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

Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

• Boogaloo movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MWise12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I thought about opening a report at ANEW because much of this issue revolves around edit warring, but it's a bit less cut-and-dried than issues I usually bring to ANEW.

There has been continued disruption both from MWise12 and Netoholic over at the page about the Boogaloo movement. Both editors appear to be determined to whitewash the article away from describing the movement as "far right", and are continuously reverting without joining discussions on the talk page, or without gaining new consensus for contentious changes that have already been discussed at length on the talk page.

MWise12 background

MWise12 first appeared on the page to first soften the wording identifying the movement as "far right". I reverted, asking them to discuss on the talk page. At this point there had already been discussions about the descriptor on the talk page, largely from bad-faith SPAs but some in good faith; here is a snapshot of the page at the time MWise first made a change. I assumed at that point they hadn't seen the talk page discussions. However, MWise, instead of discussing, edited the page once more to remove the descriptor completely.

They then tried to introduce WP:OR interpretation into the page regarding the 2020 boogaloo killings, by insisting on including a Facebook post by the alleged perpetrator, and there was a brief edit war:

• MWise12 introduces the change: [1]
• GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
• MW revert: [2], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
• GW revert: [3], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [4]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

Netoholic background

Netoholic first edited the page on 17 June, in what quickly also became an edit war in which they tried to remove the photograph at the top of the page.

• Netoholic removal, 21:26, 17 June 2020, summary no reliable source presented that these specific pictured individuals to be part of this movement. see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Legal issues
• GW revert, 21:29, 17 June 2020, summary source image specifically identifies the subjects as members of the movement (https://www.flickr.com/photos/16086041@N00/49416109936/); sources cited in caption also verify that members of boogaloo groups were at this event
• Netoholic revert, 21:30, 17 June 2020, summary As I said, no RELIABLE source is presented. what the photographer thinks is not reliable.
• I created a talk page section, 21:32, 17 June 2020. Full section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image
• Britishfinance revert, 21:34, 17 June 2020, sourcing has been demonstrated by the source (and the source was at the protect in person).
• Netoholic revert, 21:38, 17 June 2020, Unacceptable. A random photographer on Flickr is not a reliable source for such an assertion. See WP:Wikipedia:Image us policy#Legal issues and ]]Wikipedia:Image use policy#Moral issues]] for even tamer examples of inappropriately describing people in photographs using potentially defamatory language.
• Britishfinance revert, 21:43, 17 June 2020, summary Example text

I will note for full disclosure that Netoholic posted on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#reverts) to write How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement?. I hadn't realized, but I had accidentally breached WP:3RR—I had not realized that reverts from the previous day had been within the 24-hour time span. Since then I have been more careful to check if I have reverted too much, and also more hesitant to revert in general

I will note that Netoholic was rude and WP:ABF in the discussion, writing its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup) when I had suggested a potential compromise, and pinged the others involved in that very same discussion to see if they were okay with the suggestion. Throughout the conversation (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image), Netoholic moved the goalposts around what would assuage their concerns, making my attempts to come up with a suitable compromise completely impossible. However, my attempts to do so turned out to be unnecessary, as the discussion resulted in a pretty clear consensus to keep the original image in the article. I thought this was the end of it, until Beyond My Ken posted in that discussion: having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Sure enough, Netoholic had opened a deletion request on Commons to try to subvert enwiki consensus. Though the discussion appears to be still open, aside from Netoholic it is unanimous that the image is appropriate and should be kept.

Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [5] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

June 26 disruption

In an attempt to keep this from getting even longer than it already is, I will not go into similar detail about the intermediate editing of the page. However I will note that both editors actively participated in talk page discussions throughout this time, and so were aware not only that there had been substantial discussion about the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead but also that those discussions had not resulted in consensus shifting away from using the term.

Fast forward to yesterday, when MWise12 showed up again to undo a whole slew of work by myself and other editors: (edits between 2:09 and 2:48, 26 June 2020‎). This included, once again, removing the "far-right" descriptor from the lead. They did not initiate a talk page discussion before making this change once more. Another edit war ensued, this time with Netoholic showing up almost immediately after my revert to join in the edit war:

• MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
• After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement#Department of Homeland Security's statements
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
• Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
• Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
• Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
• Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
• Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
• MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
• NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

Now, I fully accept that it's possible the sourcing may have shifted away from describing the movement as "far-right", and posted earlier today to write that I intend to do a full audit of the sourcing in the page as well as a search through more recently-published coverage to determine if the weight has shifted away from describing the movement as far right. I also believe it is probably time to get formal consensus about the inclusion of the descriptor, though I want to do my audit first to determine if I still support it being used.

