavier sanction should fall on me. I have done more to improve the Syrian Kurdistan article than has been done in some time, and have never once touched the subject before. My first contribution to the talk page came long after the futility of interaction became apparent after exhausting the possibilities of rational debate at WP:RSN and WP:FTN (I think it was) and after the first ANI report about the whole issue. In addition, the problem with Amr clearly runs deeper. After numerous sanctions in the past and a catalogue of edits to pages relating to wider (and even narrower) Middle East geopolitical topics which display exactly the type of behaviour in other issues. And indeed, yet another ANI report has now appeared that relates to the same issue but involves neither he nor me. (i.e. the one about Diyarbakir (only the largest city in (Turkish) Kurdistan ...)) GPinkerton (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I don't even agree that my actual edits have been partisan, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the talkpage. Unlike Amr (evidence catalogued in a section far below) and SupremeDeliciousness (evidence far above and who ought to not to go scot free give the history of ArbCom topic bans in this kind of area) I have not made tendentious edits to the article space and besides the partisan commentary no-one else has objected to anything I have done in terms of content. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, especially measure 3, i.e. making it clear that this is not a facebook group where users roast each other and argue with the aim of winning and not to actually improve articles while keeping the NPOV. It would be refreshing not to expect a random guy online insulting you for entering a discussion! We all have our own POV, but this doesnt mean that what others think is "none sense", and that only we can understand sources. Im sure that I and the other editors will be able to reach a consensus and compromise if civility is restored and a constructive discussion can take place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The comment above should be considered in light of the false declaration that "There are no historical record that puts the Kurdish inhabited regions of Syria within historical Kurdistan before the establishment of Syria." which is none other than the same conspiracy theory, refuted (and I mean refuted and not just denied) numerous times on the talkpage, that Syrian Kurdistan is a fiction created by post WWI immigrant Kurds from Turkey, a nonsense invented by the national socialist Ba'ath Party as part of its Arab Belt policy of ethnic cleansing in that very territory and cooked up in order to deny the legitimacy of non-Arab citizenship in what was later renamed the Syrian Arab Republic. Naturally the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary thought otherwise in the drafting of their definition of "Kurdistan" in their recent third edition, which defined Kurdistan as region split between four states, including Syria. Wikipedia needs to treat this kind of editing in the same way Holocaust denial is treated. GPinkerton (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me Ivanvector. First, this discussion is not about me, it's about GPinkerton's behavior across a wide range of articles and topics. Second, you had to go back four months to see something that looks like a personal attack from me side against a recently-blocked edit warring user, that has been insulting me and others (recent examples: here, here, here, here, here and here, and here, here.) for months without any any action, with currently three WP:ANEW open cases against them, here, here and here and waiting for ANY admin attention for more than TWO weeks. On top of that a fourth was archived for without admin action. Here is the edit you linked that you describe as a personal attack: ::Konli17, What does an Erdoganist/Assadist conspiracy theory have to do with Kurdish immigration to Syria in the 1920's? Obviously, you fail to argue with the sourced content, some of these sources are from the mid 20th century, long before Assad, and half a century before Erdogan. The content is well sourced, and well known by the way. If you don't like it, that's your problem, but then you can stay away from the topic. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please go read the cases against Konki17 before you respond to this. I wonder how my comment above can be considered even close to the level of GPinkerton's or (Konli17's) behavior! That's unfair. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The user's name is Konli17, and I did read all of those discussions you forumshopped, long before I wrote this section. It's always about someone else's behaviour with you two, isn't it? And the diff I picked above was your first in a very long line of disruptive personal attacks on just that one talk page. I don't feel the need to subject anyone reading this far down with another laundry list of misdeeds. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you forumshopped"? All three cases were opened by other editors, while mine (a fourth one) was archived without action. In the three open cases mentioned above, there is at least seven users commenting about the disruptive behavior and edit-warring of Konli17. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GPinkerton. Amr's WP:GAME approach to talk page discussions alone ought to invite stronger sanction, let alone the rest of it. Konli17 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving to close with whatever sanction that is imposed. Plenty of time has been given for voting and this discussion is way too long over one person. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I still feel that stronger measures should be taken against GPinkerton, who was again blocked today...! After that is said, I agree with #1 and #3, but disagree with #2, or at least it should be limited to the same 3 months as #1, otherwise they could never go back to editing that same article, which is not what we want here. Add to this that in general I see no use in interaction bans, especially after a 3-month hiatus. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, GPinkerton is requesting an unblock. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So? By the way, {{nac}} stands for "non-admin closure". Is that what you had in mind? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, meant {{nacmt}} (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 3. Both editors apparently need to WP:COOL and this civility problem is proving more intractable than lots of contributors previously thought. (Non-administrator comment) Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Medicine edits from 157.99.249.59 (hexane.chimorg.pasteur.fr, Institut Pasteur) reported at WP:AIV

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• 157.99.249.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Epigallocatechin gallate: vandalism after final warning. Nonsense, repetitive vandalism also on Curcumin after final warning. Zefr (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP address is very static, and administrators could choose pretty much any block duration to achieve the desired effect, if this is vandalism. The source and content of the edits makes it unsuitable for a quick decision at WP:AIV, however. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Viewing the IP user's edit history, example here, one can see it was lazy, same-content, unencyclopedic copying to several articles which already had histories and current content indicating the same message (concerning "PAINS" compounds). Bottom line: unconstructive editing and warring against admin, Materialscientist. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this off of WP: AIV. I still think this is a bit complex for just one section so we should be prepared to make subsections. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

From the guilty part: aside from the use of exceedingly fast judgment concerning my various entries which are actually all about the same issue: any natural compound with phenol function (curcumin among other) is devoid of any medical potential despite zillions of publication claiming otherwise. But who cares but the sellers/quacks who are making money on such substances by claiming various cure-all properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.99.249.59 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you're finally talking. Good. Now, slow down and learn Wikipedia's rules and take time to read the articles you're editing. While you were busy on your quest to right WP:GREATWRONGS, you missed that Curcumin already mentions this issue in the lead and body, using specific citations (to avoid what we call improper synthesis), and even links to our article on Pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS). Compare that wording to your own template wording and you'll see it is specific, better sourced, and neutrally worded (versus the emotive wording you used). You're not being reverted by fans of pseudoscience or "quacks", but by editors who understand how we need to write encyclopedia entries. Continue in this vein and I or another admin will block you. Fences&Windows 10:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

IP racist POV pushing

I was re-directed here from the fringe theory noticeboard.

• 88.106.233.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP editor has made changes which remove references to white people as people. As per the cited diffs below, the editor also openly states that white people are not people, and that institutional racism incorrectly allows white people to 'consider themselves human'. Also see the editor's edit summaries.

Diffs I noticed include: [91] , [92] [93]

Although this does not seem to be a prolific editor in terms of the extent of the abuse I believe this is an urgent matter due to the saddening prejudice and racism involved in claiming that people from a certain ethnicity are not human. I feel unable to deal with this personally by contacting the editor, since they do not consider me human. Surely this cannot belong on Wikipedia. Thanks. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I just composed a report and found that someone had beaten me to it. Here is what I was going to post:

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

• "allowing [whites] to call themselves human while preventing them from recognising that [people of color] are the real people.[94]
• changing "whites people" to "whites" and "blacks" top "black people".[95] The edit summary specifically says that "people" was removed because whites are not people.
• More of the same, plus changing "white communities" to "white colonies"[96]
• Apparently, it isn't "sexually abusing underage white girls" if they are white. It is "sexually active with young white girls." [97]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit worrying, but I wonder of this is in fact some alter-righter tying to make a point. They do seem to be a wp:spa who is wp:nothere. At this time (however) a warning would be in order, a very strong warning. But only as its their first time here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I Also note they seem to have got bored.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This week-old trolling needs an ANI report why? --JBL (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly POV editing, but this dynamic IP editor hasn't edited in 5 days. Nothing we can do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That was a rather quick close. It would have been nice to have more than 13 minutes to respond. The last edit was three days ago on 22 November 2020.[98] While trimming my report to the most egregious examples, I inadvertently deleted the IP shift. Sorry about that; my mistake. I doubt that this person is going to stop and I believe that a range block limited to the pages the IP has abused the most would be appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Re-opening; there was some confusion about the time span. No opinion on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• /20 not helpful. /16 shows more general vandalism. Meh.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: What makes you think the second IP (79.) is the same as the first IP (88.)? I know I might be extremely naive here and the two IPs geolocate to the same place, but I note that 79 (in the 22 Nov edit) reverted 88 [99], 79 did not remove "white people" as 88 does, and changing "black" to "Black" (or vice versa) is a very common edit. I'm not sure the two are the same person. 88's edits are clearly terrible, but 79's aren't (unless I missed something). If we did a range block, what would the range be (haven't all the problems been only from 88.106.233.198?). Given that 88 is a dynamic IP and the last edit was 11/20, the lease will likely expire soon if it hasn't already, so I'm not sure what good a block will do, or a warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a judgement call, and of course I could be wrong. I thought that the geolocation plus the content (capitalization of "black") plus the same ISP plus the same page -- a page that gets maybe 4 edits a week -- passed the WP:DUCK test. I also concluded that it was most likely not some alt-right troll pretending to be a racist black because someone like that would typically make 100% racist edits. But I am just guessing. Anyway, it looks like there isn't an obviously good range to block, even with the advantage that page blocking gives us (unlikely to cause collateral damage; the next person who get that dynamic IP is very unlikely to edit the same page) so we might as well close this again. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Capitalisation of "Black" without more is not a WP:QUACK. I routinely capitalise names of ethnic groups and races as a mark of respect, even if I think a distinction is pseudoscience. Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the MOS pit. DFO

Do you routinely capitalise names of races days after a racist troll capitalised names of races on the same rarely edited page using the same ISP and living in the same city? WP:QUACK is a pattern. Just living in the same city isn't enough. Just editing the same page isn't enough. And yes, just capitalizing the same words isn't enough. but all three together? See [100].