However, I wanted to start this discussion around the behavior of MWise12 and Netoholic first, because the edit warring and disruption from the two of them is really getting in the way of constructive collaboration on the page. The refusal to discuss before making controversial edits, and the continuation of edit wars while discussion is occurring, is getting extremely disruptive. I will also note to any reviewing admins that the page is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, if that is useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• In regards to the claim of Original Research, I was not doing independent research but rather citing two reliable sources. Mercury News and ABC both specifically mentioned Carillo's Facebook posts in connection to the killings. Mercury News stated "The complaint points to Carrillo’s Facebook posts, in which he voiced support for violence against law enforcement and made references to the Boogaloo movement, as evidence of his motivation." The ABC News report stated "On his Facebook page on May 31, Carillo reposted a meme that said, "I'll never let racist white people make me forget about the dope white people I know exist. I love y'all." The post includes fist emojis of different skin tones, and both of the "whites" in the meme were crossed out. Carillo wrote, "The only race that matters, the human race."

In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.

  As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:

  • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
  • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
  • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
  • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
  • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
  • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([6])
  • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
  • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Verbosity does not equate to legitimacy. You've made your claims, and are certainly welcome to try and defend your actions, but how about you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:FILIBUSTERING. You are not the arbiter of this situation - your determinations are subject to the views of others. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It's a truism, I think, that muddying the waters tends to dirty one's own shoes as well... ——Serial ^# 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• If you are going to make false claims against me, I am going to correct them. That is not bludgeoning. As for verbosity, well, that I am guilty of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't it really time to show Netoholic the door with a site ban, after years of these convoluted extreme disruptions on a wide array of articles, talk pages, and noticeboards? SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's that bad, SPECIFICO; I mean, I've seen, on occasion, some weird POV edits made from that account, but if you want a site ban you'll have to come up with a strong case. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO, An AP2 ban is much more likely to fly. Guy (help!) 22:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I hope that also will cover things like "bias of Wikipedia" and race and gender issues. Those are the only article page areas in which I've encountered him. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO - Well, when you only edit in those political subject areas its natural that's where you encounter -everyone-. I don't specialize. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Commons has its own inclusion policies and community. In the interest of protecting Wikimedia from potential legal and moral issues, I took it to that community to make their own determination. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  Netoholic, seriously? You expect us to believe that? Guy (help!) 22:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I certainly don't, especially not after this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
  Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [7], [8] (discussing [9]), [10], [11] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [12] and [13]), [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

@Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I have as an individual Arbitration Enforcement action placed Boogaloo movement under indefinite 1RR. I have also topic banned Netoholic from the topic for 3 months and placed them on indefinite 1RR in that topic area. The community can, of course, choose to impose other sanctions. I have no comments at this time on Mwise or Gorilla Warfare. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but having been away, am only seeing this now. I have edited on this article with GW, and concur with the evidence posted by GW above. Both editors demonstrated a sustained desire to whitewash this article regardless of any factbase (or even consensus), put forward, including:

• The forum-shopping regarding the attempt to delete photograph showed an extreme determination, which even the Wikicommons community objected to here.
• Bad faith statements noted by GW above that: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex, despite the good referencing in the article.
• Repeated attempts to re-insert a controversial DHS tweet into the lede, despite having no consensus for it, that it conflicted with a large number of references from WP:RS/P sources, and despite referenced concerns put forward them it was politically movitived (As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement).
• The statement above GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" (i.e. as if every source has to call the movement far-right for it to be valid) is another example of an extreme determination to dismiss all evidence in favour of their own agenda (bordering on sealioning behaviour).

I cannot see how such conduct is appropriate in the already difficut areas of AP2 editing. WP works when a discussion is had over references with a good faith desire to chronicle what they say – take away that good faith, and it collapses. GW is a strong editor, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious to these editors; I am not sure other editors (myself included), would have done that, particularly given the significant amount of IPs/SPAs that this article attracted all trying to whitewash it (eight most viewed page on the entire project) Britishfinance (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that after Netoholic failed to achieve consensus on enwiki to remove the lead image at Boogaloo movement (discussion), and after they failed to gain consensus on Commons to have the file deleted (discussion), two days ago they then cropped the already-cropped image on Commons to a point where it barely illustrates the subject: commons:File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg (see the file history section). I'll note that they edited the image directly rather than creating a new file, presumably so the image change would not be noticed on enwiki. This seems to be a clear example of tendentious editing, especially given users had already expressed to Netoholic their disapproval that Netoholic had tried to circumvent the enwiki decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just slap a WP:NOTHERE block on Netoholic and just get it over with. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.

  I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the pattern of behaviour outlined on this thread, I would support an AP2 Tban at the very least. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  K.e.coffman, that should probably go to WP:AE, for optimum transparency and fairness. Guy (help!) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I had the same experience that Levivich describes above: Netoholic repeatedly opened new "fronts" in whatever battle they were waging (so trying to get the Boogaloo image deleted on Commons after failing to find consensus here strikes me as completely in character) but also repeatedly moved from one battle to the next. I would expect, if they are banned from AP2, that they will stop for a while but will find some not-overtly-politics area to continue with later (biographies of European politicians? cycling back through gender/sexuality? etc.). So I do not object to AP2 but I think that a restriction that was more focused on the behavior than the topic is more likely to be successful; sitewide 1RR seems like a reasonable idea. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• We were here 14 months ago not sanctioning Netoholic, largely because some people felt a pattern of behavior hadn't been established. The pattern of anti-progressive battleground behavior is much clearer now. Given the range of articles he disrupts, prior warnings, and comments like "fake news industrial complex", I support a full site ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• I recall an incident a few years ago when I tried to address POV pushing at Wikiproject Conservatism and Netoholic accused me of trolling and tried to make some sort of point about "POV pushing" vs "the appearance of POV pushing" [19]. It's utterly unhelpful and battleground-y but also very typical of Netoholic's interactions, especially at noticeboards. This editor's behavior has been discussed over and over again at ANI, all the way back to some sort of template drama in 2006, and there's no sign that they're going to change or find a topic area where they can edit non-disruptively. –dlthewave ☎ 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