Also, just as an aside, the capitalization question is controversial. See The Case for Capitalizing the B in Black: Black and white are both historically created racial identities—and whatever rule applies to one should apply to the other. in The Atlantic. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that was established best practice when I restored the capitalization; you can investigate me for sockpuppetry if you want I guess. We should probably have a MOS for this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on that issue here. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Responding to a couple points here before someone closes. Geolocation in the area where these two IPs land is really inaccurate: from these results I would not confidently state their location any more precisely than "somewhere in Great Britain". As for timing, these networks are huge (just over 2 million IPs in the largest case; the largest range we can block is just under 65,000) and very dynamic. An IP user who had one address three or four days ago probably doesn't have that same address now, and there's a really good chance if I block it I'm actually blocking a completely different person. That's why when I see "this dynamic IP editor hasn't edited in 5 days" I follow that up with "nothing we can do here". That's of course not entirely true (pattern tracking; checkuser black-box stuff) so it's worthwhile to report anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Of course in the longer run, there is something that can be done, but only by the WMF, which is to have them come to their senses and disallow IP editing completely. Never happen, but just saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick resolution needed for a conflict

Thepharoah17 is currently reverting serially what Konli17 has edited and questions Konli if he was a sock. He doesn't revert for content, only for the edit being an alleged edit of a sock. Diffs are

here

here

here

here

here

This socket puppet investigation filed by ThePharoah17 needs a quick resolution, the conflict is not really helpful to the project.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thepharoah17 needs to stop with those edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• What more evidence is required to show this Syrian war stuff is far bigger than meets the eye? GPinkerton (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually there are three active edit warring (3RR) cases against Konli17 that admins have been ignoring for two weeks. Somebody should look into the vandalism of Konli17. Slow edit warring (and sometimes breaking 3RR) on several fronts. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning user Sam tum

Sam tum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is constantly using all-caps in edit summaries (as in WP:SHOUT), and its user-page seems to be mistaken for their sandbox. I think the user should be warned to not use all-caps. Thanks in advance, --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

CrystallineLeMonde, please discuss this with them. Admin action is only needed if discussion fails to resolve the issue. Fences&Windows 14:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, it looks like that the user is promoting a service. Edits need to be investigated. Based on the Talk page, the user seems to be doing disruptive edits and seems like it did not stopped doing it after numerous warnings.--CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has tried talking to them, including you, CrystallineLeMonde. That's expected before bringing an issue here, so please do that now. What evidence do you have for promotion versus this being a fan? You need to provide diffs and analysis if you're going to allege a COI. Fences&Windows 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the user who knows the topic related to the current report: @Emperork: I'm not familiar with Philippine broadcast / channels' programme blocks, so this user may help us out. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The issues I have encountered so far with this user has been about adding unsourced information especially on local broadcast of international tv programs. I did notice that he contributes on both rival local TV network programming here in the Philippines which is ABS-CBN and GMA but his contributions are more skewed towards toward the former. This edit says "ANO BA, KAPUSO. HALATANG ATAT KAYO. GIVE NAMAN SOURCE, OKAY? *shocked*" which translates to "Hey, Kapuso. You're obviously in a hurry. Please give a source, okay?". Kapuso is a collective term for GMA viewers/fans. The all-caps in his edit summaries are new to me. — Emperork (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This user is deleting my comments on a Talk page, and possibly spamming.

• Jargo Nautilus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jargo Nautilus has been deleting my comments (twice) on a Talk page. And he is flooding the Talk page, with personal attacks, making it very hard to talk. He has made at least 36 edits on that Talk page since the first deletion (about 15 hours ago). I think he is spamming, or vandalising the Talk page experience.
This is the first time he deleted my comment. The reason he gave in the edit summary was Removed defamation and reference to my user account without hyperlink.
Does seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion mean defamation??? I was just stating my view avoiding to use any bad word. He was constantly personal attacking the video maker mentioned in the Talk page (a felon, a fugitive and a fraud --see here), but not really discussing the issue he brought up.
Even if my words were too harsh for him, I don't think he has the right to delete my comment.
Then I found his action of deletion, and I put evidence of his crime (in this link, you can see evidence he was deleting other users comments too, in the section Someone is deleting others' replies and messing up this Talk page) in a new section on that Talk page.
But later, that whole section was deleted by him. This is the second deletion.

I haven't made any article changes recently. All the deletions I mentioned happend in the Talk page. I hope his vandalism can be stopped. --In wkpd (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I only deleted comments that referenced me personally without a hyperlink, or comments that were replies to my own comments which I had deleted. The initial set of comments that I deleted were already collapsed within a "soap" template, so they weren't visible in the first place. I deleted that section of comments since I was the one who started the section. In fact, on that note, I will mention that I actually started the section as an independent section with an independent header, though another user, without my permission, moved the section into a subheading under another heading. I never intended for the section to be a subheading under a different header. There has been a double standard regarding other new sections that other new users have launched. I'm not sure why the decision was made to move my section specifically under the other header. In any case, the original intention of my section was tainted when it was moved under the other heading. The discussion was also clearly going nowhere, so I terminated it early on. In fact, there were not many comments in the section, when compared to the numerous other sections that have been launched roughly at the same time. Meanwhile, regarding the deletion of comments that reference my username without a hyperlink, the reason for doing this was that I wasn't actually able to see the comments in my notifications. When users hyperlink your own username, you typically get "pinged". I was not pinged when In wkpd started talking about me behind my back. When I came across the offending comment, I deleted it, though I also left a comment alongside the edit stating my reason for the removal of the offending comment. Furthermore, as other users on the page have stated, we should avoid talking about other users and should discuss the topics at hand. So, I think I did the right thing in this regard since I chose not to carry on with the irrelevant discussion about myself. After this occurred, In wkpd posted an entirely new section where he again started discussing my username, though this time, he did actually ping me. I ended up deleting this section but then transferred it to my own user page, in order to continue the discussion outside of Talk:Taiwan, since other editors have requested that we do not discuss topics that are irrelevant to the primary discussion that has been going on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, I do admit that I have been making a lot of edits, though I would not necessarily call it spam. I have a habit of writing a lot of brief comments in quick succession, i.e., like a thread. This is just a bad habit of mine, however, it's also caused by the fact that my internet connection is not so good, so I worry about whether my edits will be saved if I sit there writing for more than twenty minutes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thirdly, yes, I was "personally attacking" the videomaker, true. However, given that he was being used as an author of a source on the page, and, in fact, the one that sparked this entire 15,000-word discussion, I have been trying to discuss the veracity of both the source and of the author himself. Here, I have actually found a pretty good reaction video to Nathan Rich's video. Maybe you guys here don't care, but I personally thought it was relatively comprehensive. It's nearly half-an-hour long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvcCQPhbBmM Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I could probably make a couple of points, but I will leave it at this for now. I don't wish harm unto anybody. I'm just trying to break down the facts here. I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this Nathan Rich guy. As far as I can tell, he's a propagandist of some kind, or a "grifter". I don't know much about his background, though I have encountered him quite a while ago, so he's not exactly someone new to me. On the other hand, it seems that he might be new to In wkpd? I really don't know. Anyway, my point is, don't just trust the things people say at face value... You've got to actually investigate these things. Try to think objectively and independently and critically. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, these "personal attacks" that In wkpd is referring to were mostly targeted towards Nathan Rich. I honestly don't have the energy to personally attack any of the users (Nathan Rich is not a user but rather an author who was cited in a source). I've had disagreements with several of the users though I would not call these "attacks". Generally speaking, I've been relatively civil, and I've been providing quite a lot of analysis of the topic that we've been discussing -- we've been discussing Taiwan's political status, as well as some other topics that are related to this. None of this analysis is backed up by sources, though, with that being said, no one else has really been backing up their analyses by sources either, for the most part. And it's already been established that Nathan Rich's YouTube video does not constitute a reliable source. So, overall, when In wkpd says "Jargo Nautilus has been making a lot of personal attacks", it should be clarified that these attacks have been generally targeted towards someone who is not actually a user on the talk page. As such, these attacks do not really qualify as "ad hominems" or whatever you'd like to call them. They're directed towards the author of a source that was cited. I've been accusing the author of having nefarious motivations and a criminal record. I'm not sure if this goes against policy or what, but I think it is important that we don't give extremists a platform? Honestly, correct me if I'm wrong here; maybe you're allowed to post sources that were published by extremists? I know that a Wikipedia page about "The Donald" (Donald Trump's alt-right fanbase) exists. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, so, the comment that In wkpd was referring to, regarding the lack of a hyperlink, was this one: "They might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world". Well, that was kind of a joke. Frankly speaking, they might really be thinking this is a common sense, and mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count, because their media don't have free of speech. That's just one of my speculation, it's better to let them explain themselves. But OTOH, I think their action might already be abusing Wikipedia as a tool to spread their idea, a really common idea in WP though, see Systemic bias # The "average Wikipedian". Not 100% sure though, I'm still learning. There're also users like Jargo Nautilus who started the section Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?, and seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion." Essentially, there was more to the comment than just "refuses to listen to other POVs". He was accusing me of being some kind of delusional freedom fighter. Also, he was accusing me of believing that mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. FYI, I myself am ethnic-Chinese, although I was born in Australia. -snip- What I'm trying to say here is that I'm not some guy who believes mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. In fact, I am opposed to the Chinese government, which I view as totalitarian, though this primarily stems from my political affiliation with the Anarcho-Communist movement, and doesn't have anything to do with racism of some kind. I do not believe that the Chinese government represents the majority of Chinese people. Instead, it represents a minority of oligarchs within China who are only interested in attaining power for themselves. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's 3:26 AM where I live, currently. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"not really discussing the issue he brought up" - What exactly do you (In wkpd) mean by this? You do realise that I've written two entire essays explaining my view of the Taiwanese political situation? Additionally, I've been replying to almost every message that has been addressed to me or is a reply to one of my previous comments. I've been conversing with several people at the same time, which is part of the reason why I've made so many edits. However, it must be said that this debate has been stretched thin across multiple sections. I've been trying to keep the discussion pinned down to a single place. Also, I cited an article from Taiwan News explaining exactly how Nathan Rich qualifies as a "felon". https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3941420 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I was recieveing ping after ping of "Jargo Nautilus has edited WP:ANI." (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is your text small? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

After your wall of text it was necessary to conserve space in every way possible. EEng 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to try and get some sleep now. In all honesty, I've got no idea why In wkpd cares about this issue so much. It literally has nothing to do with him, as I've explained. He himself says that he only recently just started reading up on the political status of Taiwan and the relations between Taiwan, China and America. He's also launched far more attacks -- and vicious ones too -- against me than I have against him. Like, honestly dude (In wkpd), I don't care about you. It's not a crime that I don't care. It's just a fact. I've got a lot of stuff going on right now and you're not very high up on my list of priorities. Anyway, peace. I'm going to sleep. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jargo Nautilus, without reading too much into the content of the conflict, your removal of other people's comments on a talk page is against talk page guidelines, especially if they've been already replied to. You can ask other users to strike out their comments, but you are not allowed to remove them yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, makes sense. But what about comments that have been collapsed in a soap template? Also, the guy who did that didn't really give a super good reason (if any?) for doing so. Also, what do the rules say about moving sections of conversations around the talk page and placing them under other headings? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the "soap" accusation against me could easily apply to any of the other editors there. It's a mess... I've been trying to shut down the conversation from the beginning to no avail. That's why I've been questioning the legitimacy of the original source that was cited, which sparked this entire conversation. I will admit that I've gone off the rails at times, though this has generally been a response to others doing the same. In wkpd himself wrote like three or four essays within the space of a day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This ANI filing is a complaint by User:In wkpd about removal of their comments on Talk:Taiwan by User:Jargo Nautilus. An example is in this diff. I suggest that Jargo is risking a block if they do this again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify what happened here, I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. I left a brief message explaining what happened. Though, admittedly, I might have failed to ping In wkpd. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=next&oldid=991116073