Can this be closed based on the above discussion, or do we need a formal proposal and poll at this point? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the above discussion contains the kind of consensus necessary according to policy to implement any formal sanction so if you want that I would suggest you formally propose something and see what uninvolved members of the community think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus as to which particular sanction should be imposed, because the discussion did not proceed to a structured poll. Having reviewed the thread however, I think it's clear that there were many convincing arguments for some sanction, with no convergence as to which one. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to AE. There's no obvious consensus for a siteban, but the edits are egregious so a topic ban would be eminently defensible, if you can find any admins who haven't got at least some history with Netoholic to enact it. Guy (help!) 13:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Netoholic is topic banned from American Politics broadly construed

We need to get closure on this. An AP2 topic ban seems to be the least that is being proposed.

Poll

• Support as the least severe way to ensure no recurrance, as docuemented by numerous editors above. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as filer. Though I came here only seeking for the issues at Boogaloo movement to subside, the input from other editors has shown that Netoholic has been similarly disruptive throughout (and beyond) the AP2 topic area. An AP2 topic ban is a step in the right direction, at least, though it won't address disruption in the gender topic area unless it occurs on an article that's also considered AP2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There is a long enough history of problems that the community should enact this. (But if not, taking it to AE might prove more efficient.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Netoholic's constant presumption of bad faith, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and aggressive edit-warring and abuse-of-process stemming from these things (as shown in the links above) just aren't compatible with working in such a fraught topic area. Netoholic's unwillingness to accept a much more narrowly-targeted sanction from User:Barkeep49, his constant insistence on pointing at basically everyone he gets into a dispute with instead, and the fact that this behavior goes back years also make it clear that the situation is unlikely to improve on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - user is decidedly uncivil when editing in this area. This editor also seems to be trying to game the system regularly as demonstrated by above discussion, they appear to be more interested in "winning" arguments than collaborating and they have never acknowledged behavior issues. Certainly referring to Wikipedia as a "fake news industrial complex" indicates the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - at bottom, Netoholic has made it clear that they simply do not care what their colleagues think or have to say. That kind of approach to collaboration is a non-starter, anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially in DS areas like AP2. The topic area is so fraught, even with good faith editors trying to AGF and follow consensus. There is just no room for an editor with an "FU, I'll do what I want" approach. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Aquillion and GW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Invalid poll - American politics 2 is under discretionary sanctions... but discretionary sanctions are imposed by admins - not the results of a straw poll (I'm surprised the Arbitrator voting here doesn't know that). This poll should be closed as inappropriate/wrong forum. This entire thread should be archived also because, despite repeated "bumps" every couple days to prevent it from archiving, in well over two weeks no uninvolved admin has independently taken any action on any such broad topic ban or other sanction. Its only purpose seems to be to let people vent about minor past disagreements, and shows no pattern of actual disruption.
  I am not infallible as a person or an editor, of course, but any talk of topic banning is wildly out of proportion from the actual level of participation I engage in within this subject area. Any objective review of my edits by neutral editors or admins would show that American Politics is, at best, a small portion of my editing on Wikipedia, especially because that topic area is often so unpalatable. I stand firm in alignment with the principles of NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR, and when I do participate in AP those are foremost on my mind. Participating in discussions about how to neutrally- and verifiably-present all significant views in our articles is not disruption, and almost all of the "evidence" presented vaguely in the above sections, at best, only indicates times when my views on handling a particular issue were in the minority of specific discussions.
  I reject any forms of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - and that includes the piling-on from the large number of editors in this vote that are deeply-involved in American Politics and would seem to be reacting/voting here more from the perspective of WP:USTHEM - to "cancel" me from participating simply because they interpret me being part of some "other team". The proposer of this sanction, SPECIFICO, in particular, has held a particular grudge against me for about 6 years (retaliation for this 2014 report which expanded his own topic ban) and has repeatedly sought to get sanctions imposed on me - and even a glance at his contribs will show he focuses almost all his energy in the American Politics area and related admin board drama. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• The comment above is a very strong indication of Netoholic's battleground orientation.
  As to the point, DS allows any single admin to put an AP2 ban in place against Netoholic, and I would think that there would be numerous admins who would take the advisory opinion of the community inherent in this proposal into account and, if warranted by the results of the poll, institute that ban, so Netoholic's Wikilawyering is for naught. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is another possibility as well, that the result of this poll could be a Community topic ban on AP2, with the definition of the ban being exactly equivalent to the DS AP2, but the ban not a discretionary sanctions ban at all. We certainly have the power, as a community, to impose topic bans as we see fit, and there's no particular reason for us to redefine our AP2 ban when we can simply lift its definition from ArbCom's definition. This might, in fact, be preferable to a DS AP2 ban, as the imposing admin of a DS ban can alter that as they see fit, whereas a community TBAN can only be changed after a community discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• First, its not "battleground orientation" to defend oneself against BATTLEGROUND behavior by others, such as this piling-on in this two-week-old, stale discussion seeking a sanction. Second, this poll isn't the "community", its a cancel mob of heavily-involved editors who are over-stepping into a space already covered by a resolution option (ARBCOM DS). Beyond My Ken is another heavily-involved AP2 editor and also inappropriately edited my above comment - his grudge-holding for me personally seems clear, and that is WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• The BATTLEGROUND is strong with this one. Interesting opinion, though, that people who edit in the AP2 area, and are therefore aware of Netoholic's disruptive editing there, shouldn't be allowed to express opinions about what to do about it. Should we perhaps move this discussion to the talk page of WikiProject Deletion Sorting, so we'll get the opinions of editors who have never seen Netoholic's disruptive editing int he AP2 subject area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Incidentally, these comments may make you feel better, but denigrating a community discussion by calling it a "cancel mob", and telling us we're "overstepping" by doing our community duty in helping to regulate behavior -- yes, admins do that as well, but they do it on our behalf, because we give them the authority to do so -- none of that is going to help your case here, it just makes you look even more disruptive. It certainly makes me think that we should probably be voting on a site ban, and not just a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• AP2 is largely under DS exactly because that topic area is prone to mobs of ideologically-aligned editors piling-on against perceived opponents. Is it fair to me that those acting as a prosecutor or a witness (providing evidence), also then appoint themselves to the jury (evaluating evidence)? And I say "providing evidence" loosely because this thread has had no formal structure or focus which would allow it to be fairly evaluated. Also, please stop calling my responses here "more disruptive", because you've clearly lost what that word means if you think defending myself here in this thread is any such thing. Suggesting a siteban is just doubling down to an even more grossly disproportionate "remedy" rather than taking the opportunity to engage with me more civilly and de-escalate. It lays bare that your goal is simply my cancellation above all else. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, if you were presenting calm, reasoned arguments for why you should not be TBanned, that would not be disruptive, but what you're doing is something else entirely: you're lashing at at everyone and anything, making bizarre, inaccurate and untrue assertions, and namecalling. That is' disruptive, and you should stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Netoholic, I asked you three weeks ago, up above, Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? and you didn't answer. So I took the opportunity to engage with you more civilly and de-escalate--I gave you an opening to self-reflect, provide assurances, say whatever it is you wanted to say about it. But you didn't. So, here we are. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Was your post - reminiscing about "butting heads", dredging up tons of discussions and issues from as far back as 15 years ago, speaking about me as "the account" rather than as a fellow human, and all followed by a call for a sitewide 1rr sanction on me - an fair example of trying to be civil and de-escalate? To me, that comes across as grudge-holding ("I remember butting heads with Neto last year"), or perhaps intimidation because I don't think its fair to expect me to re-legislate all those already-resolved issues from the dead past. But yes, I always try to reflect on feedback I'm given and I do see problems with my edits in OP, but I also feel that posts like what you made are inflammatory to the situation. So, here we are. -- Netoholic @ 05:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support as the intransigence and name-calling shown in this very poll by Netoholic makes clear that at least this much is necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, although Netoholic is a skilled editor, my experience of their disruption and strong POV on the Boogaloo movement (per my earlier comments posted above), shows me that they are unsuited to the difficult area of AP2 editing. Britishfinance (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support because it should decrease the scope of disruption (although I doubt it will resolve the underlying issues). --JBL (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. I'm unimpressed by Netoholic's continued wikilawyering in this thread. The community has the right to ban an editor from a topic area and this is the venue for it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per David Eppstein and Britishfinance. Blackmane (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, essentially per GorillaWarfare. The battleground attitude is clearly in evidence in this very discussion. A discretionary sanctions regime has never prevented community-authorized sanctions. Netoholic should know this after spending many years on Wikipedia, and more importantly, ought to know that when a number of uninvolved editors are telling them that they're doing something wrong, wikilawyering about the process isn't the best response. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per everyone above. Yes, a ban under applicable Discretionary Sanctions could be imposed by an individual uninvolved admin, but the presence of DS in this topic area does not preclude a community topic ban. A community topic ban is more authoritative too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Also noting here that Netoholic is claiming that Barkeep49 is WP:INVOLVED with respect to them and so should rescind the ban placed based on the conversation above (and possibly the 1RR restriction? not clear on that). See [20]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Netoholic has raised questions to which I have now replied. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is another example of Netoholic refusing to accept that their combative attitude when editing is a problem. Accept the ban and work towards being more collaborative in the future, that is what I would expect any editor to do in this situation, not go looking for a way to "win" - sanctions are not meant to be punitive, but corrective, if this editor isn't correcting their behavior then a broader subject ban would make sense. Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Netoholic, as someone who has been topic-banned in the past, I empathize with your situation here. I was righteously angry and frustrated as well. But a topic ban is not the end of the world, and it is not forever. Wikipedia is a big place with lots of things to do, and no single editor is indispensable from any part of it. Step back from this area for a year or two, find other ways to productively contribute, demonstrate that you've learned from the experience, and there will be folks willing to give you another chance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Articles such as 2020 boogaloo killings and other topics covered under Domestic terrorism in the United States are not purely political in nature. Would the topic ban extend to them as well? Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  In my opinion, they would, because they have a strong political aspect to them, and therefore would be covered under "broadly contrued". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming the community ban has the same scope as discretionary sanctions topic bans, those articles absolutely would be covered. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree - including such articles was what we meant when we created the sanctions originally. Bishonen need to bring this drama to a close, the case for an indefinite topic ban is obvious. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to close