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJargo_Nautilus&type=revision&diff=991116125&oldid=991040271

Here's another relevant edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATaiwan&type=revision&diff=991037758&oldid=991036355 This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo, . Your constant posting, posting, posting, longer and longer, is making it impossible for administrators to be able to sort through it and help you, and the fact you're posting what results in a truly massive wall of text - I have a fairly large monitor, and it almost completely fills the screen - especially without allowing the other party to respond is bludgeoning. You really should have posted a much more consise explanation of your position in the first place; as it is now, go and have a cup of tea and wait for discussion to proceed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Nautilus" is my given name, "Jargo" is my surname. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, focusing on issues like these will not due you any good, please defend yourself in a clean and precise manner if you want to prevent being blocked. I would suggest taking a wiki-break from editing while reading up on some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to lock the page Talk:Taiwan temporarily? The entire talk page is an absolute mess, with random people coming in from all over the place trying to make radical changes to the long-held consensuses of the article. These discussions were initially sparked by a YouTube video that was made about Taiwan by an American YouTuber based in China that went relatively viral; in the video, he suggested that Taiwan's status be changed from "country" to "part of China". As a result of this video, one user vandalised the page. Another user reverted this. Then, discussions were opened up about the political status of Taiwan, and this derailed when In wkpd decided to cite the aforementioned video in order to "start a conversation". A second user came along and opened up a new section specifically discussing this YouTube video and the points made within it. I made early attempts to bring the entire conversation to a halt, though my objections were ignored. I then made an entire section dedicated to criticising the YouTuber who made the video, and this section ended up being censored through a "soap" and "notforum" template. It must be said, though, that this entire time, I did not make edits to the article itself, and my activities were limited to the talk page. Overall, this entire situation is extremely messy and I think it should be scrutinised more closely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, the talk page seems fine. Every talkpage is open for anyone to comment on an issue or to raise an issue. However, this is not the issue at hand and I will not be commenting on this further. Please focus on how you can improve your behavior on Wikipedia. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I did not appreciate other users referencing my user account in order to make an example out of me. What can I do in the future in order to deal with this problem, which is clearly aggressive behaviour? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, while I didn't read your rebuttal, you can cite WP:AGF. However, I find this unlikely, you do not WP:OWN talkpages or mainspace pages. Please be weary of this. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797Alright, that makes sense. In any case, I do think the comment left by In wkpd amounted to an ad hominem attack, though perhaps not so specifically against me since he merely made a general statement "People here refuse to listen to the opinions of others...", and then cited me as the one specific example of "people". The next time something like this happens, perhaps to a more severe degree, I will take it to the ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, do you understand what you need to do to improve? I am asking this so we can close this very long discussion. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I'm going to study hard and lie low. The only way to fight the system is to beat it at its own game. Thanks for the useful conversation. Sorry for dragging it out so long. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I am also going to take up meditation again. This stuff majorly stresses me out. No idea how you guys can do it on a daily basis. Props to you all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, Okay, now I am worried about you saying "beat it at its own game." Could you please elaborate on what you mean about this? (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - Basically, I'm not exactly an idiot, but I'm really hot-headed and do/say a lot of stupid spur-of-the-moment things. That's where the meditation comes in. This entire situation was basically just bait, which I fell for relatively easily. Also, other users on the talk page had malicious intentions, though they were a lot more cunning with how they conducted themselves. I'm not saying I intend to break the rules. Rather, I intend to outsmart my opponents. Which is why I need to study. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, EdJohnston is completely correct. What you did here is unacceptable, and copying it to your talk page or whatever just makes it worse (since no attribution is given). This also is not acceptable. Your walls of text are awful, your diversions irritating ("This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist."--we don't care). I have reverted your most recent contributions to that talk page, because they contain insults and personal attacks and add nothing to any discussion on the topic. So here is my warning: if you make another personal attack on that talk page, remove someone else's comment, or post material that does not directly pertain to a discussion on article improvement, I'll gladly block you from the article and its talk page. And in general, it seems to me that you are already on very thin ice here; any further infractions or examples of incivility are likely to lead to a block. And in the spirit of this edit (or this rather ironic correction), I don't care if you say "yes sir" or "yes ma'am", but I strongly urge you to be economical, whatever you want to say. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean no attribution was given? In the edit history? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, please familiarise yourself with copying within Wikipedia, where [a]t minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page.

I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. That's not how it works on here. You can reproduce the text from other editors elsewhere, but you can't remove it per talk page guidelines again (unless you have their permission). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I did leave a message afterwards as an edit, though I forgot to write a comment in the edit summary. I said that I had migrated the conversation over to my user page. In any case, I won't do it again. Thanks for clarifying this information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: leaving a message afterwards is not sufficient. Unless it's your own user talk page, do not remove or refactor content other editors have placed on talk pages. Period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bushranger Noted. Under what conditions can I add a "notforum" template over comments that are off-topic? Do I need to be an admin in order to do this? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In all seriousness, if you have to ask then you don't have enough experience to be doing that. EEng 00:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I know how to do it... I just wasn't sure whether I had permission to. Another user placed my comments into a "notforum" template, which is why I deleted the entire segment of comments encased within the template. The reason cited for putting my comments in a "notforum" template was "far-right nonsense", a claim which wasn't supported by any evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday, I asked JN to read WP:NOTFORUM here, but it is evident there is no abatement of the disruption on the non-Nathan Rich talk page material. As Drmies suggested as an option, I would rather JN be at once partially blocked from both Taiwan and Talk:Taiwan for some time. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There were multiple discussions going on that could fall under the definition of "notforum". And what do you mean by "abatement"? Also, I request that I don't be blocked. I don't plan on adding any additional comments, though I may want to remove or edit some of my pre-existing comments. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Abatement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, there are limitations on removing/editing even your own comments if they've been replied to. You can find guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You shouldn't remove a comment that has received a reply, and you should edit in specific ways -- for instance, striking through what you want to remove, underlining what you're adding. —valereee (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Noted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanna take a break from Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I have to make sure this discussion is not closed. Is there anything I need to do? In wkpd (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd I just want to point out that this entire dispute started with an ad hominem attack which you directed against me. You said I "might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world"" among other things. You specifically referenced my user account (despite the fact that multiple other editors had been defending the status quo of the Taiwan article, not just me), so I regard that as an ad hominem attack against me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you here again? I'm not talking to you. Saying the same thing over and over again is very annoying and will not make you more convincing. Now I see you're quite concerned about that "unfree" sentence. There's completely no problem with what I have said. The only person that is making personal attacks is you, and you have been constantly doing so. I'll soon make a rather comprehensive reply, today or tomorrow, covering your concerns about this issue, so wait for that, OK? And please don't give me any reply until then. Please don't distract me. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I'm an anarchist, so I'm neither pro-China nor pro-West. My views are anti-authoritarianism across the spectrum. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, there's nothing you really can do. If someone thinks it's ready for closing, it'll be closed. Your availability isn't part of the equation, I'm afraid. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Winding up as the rare double WP:GRENADEing perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If I get it right, WP:GRENADE means I have not made a decent reply since I first posted here? Well, that's because Jargo Nautilus has made so many unnecessarily long replies, and if I reply to her, I can only make 1 reply each time, and I'm genuinely afraid that she will start making more again. So I didn't think it was a good idea. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I was thinking, it's good for everyone to take a break for some time. But, OK, I'll make a formal reply today or tomorrow. But it won't cover everything she has mentioned, which I think is unnecessary. Let me know if you think there's anything specific I should reply to. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, I get that you're very new to Wikipedia, and I suspect you realize you've made a mistake. ANI is a terrible place for new editors, I'm afraid. If you're asking me for advice, what I'd advise is a mea culpa: "I'm sorry, I didn't know what I was getting myself into here. Can I back out of this, with apologies for wasting everyone's time?" No blaming anyone else, just an apology and a request to be excused. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pkeets

I believe that Pkeets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is either in need of some serious guidance regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or an American Politics 2 topic ban for WP:NOTHERE reasons (alert). (Note please: I am not asking for a WP:NOTHERE sanction, they have been around longer than I have, but multiple editors are agreeing their behavior in the American Politics area is over the line and showing deep disregard for wikipedia policies.)