Hi, all. I'm planning to let this run for a little longer and then close it with an indefinite topic ban of Netoholic from the AP2 area as a community sanction per consensus in this discussion, both in the votes re the proposal above and in the entire thread. As an uninvolved admin, I might could T-ban per arbcom discretionary sanctions, which would be simpler, but after the trouble people have taken to weigh in here and form a consensus, that would be a pity IMO. Also, I agree with Boing that a community ban has a special, broader, authority. Unless there's a shift in favor of Netoholic in the next few hours, I'll be back to perform this action. No prejudice to somebody else closing first, but I believe it should be an admin in this case. Bishonen | tålk 10:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC).

I'm uninvolved Bishonen, and read the consensus the same way you do. It's been significantly more than the obligatory 24 hours that these discussions have to run for, there is unanimous support from multiple admins and experienced editors; I can't see any other appropriate outcome, but will leave it for you to close when you're ready. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This discussion devolved into a coatrack where editors were allowed to bring up the most devastating, long-resolved issues that they could. Administrators made no effort to keep this discussion narrowly-focused, to discourage editors from dredging the past, or to prevent casting of ASPERSIONS without evidence. Its a failure of Arbitration enforcement decorum (especially the lack of disclosure) and has been totally unfair to me as a result of all the piling-on and escalation beyond the reported issue. All the improvement efforts I have tried to put in place over many years seem to be for nought when editors can just bring it all back up years later as if no time had passed, the prior resolutions didn't happen, and personal growth had not occurred. For a sanity check, remember that this was a pair of issues on which I found myself in the minority viewpoint on a single article. Yes, I'd handle things differently now. Everything else later added to this thread just made it too much for me to bear, leading to me going offline for about two weeks only to come back and find it still smouldering. There was no sympathy shown to me on this point about piling-on, and I remain at a loss to see how I could possibly be expected to effectively respond to all of it. I guess all I can do is wish that none of you ever have to go through it yourselves, and hope that you all will think of this point in time as a clean start in our interactions going into the future. If this appeals to you, drop me a note sometime. -- Netoholic @ 13:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Crusades

I know that WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am also convinced that enthusiasm of thousands of amateurs (like myself) is the principal driving force behind our community's success. However, a certain level of knowledge is necessary to be able to improve individual articles. An editor who edits an article without actual knowledge about the article's topic can hardly add value, but easily can destroy it. If the same editor is also negligent and unable to make a single edit without spelling mistakes, the problem is multiplied. I visited this noticeboard to report an enthusiastic editor, Norfolkbigfish, who has been editing articles about the crusades for years. I realised that his knowledge about the topic is extremly limited when I read his first remarks on my comments more than eight months ago. Now, I am sure that he has been editing without reading the sources he is citing. Instead, he reads one or two pages, tries to summarize them, but without a deeper knowledge and without understanding the context, his edits always contain a major error. Furthermore, his edits also always contain multiple spelling mistakes. To demonstrate my statements I refer to his following edits (but I can expand the list any time):

• 1. The article contained the following sentence "Raymond lost his life fighting against Nur ad-Din in the Battle of Inab in 1149." Norfolbigfish modified the text, stating that "Raymond II was killed fighting Nur ad-Din at the Battle of Inab." ([21]) After I asked him to refer to the source of his statement ([22]), he stated that the info correct, stating that he added a reference to verify the statement ([23]). The source did not verify the quoted sentence and I again asked him to verify it ([24]). In response, he stated that the sentence about Raymond II's death in the Battle of Inab is verified by the following text from a scholarly work: "Pons was killed and Raymond II captured by Zengi". I had to repeat the question, before he realised that Raymond (I) of Antioch was killed in the Battle of Inab and his death on the battlefield can hardly be verified by a text about the capture of Raymond II of Tripoli in a different battle. The example demonstrates not only Norfolkbigfish's limited knowledge about the crusades, but also his negligence when reading the sources.
• 2. The following edit did not contain a single factual error, but it was filled with typos ([25]). When dealing with him, an edit that only contains typos can be described as an achievement, so I thanked it.
• 3. He could not properly define the term "crusader states" although he had "completed" the article about them ([26], [27], [28]).
• 4. During the review of the article "Crusades" I placed various tags in many sentences that he had written. He did not understand my remarks and collected them and his comments under a separate title on the article's talk page. His comments clearly show he had not read the allegedly cited books or misinterpreted them.