Problematic/WP:POVPUSH behavior:

1. Accused PhilKnight of having "a biased viewpoint" (17:46, 25 November 2020) after being warned by SnoogansSnoogans for edit warring on Nahshon Garrett‎ (User talk:Pkeets#Edit-warring on Nahshon Garrett, warning at 14:46, 25 November 2020). Similarly, they placed a retaliatory "warning" on SnoogansSnoogans's talk page (17:48, 25 November 2020).
2. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#Servers seized by the US military?: "POV is showing" apparently in response to this edit. Followed by making commentary about something Powell apparently said on a Glenn Beck segment.
3. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#"Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer' while other sources have called her a conspiracy theorist": accused editors of "[belittling] her accomplishments because she's taken on Trump's legal fight", accused GorillaWarfare of an "edit war" for reverting in the WP:BRD cycle, accused both GW and AleatoryPonderings of editing the article "to be a reflection of short-term battles going on in the media", repeatedly engaged in WP:POVPUSH on the idea that somehow Wikipedia should represent Powell's claims as plausible despite all WP:RS coverage otherwise.
4. 24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#RfC: Describing Powell as conspiracy theorist?: lack of understanding of WP:RS policy along with "There's apparent clarification on Powell's role from the Trump Team today, but it's not being covered by main stream media, so I guess it doesn't exist, right?", and accused editors of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot."
5. 23–24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#This article seems biased and short on who Sidney Powell is.: repeated accusation of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot", and some comments about "Look what that does to Wikipedia's credibility" after being pointed to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
6. 26 November 2020, on Voter Integrity Fund: accusing others of conspiring to prevent them from "establishing links" to de-orphan the article, and trying to direct individuals to "check the history" for supposed "preliminary findings" of the group ([101])
7. 26 November 2020, regarding Voter Integrity Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund, accused other editors of "suppressing" the group's supposed "findings". ([102])
8. 25 November 2020, attempted to create a section on GoFundMe [103] for the purposes of listing right-wing grievances, specifically only listing the organization's removals of campaigns for "Voter Integrity Fund" and the perpetrator of the Kenosha unrest shooting.
9. 15 November 2020, repeatedly pushing the talking point at various articles that Biden was somehow not President-elect despite WP:RS concurrence that he was/is; claiming that describing Biden as such is a violation of NPOV (examples, there are far more in contribution history): [104] [105] [106] [107]
10. 22–23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Primary vs. secondary sources, lack of understanding of primary vs secondary sources, and Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing. Making unfounded claims about the origins of the report to try to portray it as a secondary source. Commenting, "You don't want readers to know it's easily hackable?"
11. 23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Article references biased alt left news sources rather than scientific sources. The claims in the articles are scientifically absurd, apparently trying to recruit a SPA with an unrelated complaint to support their argument, with the comment "Please join the discussion in the section above where editors are blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking." [108]
12. 24 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Disappearing paragraphs on reliability, accusing editors of "disappearing" material, again misrepresenting sources (up to and including trying to use a paper that was analysis of an entirely different company), again conflating primary/secondary sources and independent/self-published sources. To quote GorillaWarfare: "I am concerned with this ongoing behavior: both the attempts to use shoddy sourcing to influence readers into believing Dominion is "easily hackable" (per your admission on this talk page), and now increasingly making accusations against editors who are trying to enforce quality sourcing that they are "blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking" and "disappearing paragraphs"."

They are also the creators of the pages Sidney Powell and Voter Integrity Fund, both of which are problematic. The creation of Sidney Powell had precisely five sources [109]: two to her personal website, one to her business website "federalappeals.com" (which is attributed in the copyright notice to "Sidney Powell P.c."), one to her blog page at observer.com, and one to an IMDB biography page. None of these sources managed to establish notability at that time and none were WP:RS.

Just before creating Sidney Powell, they promoted Voter Integrity Fund conspiracy theories [110][111].

Their creation of Voter Integrity Fund [112] also appears to fall into the problem behavior. Their text did not match well with the sources; they took only the quotes positive towards the project (despite the overall sources' tones being highly skeptical), and sourced some information to dubious pages such as a small bio on the "Leadership Institute" website. Edits since by Pkeets have been reverted for falsely representing sources [113] [114], for bad sourcing and copyright violation concerns [115]. They have also tried to slide in a link to the group's self-promoting videos on Youtube [116]. The page is currently up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund) and the only supporters of keeping it are Pkeets and a throwaway account that was created solely to vote there (Stevenola).

The primary purpose of Pkeets's editing appears to be precisely two things: promotion of conspiracy theories regarding voting in the 2020 election, and by extension Sidney Powell and the "Voter Integrity Fund", two main promoters of those conspiracy theories. I leave it up to the administrators and community how to proceed. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, @Doug Weller: and others who indicate that this should have been filed at WP:AE. I filed it here after asking advice from GorillaWarfare on where the proper place to file it was. If I have made a mistake or misunderstood her advice, please do not take it out on her.

I agree with your assessment especially after realizing my own mistake in misreading the length of their contribution history, which is why I asked for them to receive some serious guidance regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources as the first thing, and even extended the first paragraph of my own post to make it 100% clear that I was not asking for anything related to WP:NOTHERE. I feel I have to directly and fully reject the characterizations or aspersions cast by others in this thread that I am somehow being vindictive about this. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• The editor Pkeets is using Wikipedia articles to promote conspiracy theories about fraud in the 2020 election, as well as voter fraud in general (see the editor's history on the PILF[117] earlier in the year). The editor does this by (i) removing reliably sourced content that reflects poorly on groups and individuals who make unsubstantiated and false fraud claims, and (ii) stating poorly substantiated conspiracy theories in Wikipedia's voice or by attributing them to these individuals without any kind of qualifier that the claims are disputed (see for example how the unsubstantiated claims of a pro-Trump group of randoms get characterized as research/investigation "findings"[118][119]). The editor engages in some edit-warring[120][121] but not any clear-cut 3RR violations as far as I can tell. The editor also engages in behavior that borders on canvassing, such as seeking help from WikiProject Conservatism[122] and contacting likeminded users[123]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that I am WP:INVOLVED for the purposes of this complaint, so this should not be taken as an uninvolved admin comment. I have been a party to several of the discussions listed above.
  I share IHateAccounts' concerns with this editor. I was actually quite surprised to find that Pkeets has been a prolific editor for quite some time (though with a bit of a hiatus from October 2016–June 2020), because their blatant POV-pushing and poor use of sources struck me as the behavior of a newer editor. It could be that they got somewhat rusty with policy over that hiatus, though not that much has changed and they were never really fully inactive.
  Anyway, that tangent aside, it does not seem that they can set aside their personal beliefs on what happened in the 2020 election in order to edit productively in this topic area. Their contributions are disruptive and time-consuming for other editors to deal with. Adding to what Snooganssnoogans said above about their attempts to canvass at WikiProject Conservatism, that linked discussion is not the only attempt Pkeets has made there. The last three sections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism were started by them, and significantly misrepresent the disputes. Several editors challenged Pkeets' changes to Public Interest Legal Foundation because they were unsourced, included claims not in the provided sources, and/or used poor-quality or primary sources; Pkeets described this as "Apparently there is resistance to any kind of editing to extend it or improve the POV" ([124]). The issue with sourcing at Dominion Voting Systems, described by IHA above, was portrayed by Pkeets there as "unreasonable demands for sources" and included further misrepresentations of the sources ([125]). Finally, in their section there on Sidney Powell, Pkeets again says Powell was "being framed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist" ([126]).
  I think at least an AP topic ban would be appropriate. I have not yet looked too much into their editing in other topic areas to know if these issues persist there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• From what I can tell this is a common issue with IHateAccounts. After seeing how active they are on user talk pages trying to get people they disagree with sanctioned I decided to take a closer look at their contribution history and what I found is a disturbing trend of bludgeoning, attacks, and way to much time on user talk pages discussing other users. All this after being warned[127][128] about such things and even blocked[129] for it they continue their apparent crusade as demonstrated above.
  • Bludgeoning - Mostly at Talk:Parler & Talk:Proud_Boys from what I can tell in the short time they have been editing those talk pages they have shot up to well within top 10 editors overall.[130][131]
  • Attacks on other users, general battel ground behavior, and just adding to a toxic editing environment. These were taken just over the past two weeks.[132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146]
  • Finally they are spending way to much time on user talk pages either trying to get people sanctioned or just stirring up drama. It is also a good illustration of issues they have with various users that they then seem to follow around just to argue with.[147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160]
• This really needs to end now. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  I will keep this brief to avoid encouraging editors to derail this thread with complaints about IHateAccounts, but I have disagreed with PackMecEng's characterization of IHA's behavior once already: User talk:GorillaWarfare#Re: Bus stop. I'm not even sure how PackMecEng found themselves at my talk page to leave that comment, but I don't understand their criticism of IHA's (frankly wise) choice as a newer editor to consult with more experienced editors about issues in a fraught topic area; that is behavior that I believe should be encouraged, if anything. Furthermore, they fail to mention that the concerns IHA had with Bus stop turned out to be quite founded, resulting in a recent AP2 topic ban for Bus stop (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler) which was upheld after an appeal (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Bus_stop). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  When it keeps happening it goes from wise to harassments and problematic as I have shown above. I do not know why you would want to encourage such toxic behavior in such a controversial topic area. It is frankly disturbing and baffling from an admin and an arb. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am well aware that, as a right-wing editor, PackMecEng dislikes me (especially since I am nonbinary). They even have taken to blaming me for the fact that some of their friends have been sanctioned, which I consider incorrect. In their series above they make gross misrepresentations; for instance, when I commented to Drmies regarding Geno4445, it is because their SOLE edit on Wikipedia - EVER - is this [161] in which they ramble on about the very conspiracy theories promoted by Powell and end with "For if this corruption is not purged, then the United States stands to be subjected to such people like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro" at Sidney Powell. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. It is a prime example of the editing issues I demonstrated above. I appreciate the (especially since I am nonbinary) part since I have no way of knowing, never talked about it and could not care less about it. WP:ASPERSIONS like that are a big problem. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: You provide a wall of diffs for the initial accusation up at the top of the thread, but none for this one? If you don't have any, this is an incredibly inflammatory comment, and a blatant personal attack. jp×g 23:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I for one would like to thank IHateAccounts for saving me the trouble of reading the diffs to determine if PME's analysis was accurate. Q.E.D. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Similar commentary seems to have continued on GorillaWarfare's talkpage about this AN/I thread: I'm walking away. I knew there was a likelihood posting this would lead to multiple right-wing editors coming in to scream, but I think what I need is a hot soak with a lush bomb.[162]. About that battleground attitude... --Pudeo (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Warned IHA once again on their talk for making personal attacks. IHA, I really don't care what you think about PME, but keep it to yourself. —valereee (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• NOTHERE? That's just shameful. Here we have the OP, a month old account that already had to be blocked for personal attacks and harassment, and Pkeets who has been editing more than a decade and who has created almost 1,000 articles with a clean block log. I beg to differ who here is not to build an encyclopedia. People have opinions about American politics and that shows in content disputes, but obsessing over them like this is not healthy. Pkeets is likely to "lose" the AfD, is that not enough? --Pudeo (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:AP2 applies to everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • IIRC, IHA has been around a whole heck of a lot longer as an IP, and was encouraged to create an account by several well-respected editors, some who have commented here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It's hard to say. Sometimes they are referred to as new other times not. Seems situation dependent. PackMecEng (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• This thread starts off with Note please: I am not asking for a WP:NOTHERE sanction -- so it sounds to me like the desired outcome is a TBAN (not sure why this wasn't brought up at AE if that was the case). In that case, the disputes this thread were spawned from are the primary issue at hand. While I don't really love to get political with my editing, and I think it's important to avoid derailing an AN/I thread, I think it would be impossible to discuss the dispute in question without mentioning OP's conduct. For example, on the talk page of the article this thread is about, they have been heavily involved in multiple disputes, in a distinctly WP:BATTLEGROUND way: using the page as a forum to insult the subject, hatting and removing entire sections after disagreeing in a BITEy way with the comments in them, describing posts they disagree with as "rants", et cetera. They've even gone on other users' talk pages and described Pkeets (the editor this thread is a complaint about) with recursive scare-quotes as being "on the "but affidavits" and "but 'the media'" kick yet again". All of that is literally just in connection with this one article; not to get off-topic with other stuff here, but it seems to me that IHA experiences broad difficulty participating civilly in discussions about WP:AP2 subjects. I have held back on making a post like this for a while (I don't have an enduring interest in getting mad about politics on Wikipedia), but in a very short time period this editor has started (or brought extreme acrimony to) a large number of vicious disputes, and I think it might be necessary to take some action in that regard. jp×g 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Long-term editor or not, IMO GorillaWarfare's post above already provides sufficiently convincing edivence of tendentious editing by Pkeets to justify an AP topic ban for Pkeets. Of course, ANI is an extremely poor venue for obtaining consensus for topic bans related to conentious POV laden areas. These discussions usually get quickly sidetracked by the participation of editors from both sides of the dispute who often have significant POV and conduct issues of their own. I don't have much hope that this thread will fare much better in this regard. A much better course of action here would have been to file a request at WP:AE asking for an AP2 topic ban to be enacted under the discretionary sanctions in effect. Pkeets was formally notified about those discretionary sanctions back on September 24[163]. Quite possibly the OP deserves the same kind of a topic ban. I just wish people used AE for these purposes instead of producing train-wreck interminable ANI threads. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to me to be a straightforward case with more than enough diffs to support TBANing both editors from AP2. What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If i may correct your spelling, Levivich, "What Wikipedia needs is fewer battleground editors". Otherwise, amen and hallelujah to your comment; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support AP2 ban for Pkeets, I'd need to see more about IHateAccounts. Template:ReIHateAccounts this really should be at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban longer than 3 months. Reviewing Pkeets's contribs prior to November, they seem to be an excellent contributor. Looking at some of the diffs in the OP, Pkeets's recent conduct doesn't seem as bad as the framing would suggest. Some of their edits may have battle ground qualities, but no "worse" than many of the left leaning editors in the AP2 arena ('Worse' is in air quotes as I wonder if one of JFK's fave quotes currently applies to AP2. ) That said, Pkeets does seem to have been pushing a PoV concerning Trump's election fraud line that is contradicted by the vast majority of WP:RS. Even if they want to retain those beliefs privately, they should recognise that advancing said view is a lost cause on Wikipedia. If they can't do that, a short topic ban might be an efficient way to stop further disruption. Lastly, I applaud IHateAccounts for taking this to ANI rather than going straight to AE. Good to give Pkeets a chance to moderate their editing after some community comment, without necessarily having a sanction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Support t-ban for both IHA and Pkeets - "a narrow topic ban on matters relating to the 2020 US Election, perhaps time-limited until 21 January" for Pkeets per Black Kite, and a 30 day AP2 t-ban for IHA to cool their heels since their block did not remedy the problem. ^{added 18:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)} - aren't we supposed to graduate remedies for disruption. Since this is his (Pkeets) first, why not just a week ? Some of the accusations and proposed remedies are seriously undeserved. This is not a consistently problematic editor. Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited AP2 topic ban for at least Pkeets. Haven't waded through the other diffs yet so am neutral for IHateAccounts at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• This really belongs at AE. However, from a quick look at the provided diffs this does appear to be an editor in previously excellent standing who has fallen down the election conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole, with the result that they are coming up against Wikipedia policies which they are clearly aware of. The behaviour at Voter Integrity Fund as regarding misrepresentation of sourcing is pretty poor, as is attempting to either introduced conspiracy theory material (or remove the fact that things have been described as conspiracy theories). I would support a narrow topic ban on matters relating to the 2020 US Election, perhaps time-limited until 21 January. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban on IHA and yet another strong warning to stop with the personal attacks. Accusing PME of being motivated by personal hatefulness is beyond the pale. Why are we putting up with the relentless ABF from this editor? Support also a short AP2 tban for Pkeets, maybe things'll return to normal for them in a couple of months, but for IHA from everything I've seen this is the norm. —valereee (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, your iVote may accidentally be counted as an S for Pkeets in lieu of IHA, considering a boomerang has not yet been called, and may inadvertently be overlooked. Atsme 💬 📧 15:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Like my bad ping to Valereee. *sigh* Atsme 💬 📧 15:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban for Pkeets, at least 3 months or longer. Oppose anything more than a warning for IHA at this point. POV pushing and tendentious editing propagating fringe views like Sidney Powell conspiracy theories represents a much greater danger here, and we should absolutely not allow Wikipedia to be used in this way. In relation to IHA, I have not seen more that overzelousness, incivility and some personal attacks. Certainly worthy of a warning, but it's not the same as misuse if sources and pushing a fringe POV agenda. Nsk92 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nsk92: IHA has been warned multiple times before as well as blocked for it. Even their mentor GW commented about their actions in this very thread that they need to provide diffs or remove their aspersions above.[164] PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for Pkeets for 3 months. Agree completely with Nsk92. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 ban for IHA. In the short time IHA has had a named account their behavior has been nothing but confrontational/battleground. They have accused multiple editors of trolling/being trolls. They have refactored/deleted talk page threads (sometimes legitimately but as often questionably after others have replied). Since they were editing as an IP it's hard to say what their behavior was when it was hard to track them as a single editor (though I have found at least one instance of accusing another editor of trolling) I can provide diffs when I have more time. Springee (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Pkeets Supporting baseless conspiracy theories shows WP:CIR issues for the topic area. Is IHA really any worse than Valjean, as far as conduct goes? It's clear IHA needs to tone the rhetoric down, but I'm not sure that's worth a topic ban on its own unless this continues. I think IHA's claim comes from a reddit user with the name "PKMEC" calling IHA a "tranny" on various wikipedia related subreddits. I don't think the account is likely by PacMec, and is by an anonymous troll look to stir up trouble. I think that IHA should apologise to PacMec. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic bans for both We have a terrible habit here of overlooking bad behaviour because we agree with the editors POV. This needs to stop and IHA's response to PackMecEng would lead to a sanction if it came from an editor with a different POV. A topic ban for Pkeets is a no brainer. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for both editors I suggest that the topic bans expire on January 21, 2021, with an explicit warning to both editors that future infractions will result in very long blocks. Endorse the comment by Levivich, "What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from." We need to be less forgiving of political battleground editing, no matter the editor's political persuasion. That being said, passionate advocacy of summarizing reliable sources is inherently less problematic than passionate advocacy for including content from unreliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic bans for both for 90 days to get us beyond the inauguration and any fallout that may happen immediately after.--MONGO (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic bans for both editors It helps everyone stay civil when we make it clear that there are no special exceptions to behavioral expectations. It's hardly surprising that political subjects raise hackles and occasionally invite WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior; strict, time-limited topic bans would be a measured and appropriate response to that reality. I'm sure Pkeets and IHA can find other subject areas where it's easier for them to contribute constructively in the meantime. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 00:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I am slightly involved, in that I !voted at the AfD and noted Pkeets' strong advocacy - such as including in the article detailed biographies of two non-notable (no Wiki article) people involved with the organization, and objecting when they were removed. I conclude from the discussion here that Pkeets is a productive editor who has temporarily lost sight of WP:NEUTRALITY due to the emotions of the moment. I think it would be best if they either were temporarily blocked from editing articles related to the 2020 election, or voluntarily agreed to refrain, until after the inauguration. I see that Pkeets has not so far commented here, and I would like to hear from them before an outcome is decided; maybe they will voluntarily agree to a restriction. As for IHateAccounts, I have no opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding IHA (Alternate proposal)

I am not usually willing to do this, but I suppose this seems like an exceptional case. I would actually be completely willing to co-WP:ADOPT IHateAccounts. It seems they have had a negative experience recently, yet I see a lot of potential with this editor here. Wikipedia is stressful, and we sometimes say and do things we later come to regret. I see IHA's problem as not being able to WP:AGF in this topic field, but my sense is that is something they could improve on given enough time. Though, in the meantime, an apology to Pac is very much in order.
Would this be something all the parties (except Pkeets) would be willing to agree to? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Very noble of you, MJL. Just curious...are you aware that Gorilla Warfare, a proficient arb/admin, is their mentor now? Also keep in mind that we're not discussing a new editor in IAH, as they have been editing for quite some time as an IP, thus the new user name/registration, thanks to GW's persuasion. Perhaps a bit of cool down period will provide both editors some time for introspection, and for IAH to feel less emboldened or inclined to run to an admin for the slightest disagreement on a TP, and hopefully will become a bit more sensitive to the opinions/feelings of other editors whose POV simply don't align with their own. I recognize the problem because, in the past, I've had the occassional bout of overzealousness in the highly controversial AP topic area. Pretty much all of us have been there, but I'm very pleased to see that progress is being made because more admins are seeing that it takes 2 to Tango, and that realization alone will work wonders in helping to erradicate a big part of the problem. I applaud them for their excellent work in that area, and for taking on the risk of being pigeonholed with a particular political party because they didn't take one side over the other. Atsme 💬 📧 11:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IHA and I have no sort of "official" mentor/mentee relationship like adopt-a-user, which is what it sounds like MJL is proposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

GW, I adopted a highway once, but encountered some bumps along the way. Valereee, that's a very kind offer. Have you considered running for ArbCom? j/s Atsme 💬 📧 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

MJL, if IHA will agree to this, I'll strike my !vote. —valereee (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Well not the mentoring that is a good idea, but the use of mentoring as a way to get around a topic ban. A couple of months away from a hot button area they have trouble editing calmly is still beneficial to encyclopaedia. Mentor them in other areas or when/if they come back to this area. Otherwise it still smacks of allowing bad behaviour to occur because we support a particular POV. A topic ban of a few months is not a death kneel for an editor if they prove productive elsewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Well, I was hoping to be able to work with IHA in this topic area to find some constructive ways for them to be able to contribute to it. Can't really do that if they have a topic ban. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Then its not really a mentorship, but a way to help them edit in a topic area they have been shown to have a battleground attitude to. This is not a bad thing, but also not a reason to overlook their problematic behaviour. There are plenty of articles out there, many of which are much more important and in need of editors than the mess which is AP2. If they are serious about reforming then they should have no problems returning after a short break. Then you can help them in this topic area if the mentorship offer is only for AP2. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Few people know this, but MJL was raised by the Qowat Milat, a sect of fierce Romulan warrior nuns known for absolute candor and binding themselves to lost causes. I'd support M mentoring anyone, but what I unfortunately don't see is a willing mentee. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mentee. Please, Levivich, I thought you were better than this. EEng 06:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You always were an optimist. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else needs to be aware, I responded to MJL on my talk page and plan to discuss with them. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support mentorship for IHA as opposed to a TB. IHA clearly has the energy & intelligence to be a great editor. Better AGF would be a big help to them. It would be a shame to disrupt MJL's plan to work on that; they might not have time for mentorship 3 months down the line. It's rarely easy to help someone passionate about politics to see the good in the other side, yet there's few nobler undertakings. Joe "bipartisan" Biden's plans to do this are seen as pre-requisites to successful solutions to the other great issues of the age like Climate. Reducing polarisation isn't something Biden and his crew can achieve on their own, it needs many individual grass roots initiatives such as MJL's. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Article ShareChat is written by undisclosed paid editors.