Fixing his errors is an irksome duty. I have to dedicate more than 90% of my time on WP to fix his factual errors and mispellings. I suggested him to try to improve his knowledge about the crusades through editing more specific articles with a limited scope. He ignored my suggestion. After more than eight months I am convinced that articles about the crusades cannot be improved while Norfolkbigfish is allowed to edit them, so I suggest a topic ban for him. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

All my edits have been reliably sourced and cited. I am always willing to discuss on Talk Pages, and acknowledge when I make a mistake through misinterpretation. I am willing to engage in conflict resolution at any time over any of these issues, which are largely content rather than behavioural on my part. I think this is fairly reflected at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusader_states. The Crusader States article was moribund when I picked it up (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusader_states&oldid=900764952). I edited and took it through a successful GAR. Review can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusader_states/GA1. The Crusades article was fairly disorganised when I came to the subject. I took that through a successful GAR ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusades/GA1 ) and a successful Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history ACR ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Crusades ). There followed three attempts at FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive3, it was at the end of the third FAC that I first came across the complainant. FWIW I also picked up the neglected Historiography of the Crusades and took it through a successful GAR Talk:Historiography of the Crusades/GA1, and acknowledged that was as far as my sources and time would allow. At all times this demonstrated good faith, good sourcing and the ability to work with numerous editors. Both articles are summary articles in an area that is incredibably contested, broad and with vast amounts source material. Consensus requires editors to work together, and even then it may be impossible. I think the complaint is unfounded and the request for a topic ban unwarranted. At the same time, as ever I welcome constructive feedback. By way of context there is this quote referring to the complainant from Johnbod at Talk:Crusades In the 4 months since he started editing this page he has added 177,263 bytes in over 300 posts, producing many complaints about bullying etc, and largely changing the subject of the article by stealth. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have had the pleasure of involvement in this question earlier this year. I found Norfolkbigfish to be a hard working editor whose contributions have been overall positive. I was most impressed by his openness to constructive feedback at the FA review and the article Talk page. I found Borsoka to also be a hard working editor whose contributions have been overall positive. However, I found Borsoka to react extremely aggressively to feedback, and it is a real shame to see that his relationship with Norfolkbigfish has still not improved. I am convinced that if Borsoka had not lost his cool early on, this long-running argument would never have happened. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I can say as someone who theoretically should be involved in editing this topic area (it is, after all, closely related to many of my editing areas), I found the tone of the discourse on the various articles to be sub-par. And it's getting worse. Borsoka is occasionally correct on the issues... it is true that sometimes Norfolkbigfish isn't always perfect in understanding a source or creates typos, but I've found NBFish to be quite willing to correct. Borsoka needs to dramatically improve their talk page manner before anyone such as I feel any desire to step into the editing area - right now why by the gods above should I stick my head into a buzzsaw? --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I used to be User:Lingzhi2. Ealdgyth is correct. This thread misses the mark. OneOffUserName (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I also found the discourse on the talkpage one-sided in tone, with Borsoka's tone significantly more problematic, especially in comparison to the willingness of NBF to listen to criticism/feedback and adjust when necessary. This is my field of training (graduate degree in medieval history with a concentration in crusade history), but I generally stay away from the topic on Wikipedia because of the strong feelings it evokes in many editors. In looking over some of Borsoka's objections/critiques, some were valid while others were...petty. One of the archived talkpage threads linked to is titled "vexatious tagging", which I'd call an accurate summary of the ongoing behavior. For an example, one of the diffs Borsoka provides here involves whether the crusader states of Outremer were established before or during the crusades (it's after, by the way), but did so by repeatedly tagging that line as "dubious", as if it were a significant distinction. Similarly, he argues in the talkpage about whether or not historians generally agree 1291 marked the end of the crusading period (they do) because of Cyprus, to which NBF replies that he meant the crusading period in the Holy Land. Borkosa chides him for not explicitly stating that, but the tagged text explicitly stated that. There isn't ANI-worthy bad behavior here by NBF, who is being courteous and collaborative over a lot of aggression regarding generally minor points. I also don't think there's ANI-worthy bad behavior by Borsoka, either, but he does need to tone it down and get a grip; the passive-aggressive "glad I could correct you" or "happy you were able to understand" comments on the article talkpage every time NBF compromises with him are snotty, as are the repeated statements that "we need an expert". Suggest this is closed with a reminder to Borsoka to assume good faith and for NBF to take a moment to proofread his edits for typos before saving. Grandpallama (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, Norfolkbigfish achieved three GAs. Are you sure the articles were actually GAs? I reviewed the article "Crusades" during its FA candidate. It did not reach the level of a GA - or do you think misinterpreted sources, editorial bias and close paraphrasing are necessary to achieve a GA? OneOffUserName strongly supported its promotion as a FA, even sending me messages and pushing me to also support it - @OneOffUserName: do you really think you are in the position to comment on this issue? Norfolkbigfish's second "GA" is the "Crusader states" article. It also contained major errors - or do you think editors who misinterprete the cited sources and ignore major aspects of the topic should be rewarded? His third "GA" is the Historiography of the Crusades. Please read remarks by editors who are actually experts of the topic during the article's A-class review. 2. My communication style is mentioned in all above remarks. I wonder how would you react if you were described as a vandal after starting the review of an article or you were mentioned as an editor with a Catholic Middle European bias while you are reviewing the article? 3. @Ealdgyth:, you do not want to stick your head into a buzsaw, but I can share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. For instance, review his last edit: [29]. I hope you realized that it contains not only mispellings, but also mispresentation of the cited source. I can edit the articles on which you are working in his style, because I am not an expert on your favorite fields of knowledge. Can you promise you will not take me to ANI after eight months? 4. Norfolkbigfish is described as a hard-working editor, but his readiness to manipulatively quote the cited sources is not mentioned. Is this the certain sign of a constructive editor? 5. Yes, I expanded the article about the Crusades. I added sections about the development of crusading ideology, about women's role in the movement, about the financing of the military expedition. I do not know how this changed "the subject of the article by stealth" as @Johnbod: claimed, but he probably can explain it. Neither do I understand Johnbod's reference to my complaints about bullying. 6. @Onceinawhile:, I have completed 70+ GAs (among them 10+ articles closely connected to the crusades) and 2 FAs. All articles were reviewed. Do you really think if I had reacted "extremely aggressively to feedback", those articles could have been promoted? In the closing note of one of the FAC reviews, the coordinater mentioned that "It's always gratifying to see serious concerns discussed in a collegial manner, as has been the case here." Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions. 7. @Grandpallama:, could you refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were created after the First Crusade as your above statement implies? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI is for behavior, not content, but I will say there is a difference between the conquest of territories and laying the foundations of the crusader states and the later establishment of the organized, (ostensibly) unified crusader state that occurred only in the wake of the creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As far as behavior goes here, if you really think you have the high ground, please re-read your preceding statement (Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions) and pay attention to the fact that multiple editors are disputing that view. Not to mention the fact that said quote is indicative of the behavior problems multiple editors are saying you are displaying. The diffs you have provided, and the language which you are using, don't make you look particularly collaborative or collegial. Grandpallama (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes ANI is for behaviour, not content, but you made a statement which cannot be verified by reliable sources. I repeat that Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all consturctive discussions and I also offer you to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. I will edit any articles you are working on in his style if you promise you will not take me to ANI. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Refusing to sidetrack this discussion does not equate to an inability to support a statement that I made. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, hi. I'm completely uninvolved in this, and cannot profess to any deep knowledge about the history of the period. That shouldn't really matter, since we're here to discuss conduct rather than content. Above, I observe however that there are three very experienced and talented editors saying that your conduct in this area is more problematic than that of the person you're here to report. I'd like to ask you whether you have reflected on that, and what conclusions you have drawn, if any? GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I reflected on that above: I offered them to edit articles they are working on in Norfolkbigfish's style for months. If they could fix my endless typos, misinterpretations, biased summaries for a period of eight months without making sarcastic remarks about my abilities, I would be ready to accept their judgement. Borsoka (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I'm afraid that I find it hard to interpret an offer like that as being serious, or as evidence of any genuine reflection.