Splaybeats007 and Rahulnag07 are paid by ShareChat. I have links to prove the accusation. I am not linking to avoid doxing them here publicly but I'm open to email any/all admins. -- Eatcha 14:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Also see https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/ShareChat/ -- Eatcha 14:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I doubt if there is anything to do here given that neither editor has edited for three months. ShareChat does appear to be notable but the edit-war involving Rahulnag07 was a good amount of time ago and the article has been edited by many others since then. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

101.100.139.52

101.100.139.52 hasn't been very civil recently with their edit summaries. I can't remove their problematic edit summaries, so an administrator may need to. Also, something is a little bit fishy with their behavior in general. I don't honestly know if they're here to build an encyclopedia with others. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the one problematic edit summary from view. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior/stalking by user TowlieRocks

The following is my third, at the minimum, report of disruptive behavior and stalking by the, as his page will attest, frequently disruptive user TowlieRocks, who sees fit to follow me across Wikipedia and revert valid edits with neither a reason nor an explanation for having done so (see, most recently, The Jesus Lizard (EP)). My humble recommendation would be a well-deserved IP ban, which would serve both as a preventative measure against further instances of vandalism and disturbing/unhealthy behavior and a consequence of sufficient gravity that the user in question may finally be compelled to rethink his or her deleterious life choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I see no action required here, given that many of your edits have been reverted by multiple editors for understandable if not good reason, and this seems at worst a content dispute. While I'll withhold comment as to whether it's warranted here, in the future make sure your own edits and conduct is reasonably beyond reproach before making a discussion here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Justdoinsomeedtits. You need to provide some links to the behaviour in question. A general link to a page isn't useful. I see you reverted this and called it vandalism. Of course it really just removing unsourced material. And it's not the readers job to click through and see if it is true. Find a source and preferably one that explains why they did that. "Enquiring minds want to know" You reverted on his talk page here which is something you shouldn't do. If they want to remove things from their talk page they can. You want an IP ban but you haven't bothered to tell us which IP. Nobody here will know the IP they are using. Except a checkuser, who wouldn't know unless they checked and in this case they have no reason to look. Even if they did they are not going to be broadcasting it here (or anywhere). I could ban some random IP if you like, maybe mine? You should be careful about how you type here as in a lot of cases people who announce they are humble are lying. Not that I think you are. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring using different IP addresses

168.205.128.14 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 31 hours on 11 November 2020 for edits to a set of electricity-related articles. 181.30.28.199 (talk · contribs) has just repeated the same edits to the same articles. These are the only edits '199 has ever made. Jc3s5h (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, but this seems to be a larger issue. See Malebosun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has the same edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This user also has some of the same edits Exposduets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Constant314 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of talk page access for John H P P

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

---

User was blocked indef a few months ago, I think in light of [165], it might be best to remove talk page access. Greyjoy ^talk 10:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible vandalism by blanking page of Robbert Rietbroek

Editorwikifact is already notified to not blank the page. Seems like a single purposed account and possibly sock too. Sliekid (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

Response: after Administrator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao flagged Robbert Rietbroek as an orphan article, consistent with Wikpedia:Merging policies I tried to Merge and Redirect this short article about the Quaker SVP into the Quaker Oats Company article to improve Wikipedia and avoid unnecessary orphan articles and left a comment on Administrator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao user talk page to notify the Administrator of the edits. It appears that user Sliekid uses a sockpuppet user:SwashWafer, as both have made the exact identical edit on source page and made the same comment on source article discussion page. User Sliekid has twice removed my contributions to Quaker Oats Company article. Editorwikifact (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Sliekid, Please remember WP:NOTVAND, vandalism is intentionally defacing a page. Since you are by now edit warring, and neither of you was at any of the affected talkpages, here's my question: Do you manage to come to an agreement alone or do we need to protect the page in order to force you?. No comment from my side on the actual dispute here (though I have an opinion). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Victor Schmidt for the clarification and reminder on what constitutes WP:NOTVAND. The intent here was to follow WP:Merging guidelines, avoid duplication and improve Wikipedia via a Merge and Redirect of the small source article which was flagged as an orphan by the administrator whilst protecting all of its content into the destination article. The Quaker Oats Company article already had a prior mention of the subject under key people. The content Quaker Oats Company#Leadership deleted by Sliekid has been restored and I will invite Sliekid on the talk:Quaker Oats Company page to discuss how to further improve Wikipedia content on the Quaker Oats Company and its executives without duplication. Editorwikifact (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite you citing WP:MERGE guidelines multiple times, you've also seemed to have not read it whatsoever yourself. Which says No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below. You're now continuing to edit war despite it being contested by another editor. Also re your edit summary; Victor Schmidt is not an administrator. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 20:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dylsss as per admin Victor Schmidt approved WP:Merging, I have merged Robbert's page to Quaker Oats Company. As the previous AFD decision was not fair by editors and admins. Seems, like they lack proper wiki understanding. So, As per now its best decision to keep it merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.102.167.145 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello whoever you are, again: (1) I am no administrator here (2) Individual administrators do not have the ability to decide what happens with a content (3) I do NOT share my opinion on this with you, since I dont consider me part of the dispute. Hope that helps. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As said, Victor Schmidt is not an admin, neither do admins have the power to decide what happens in a content dispute, they too have to abide by consensus. As per now its best decision to keep it merged is subjective, that's why merging should be discussed if someone has reverted the move. If you want to contest the outcome of an AFD, then that would be WP:DRV, but it has a specific purpose so please read the page. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

AFD decision was to keep the page. Not to merge the page. If you have problems with the AFD decision please follow WP:DRV. Don't just make disruptive edits by blanking the page. Sliekid (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Its quite clear that user @Dylsss:, :@Sliekid:, and :@Victor Schmidt: are socks as they are opposing my decision. Admins should take quick action and block them for indefinite to teach them a lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.102.167.145 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I guess Materialscientist is a sock as well for reverting your edits. Accusations of sockpuppetry with no evidence is not assuming good faith, if you have any actual evidence, you can present it at WP:SPI. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't actually said whether I think the content should be merged, nor have I reverted your edits on that page, and Victor Schmidt has said they don't consider themselves part of this dispute. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 11:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dylsss, Sliekid, Victor Schmidt, Materialscientist, @191.102.167.145:. As per Nosebagbear on talk:Robbert Rietbroek#Merging, blanking, re-instating etc etc the Merge and Redirect isn't vandalism Sliekid. Replacing a page with a redirect whilst migrating all the content to the new page Quaker Oats Company#Leadership is not the same as intentionally blanking and WP:NOTVAND. Completing a Merge and Redirect as per Wikipedia:Merging policy always involves the source page be replaced with a Redirect. Rather than engaging in an edit war, there is a now a new proposal to merge the article Robbert Rietbroek into the Quaker Oats Company article and a discussion on talk:Robbert Rietbroek#Merger Proposal to avoid duplication of content and multiple articles on the same subject. I would invite others to contribute to this dialogue. Editorwikifact (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I should note that if you're going to start citing statements by other editors, EWF, you should do so in a balanced fashion. Taking the parts that support your actions and ignoring where issues have been identified (such as the bypassing of standard merging rules when it clearly would be controversial) is extremely poor form and makes me concerned about your GF in the remainder of the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries that are either problematic or absent

I'm not sure what to do with Jay D. Easy (talk · contribs). They are a relatively seasoned user with plenty experience, yet some aspects of their behavior are troubling. They've been chastised by other editors a few times for nonsensical/insulting/rude edit summaries--see notes on their talk page by User:Tarl N., User:Doug Weller, User:7&6=thirteen, User:DMacks, in May 2019; for a lack of edit summaries by User:Eric in November 2019; for POINTy edit summaries by User:Pdebee in December 2019; for uncivil edit summaries by User:The ed17 in January 2020; for "inappropriate and uncivil accusations" by User:Richard Keatinge in April 2020; absence of edit summaries by User:Peaceray in October 2020, and again in November, also by User:Jetstreamer. Note their dismissive answer and a kind of threat in these responses.

I saw all this because I followed up on two edits yesterday: this and this. In both cases they are reverts of edits by User:PiercingEyes, and I can't see anything obviously wrong with them. I asked them about it yesterday after I reverted one of them, and got no response; the editor was back here, working, but didn't respond or self-revert, so I reverted the second one, and warned the editor. No response. I don't know exactly what I am looking for here; I am not eager to block, but there is a longterm pattern of uncollegiality and disruption here. Edit summaries like this one, that's really not cool, and this revert seems really unjustified to me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say final warning then block. Multiple patterns of refusal to discuss editorial concerns about their edits that are on-their-face problematic. Even if many/most of the un/poorly-explained ones wind up being okay, it's WP:DE to waste everyone else's time, especially given at least one other editor's note that there are content (not just ES) problems in some of the edits. Make it a clear requirement as a final opportunity to demonstrate collaborative behavior: "every edit must have a non-sarcastic plain-language explanation of the basis change being made." DMacks (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, with an added stipulation - non-confrontational. It's been over a year, but I still remember my interaction with this editor - I was thoroughly unimpressed. There are editors who can make useful contributions, but for some reason feel a need to antagonize everyone. His dismissive "don't take it personally" was particularly inappropriate. Over the long term, I believe such editors are a net negative to the project. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Be helpful: explain is part of the Wikipedia:Editing policy. Both Twinkle & RedWarn use {{uw-delete1}} through {{uw-delete4im}}, & they both have {{uw-editsummary}} & {{uw-summary2}} available as well.

Although Help:Edit summary describes a leaving a summary as a good practice, it in itself is not a guideline or policy. It is clear in its advice Always provide an edit summary; It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. Furthermore, in its hatnote, it states It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. I think that we also need to look at WP:CONDUCT.

Regarding not leaving edit summaries

• WP:CONSENSUS: deleting or changing broad amounts of material without explanation violates WP:EDITCONSENSUS & calls for the revert portion of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• WP:Ownership of content not leaving edit summaries indicates an attitude of ownership that entitles one to make changes without explanation.

Regarding behavior towards others

• WP:Harassment: Jay D. Easy's User_talk:Jay D. Easy#Reversion on The Collector (TV_series) comment towards me why would you knowingly commit a bannable offense just to prove a point? Imagine if I hadn't re-reverted your flagrant violation of WP:LINKVIO certainly seemed to be a threat.
• WP:Civility Please see User_talk:Jay D. Easy#What's with your edit summaries? where rather than responding to an editor's request to explain an edit, Jay D. Easy instead attacks the other editor's edit. See also User_talk:Jay D. Easy#Inappropriate and uncivil accusations.

I think the best course of action would be simply for folks to consistently to revert Jay D. Easy's unexplained or misexplained edits with the summary "Unexplained changes. Please discuss on the talk page as part of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." & to add standard user warnings to their talk page. I do not think that this would be WP:BRD misuse because any edit that was adequately explained would past muster.

I believe that this would remedy things, as Jay D. Easy would either tire of getting reverted for unexplained or inadequately explained edits & would start providing worthwhile edits. Alternately, Jay D. Easy could be warned repeatedly to the point that a need for a temporay block would become self-evident. If the former is enough to ensure adherence to the Be helpful: explain editing policy, so much the better. If it takes the latter to enforce change, so be it.

Peaceray (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, Peaceray. There is no evidence this editor care about how others act in response to their edits or the long-term survivability of them. And BRD is not a strong standard (compared to other behavioral guidelines and policies); no need for what feels like a passive–aggressive approach as compared to more direct approaches. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I posted this, Jay D. Easy has made a few dozen edits, moving articles, and saw fit to archive their talk page; it's here. In other words, they are as uncooperative and uncollegial as before. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Apologies, all. I'll start using common edit summaries more frequently from now on. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: I'd be more comfortable (and I suspect the other people who have piped up as well) with a more specific description of what you believe you have been doing wrong and how you are going to fix it. Going with "common edit summaries" is not what we are looking for. We're looking for an end to disruptive behaviour, and I have yet to see an acknowledgement from you that you even understand what you are doing wrong. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the unclear edit summaries, unnecessarily harsh summaries, and sometimes altogether missing summaries. I admit that I'm frequently inclined to use tw as my catch-all edit summary, and that I take WP:ESL quite literal in that regard. Yet I also recognize that "more specific and useful edit summaries are preferred". I can't and won't try to justify my sometimes-insulting/rude/incivil edit summaries. I recognize these add nothing of value and only detract from what we're all here to do. Please know that I will accept and abide by any disciplinary action, if such is decided upon. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to have a clear final warning that if this behavior happens one more time, Jay will be blocked immediately. Why? Because what I wrote last January applies equally as well today as it did eleven months ago:

On the edit summaries, I'm glad to see that you recognize that there's a problem. However, you also recognized and apologized for your edit summaries just one month ago (December 2019) and have faced questions about them last February and May. And those are just the times someone felt compelled to leave a message. Will you commit to using civil and constructive edit summaries moving forward?

Notably, Jay never responded or answered my question. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that we don't see what Human Resources Departments like to call a "get-well plan". That's a problem. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the defense of abbreviations when a fuller explanation is needed, but willingness to provide lengthier edit summaries when they're purely comments on other editors' competence, as Ed's link from January shows. Jay D Easy, you've been here long enough to know why edit summaries are important and why they shouldn't be abused. You say you recognize that. We need to hear you say you will start using edit summaries productively and stop using them disruptively. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

False accusations & disruptive behaviour

Hello - hope this will be considered, even if from an unregistered user.

User talk:Slykos is being disruptive by:

• Forcing puffery (and inappropriate date format) into articles (and the content is inadequately supported, and from a highly suspect source)
• Making false allegations of vandalism.
• Posting inappropriate warnings.

For further details please see section headed 'Zinash Tayachew' on [166] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.138.5 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: the user has deleted the discussion. So for details please see [167] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.138.5 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, it took me a moment to retrieve that from the talk page, but you have a point. (This concerns Zinash Tayachew.) I suppose what started all of it was this unwarranted and unexplained revert by User:Slykos; everything after that was just Slykos covering up, in a way, including with this completely spurious request for article protection. Their suggestion that the IP place a POV tag on the article rather than remove the obviously promotional and non-neutral information is unjust. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.138.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Then I apologize for any lack of clarification. Slykos (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't apologize to me; I'm not the one who was unjustly reverted and threatened with administrative action. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(Directed to the IP address) What do you hope to accomplish in this? There was no talk page notification informing me of this discussion (there should be, as protocol demands), there was one revert, because it was written from NPOV, and there should have been consensus on this topic. Slykos (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn't threaten anyone with admin action, it was the default template for vandalism, and blocks aren't used until warning4, and I only got to warning2. Again, I am sorry. Slykos (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@86.173.138.5: Will you accept the apology? Slykos (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

LTA by Moroccan IP

The following Maroc Telecom IP addresses have been used to vandalize video-game-related pages in an almost identical manner since at least September of this year. This editor adds non-existent categories, adds alternate names that are simply misspellings, and seems to firmly believe that almost every game was released for the original Playstation and that "arcade" and "arcadia" are synonyms.

196.74.71.14, 160.177.182.59, 41.250.122.79, 105.157.247.66, 160.178.179.99, 196.217.142.214, 41.141.89.224, 196.217.183.172, 41.250.242.4 (previously blocked), 41.250.242.4, 196.64.203.193 (previously blocked), 41.248.156.228, 41.251.148.27 (previously blocked), 41.251.165.91, 41.141.37.26, 105.159.206.38 (previously blocked), 196.217.135.207 and 196.64.94.134 (previously blocked)

Compare this edit: [168] to this one: [169], this one: [170] this one: [171] and this one: [172]

- Sumanuil (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrewlumbo21 / community interaction

Andrewlumbo21 (talk · contribs)

Editor has received about ten Talk behavioral warnings or Talk questions in 2020[173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182] and similar in 2019.[183]

Editor's practice is to remove Talk feedback without offering comment, as editor does not participate in either article Talk[184] or user Talk.[185]

Editor also does not generally use Edit summaries[186] and has been repeatedly asked to do so.[187], [188], [189]

The community presumably would be happier and more efficient if the editor began to offer edit summaries where appropriate and responded to questions on their Talk, rather than continuing to blank their Talk without reply such as seen here [190], [191] and here.[192], [193] UW Dawgs (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Required ANI notice received the same treatment.[194] UW Dawgs (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

31-hour block for disruptive editing. They seem to be editing daily so with luck that'll get them to engage. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, if that doesn't work let me know and I'll partial block from article space for a month. —valereee (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps POV pushing despite being rangeblocked from certain articles.

See User talk:2409:4051:4E93:5F27:B8CC:F7EA:C92B:E47, and Special:Contributions/2409:4051:4E93:5F27:B8CC:F7EA:C92B:E47. The IP, despite being blocked from certain articles, keeps on POV pushing. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a broader temporary block has been put in place. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Kavkas and the Ingushetia article

This user repeatedly adds references to youtube ([195],[196], ,[197], [198]) and does not respond on the talk page to the issues I've raised (Talk:Ingushetia#Discovery_of_agriculture, Talk:Ingushetia#Gelia_on_the_map). I believe that this user should be warned about using unreliable sources and engaging in OR, and urged to participate in discussions. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I really do not like this and this. If the user can not understand that we do not take these accusations lightly they should not be editing Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I don't like that, either. Alaexis, I don't see that when you opened discussions, you ever pinged the other editor? They may not be refusing to discuss but simply don't realize you're trying. Youtube can be used sometimes -- for instance, an upload of a recording of a tv news show that is considered an RS and uploaded by the official account. I can't assess the youtubes this person is using as sources, maybe you can and they aren't that? —valereee (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't tag them directly (I should've) but I mentioned the discussions in my edit summaries (for example [199]). Given that most of this user's edits are to this very article and this is not a new user, I find it unlikely they weren't aware of what was happening on the talk.

The video is definitely not a reliable source. It was uploaded by an unknown youtube user and there is no attribution. The recording it contains sounds like the voice of Yevgeny Satanovsky (ru:Сатановский, Евгений Янович), but I see no reason to use it when there exist books and scholarly articles about this topic. Alaexis_¿question? 13:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and Vandalism

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

---

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

---

• This user Gibby McDonald repeatedly adds Model on Khloé Kardashian page without add any sources and it's not notable as her occupation and she does not respond on the talk page to the issues. She wanted to talk on the Khloé Kardashian's talk page but when I replied there she deleted the conversation.(Bistymings (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) The user in question is Gibby MacDonald. @Bistymings: Please notify Gibby on their talk page about this report per policy at the top of this page and when you were in the editing screen to write this. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point, neither Gibby MacDonald (talk · contribs) nor Bistymings (talk · contribs) has edited Talk:Khloé Kardashian (history) despite the claim made in the complaint. Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since both editors have been edit-warring over this for weeks, and neither of them seems able to use the talkpage, I have partial-blocked them both from the article for a month, which hopefully will make them use the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  You beat me to it. I can't see that they've ever interacted on a talk page other than Bistymings'. Bistymings, I'd suggest you open a section at Talk:Khloe Kardashian and ping the other editor to it. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

• Black Kite, Valereee, Cabayi I will tell you something. I have tried to talk to Gibby MacDonald on her talk page, I did use Talk:Khloé Kardashian and I did ping another editor to it but Gibby MacDonald deleted the conversation on the talkpage. (Bistymings (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

  Bistymings, I see no edits by you at Talk:Khloe Kardashian. Here are all your talk page edits: [200]. Perhaps you just thought you posted there, and when you didn't see it when you went back, assumed the other editor had removed it? —valereee (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee No I really posted there after Gibby MacDonald asked me to talk here. I even asked another editor to join the conversation since Gibby MacDonald never replied my messages on her talk page. But when I went back the conversation on the talk page was already gone. (Bistymings (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

  Bistymings, show us the diff. You should be able to find it in the article talk edit history or your own contributions. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee I don't know why I can't find it anywhere but after Gibby MacDonald wrote "discuss on the talk page if you have any issue with the occupations" I did go to this talk page and replied her there. But I have no idea why it's all gone now. (Bistymings (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