Let me try to put it another way. Normally in a thread like this, Editor A will start a thread saying that Editor B has been disruptively editing in a topic area, and link to CIR. Editors C, D and E will come along and say variations on the theme of 'Yeah, they're really disruptive, but we should give them some ROPE,' or 'Yeah, damn right, support TBAN this has got to stop.' This thread is unusual in that Editor A has said that Editor B is being disruptive, and Editors C, D and E have come along and said 'Actually, Editor A is really difficult to work with, whereas Editor B, while not perfect, is editing in good faith and has the capacity to take criticism on board'. That's unusual, and I'm not sure what to make of it - I'm inviting you to give your take on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I maintain that an editor who is unable to make edits without 4-5 spelling mistakes, without misinterpretating the cited source at least once per edit should not edit. My offer is serious. Two or three editors expressed that they think I should cooperate with him and I should tone my behaviour down. I offered them to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with them for months. If they are able to cooperate with me for eight months while I am making typos and presenting my obvious misinterpretations of the cited sources, they are right. Please read his latest edit: it is filled with typos ([30]). (And it also contains misinterpretation of the cited source, but you stated you are not an expert.) Which is your favorite article? As soon as you name it, I will begin to edit it and I can offer you 4-5 typos per edits. I can also misinterprete any source, because English is not my first language. Are you ready to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months? I am ready to be ignorant and negligent and you can prove your ability to remain nice and cooperative. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, we're not going to topic ban someone on your say-so. If you think that this is a good line of argument to take to convince people that someone else, rather than yourself, has a problem with collaboration, I don't know what to say to you. If you start damaging articles to make a POINT, you can expect to be blocked, whether or not anyone has taken you up on this ridiculous offer. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