  Bistymings, the possibility you posted there, they removed it, and both edits have simply disappeared is a nonstarter. You made a mistake. Which is fine, we all do. But next time, look for the diffs first. —valereee (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Valereee I just feel like I don't need to be blocked from editing since I have tried so hard to talk to Gibby MacDonald to stop reverting things on this page. (Bistymings (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Bistymings, but you haven't. You may sincerely have believed you did, and that they refused to discuss, but you didn't actually post to the talk page. I suggest you go do that now. You can appeal your block; there are instructions on your talk. I'm closing this now, please continue at your talk. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Even if you didn't see we did communicate on the talk page you still can see I tried to talk to Gibby MacDonald on her talk page and yes she refused to discuss and keep did edit-warring instead of try to reply any of my messages.(Bistymings (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Bistymings, you have now refused to stop discussing at a closed discussion twice. Please stop. You cannot appeal this block here. You must appeal it on your user talk. —valereee (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Bludgeoning and personal attacks by Swan1111

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

---

Swan1111 is evidently an SPA created to defend the Victor Carlström page from deletion at AfD. In the course of this crusade, they have repeatedly attacked and threatened users and suggested that they are serving some hidden agenda, e.g.:

• Special:Diff/991648635 – I have reported your account to Wikipedia and your suppression attack and demand they delete your account as a result
• Special:Diff/991078702 – Stop supress Victor Carlström, you destroy credibilty for Wikipedia by doing this. Shame in you by try to delete his page with false accuations
• Special:Diff/991652634 – Action is taken against these usernames to have them deleted
• or the rant I collapsed here – That is a false claim by Praxidicae in his paid suppression attack against Victor Carlström

All of their contributions are either similar attacks or bludgeoning any possible venue by adding as many links about Carlström as they can (usually, at least half of them go to black hat SEO sites). This suggests to me that they may not be here for the right reasons. Blablubbs|talk 15:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I just have one question, where do I pick up my check as a paid-deletion-operative? Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Take a left, go down to MU Inc. financial office, request your $0.00 paycheck from Mr. Denkbeeldig. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Evidently they reported you to Citation bot. {{cn}} indeed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So is Citation bot gonna pay me now or what, I got Christmas gifts to buy...Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please direct any inquiries about payment directly to the relevant OTRS queue at deepstate-enwikimedia.org. Blablubbs|talk 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Completely unacceptable. There are many ways to constructively argue against deletion of an article, even one you are very passionate about. None of them include accusing every person you come across of being part of a grand conspiracy, nor blasting users' talk pages with identical WP:TLDR rants about Wikipedia's credibility. Indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I am part of a grand conspiracy, but they didn't know that, so it doesn't count. ;) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Can someone remove TPA from User:Allmaterial?

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

---

This user seems to still be vandalizing their talk page. Heavily. Invalid^OS_talk 17:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued incivility and personal attacks after administrator's final warning

Isento is regularly incivil towards me, including making abusive and derogatory personal attacks, despite previously being given a final warning from an administrator regarding this issue. Currently, on Talk:Beyonce, he is calling me a "liar" 1 and writing to me sarcastically saying, and I quote: "I am overcome with immense guilt and profusely apologize for my abhorrent behavior. I should be punished. Perhaps a spanking is in order?" 2. He also modified other people's comments 3. I warned him about his incivility 4 after the "spanking" comment, but he continued with his incivility. QEDK and BD2412 warned him about the editing of others' comments also 5. Isento has previously harrassed me over discussions on Beyonce-related articles. This includes writing on my talk page: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?" 6. This comment was preceded by him following me to a different discussion than the one we were involved in on another Beyonce-related article in order to further irritate me, through disrupting my edits and writing uncivil comments both on the talk page and in edit summaries 7, 8, 9 and 10. I warned him about his incivility many times (such as here: 11 12 13) but he typically deletes them quickly and has left an incivil comment on my talk page in response. I discussed this with Ad Orientem on my talk page, who issued Isento a final warning for a block regarding his actions towards me 14. Now that Isento is suggesting that he is not willing to engage civilly with me or contribute to discussions without disrupting them with personal attacks, I hope something can be done about it. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Total hypocrite. This user baselessly accused me, repeatedly, of being misogynistic and racist -- all because of a completely valid content change I made -- before I ever was rude to them ([201], [202], [203]), and Ad Orientem barely lifted a finger to defend me from that. At the recent Beyonce talk page discussion, they started making rude and bad-faith suggestions again: I can no longer tell whether you are doing this on purpose or you still don't see it ... just because they support the "Beyonce can't write and is a thief" claim you so desperately want to include? Then, after I gave a thoughtful, respectful response to their concerns, they responded by suggesting it's a joke: Is this meant to be a joke? You never elucidated your concerns thoughtfully. I even asked you to clarify what your concerns were in the previous discussion yet you never answered nor actually responded to my points, and instead continued with your typical personal attacks and insults on my intelligence. Then they misrepresented me as agreeing with another editor's remark because, according to them, You agreed with that comment not because you said "thank you" but because you listened to it? Along with another jarring remark: I'm not going to stoop to your level with your typical insults to my intelligence because I guess it makes a change from the obscene rants filled with personal attacks, profanity, sexism and ableism? isento (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Your conduct has unquestionably been problematic, and for an extended time now. You have modified and/or struck comments by another editor in a discussion, which is uncalled for. My sense is that an interaction ban or a topic ban is called for here. BD2412 T 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor's comments expressed concern for how the RfC was titled and phrased. I modified those aspects of the RfC to appease their concerns and struck their comment so it would not distract from the discussion being able to develop in the RfC. My intentions were good. isento (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Tbh, @BD2412:, I don't think you're doing too great a job, levying your judgements solely at me when Bgkc4444 has had a toxic, accusatory attitude all throughout our interactions, explicitly making baseless offensive accusations about being racist or against the article's topic/subject... and hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it. I'm only human, but how much tolerance do you expect anyone to have if they keep talking the way I've highlighted? isento (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation for striking the comments of another editor provides insufficient grounds for such an action. You also removed a sentence from their post, which is impermissible. You are welcome to respond to comments made by others, including to state that they are no longer applicable. You are not entitled to strike them or otherwise modify their text. BD2412 T 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh, check your facts buddy. See that diff you cited? I was removing my own sentence so the RfC would be phrased to their liking. Gosh, I really hope more careful investigation goes into this, @BD2412:, before you guys just blindly believe them. isento (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clarifying that. However, that is still no basis for striking the comment of another editor. BD2412 T 18:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you explain to me the basis for being accused of racism, misogyny, ableism, wanting to libel Beyonce as a thief, having your attempts at thoughtful discussion be painted as a "joke", etc.? isento (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444 was lying. There was a consensus at that earlier RfC, which they deny. They are also misrepresenting Ad Orientem's message to their talk page, which said: Where is the history of hounding? This looks like a content dispute to me and an RfC is a perfectly legitimate way of handling that. Not only did I started an RfC all those months ago, but I also started the most recent one. I haven't attacked them since Ad Orientam reprimanded both of us, however long ago that was. But this person hasn't been able to control their tone and bad-faith suggestions from marring whatever valid content concerns they've actually had. isento (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it. isento (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding. I was busy and started writing but didn't realise that an action had been reached. I'll add the response I would have given just to have it here.

@Isento: I think you're forgetting that I was replying to your false claims about how Wikipedia works but you refused to listen, continued with your condescending comments, insults to my intelligence and other personal attacks, before I made any of those comments. Again, you misunderstood what I meant; by "listening" I meant doing what that other person said. You did what the person suggested (using Beyonce's collaborators as a source for her songwriting) but then recently told me that using Beyonce's collaborators as a source for her songwriting is not acceptable when I wanted to do so to write positive things about her songwriting. "I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." - It was many, not one. And yes, your continuous incivility towards me made editing on Wikipedia a horrible experience for me and took a toll on my mental health. Again, there was no consensus. Polling is not consensus and you were the only one who espoused your view who engaged in the discussion section. And I haven't said you were hounding since that conversation. "I haven't attacked them since Ad Orientam reprimanded both of us" - I think from the material above you certainly have.

@Ivanvector: Thank you very much for your assistance. @BD2412: Thank you also and apologies for getting you involved. Bgkc4444 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks after warnings from several administrators. For everyone else: if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts, the correct response is to report the incident to administrators. There are many incorrect responses; posting a diff that shows you repeating behaviour you were previously warned about and then mouthing off to the administrator challenging you is definitely among them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  And to respond to the counter-complaint: @Bgkc4444: there are editors on this project with vastly different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds and situations, and widely varying viewpoints. All editors are expected to assume good faith, which generally means that we expect you to assume that everyone is here to build an encyclopedia above all else, unless there is very good evidence to the contrary. I read isento's comment from August (this one) criticizing a source as "just some neurotic vapid lecture about Swift "oversharing"", which in the next edit you described as "[isento] dismissing this article by saying "it just isn't a serious piece of commentary" because the work of a black female writer "is just some neurotic vapid lecture" and said it "sounds extremely misogynistic and racist". I may have missed it but I don't see where isento referred to the author of the piece at all, let alone mentioning her gender or ethnicity; it seems you "assumed bad faith" here. Isento's hand-wave dismissal, sarcasm, and blatant harassment spanning the next few months are of course not acceptable and they've now been blocked for it, but please bear in mind two things: 1) our policy on civility is a requirement for everyone; and 2) if you do encounter an editor making misogynistic and/or racist comments anywhere on this website, or you are experiencing harassment, please do report it here or email an administrator privately. We do not tolerate hateful viewpoints here (WP:NONAZIS) nor will we tolerate harassment. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:TheEpicCuber

Would somebody care to block User:TheEpicCuber? They're clearly WP:NOTHERE diff diff. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Done, though this could been at WP:AIV as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about Creative Commons Licensing

Hello!!

I am a Bureaucrat and Administrator on the Hell's Kitchen Wiki over on Fandom and I've come across an issue with the Hell's Kitchen (American season 19) article. I have noticed that several parts of the article appear to have been copied from the wiki, and when I tried to add a reference so that way we'd all be in compliance with the CC-BY-SA licensing, which requires attribution, it keeps getting undone with the justification that Fandom is not a credible source. How can I add the required attribution without it being an invalid source? Zacatero (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zacatero: What text was copied from Fandom? Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Zacatero, Give us the exact article that's been copypasted, it'd be very appreciated. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Was there prose copied from Fandom, or is it just the table data? As I understand it, information doesn't rise to the level of being copyrightable, but prose does. The table format looks consistent with other en.wiki articles, so I don't see anything there that would need attribution. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)