–Yes, my offer is as ridiculous as all remarks above. None of you have whenever tried to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months and none of you is ready to try it. Nevertheless, I am convinced that WP is a healthy community - negligent and ignorant editors cannot survive for long. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the issue - even if I think you are all wrong. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Another "ridiculous remark": You should consider editing in some other areas and leaving the Crusades page alone. Your responses here and refusal to consider the possibility that your words and behavior are less than ideal are worrisome, and as I look through the diffs, so is your insistence that only your understanding of the content is correct. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's examine the core of your first remark sentence by sentence. 1. "This is my field of training (graduate degree in medieval history with a concentration in crusade history), but I generally stay away from the topic on Wikipedia because of the strong feelings it evokes in many editors." Do you really think it is relevant in this context? I have never met an editor to refer to their real life experience or degree, because most editors understand what the statement "WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means. 2. "For an example, one of the diffs Borsoka provides here involves whether the crusader states of Outremer were established before or during the crusades (it's after, by the way), but did so by repeatedly tagging that line as "dubious", as if it were a significant distinction." You are proposing a topic ban, but you have so far failed to refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were established during the aftermath of the First Crusade. Just for uninvolved editors my remark on the Talk page was the following: "The first sentence of the article is not verified in the main text. (Actually, it contradicts the main text, which says that the crusader states were established as a consequence of the First Crusade)." - interestingly Norfolkbigfish accepted it after three unsuccessful attempt to define the crusader states. 3. "Similarly, he argues in the talkpage about whether or not historians generally agree 1291 marked the end of the crusading period (they do) because of Cyprus, to which NBF replies that he meant the crusading period in the Holy Land. Borkosa chides him for not explicitly stating that, but the tagged text explicitly stated that." The problem is that I did not argue that 1291 marked the end of the crusading period or not and the tagged text explicitly does not say anything about the end of the crusading period. @Grandpallama: sorry but I still think your remarks were ridiculous: you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us, you made a statement about the crusader states without referring to a single reliable source and you challenged a statement that I never made. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Apart from this thread, you have another open on the talk page, and another from last month where Iridescent warned you about the bombardment with warnings and personal comments from you I see on User talk:Norfolkbigfish. Perhaps a one-way IBan would help? ——Serial ^# 15:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what "a one-way IBan" means. I rarely take other editors to ANI. If "a one-wy IBan" means that I will be banned from editing for ever, I will accept it. I have become more and more convinced that WP is alien to me. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may offer some unsolicited advice, you're escalating quite quickly here and it might do well to take a deep breath. On Wikipedia, we are called upon to tolerate those with whom we disagree, those whom we think are less adept editors, and yes, even typos. Article improvement is not a straight line; but even setbacks can ultimately lead to a better final product. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us Are you fucking kidding me? You're the one who has repeatedly called in his edit summaries for experts to weigh in at the article talkpage. Then I identify my background (for the first time in over a decade on Wikipedia, in fact) in order to explain why I'm weighing in at ANI, and because you don't like what I say, my background is irrelevant? I also didn't propose a topic ban, and your characterizations of your own statements on the article talkpage are factually incorrect (i.e., the diff to the "vexatious tagging" discussion that you provided explicitly shows you arguing about 1291 and the Holy Land as if you hadn't even read the text you tagged); I'm starting to think I should propose a TBAN based on what seems to increasingly be reading comprehension difficulties, whether because of WP:IDHT or because of some other issue, both at the article and at ANI. Walk away and drop the stick, Borsoka. I'm already prepared to support any one-way IBAN proposal regarding NBF, as Serial Number suggested, based upon your demonstrated battleground mentality here and your refusal to even consider you might be the issue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think an "expert" in WP is an editor with an academic degree, I think we do not understand each other. I still maintain that you misinterprete my statement about 1291. However, I will gladly accept any ban. Although I still do not know what a "one-way IBan" or "one-way IBAN" means, but I am sure you have been convinced that I have to be punished for my sins. Just another question, can I receive a badge or similar about my one-way IBan or IBAN to place it on my User page? Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

How is the view from up there these days? Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, a one-way iBan means that you are not permitted to interact with, or comment on, the other editor named in the ban - that would extend to reverting their edits. It would perhaps give you a degree of freedom from what you seem to perceive as your duty to correct what you see as mistakes in their editing - if such mistakes occur, you would not be permitted to address them, that would be down to others. You can see more at WP:IBAN. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. Now I understand what will be my punishment for my sins. In the region of the world where I live, we are informed about the nature of the punishment before we receive it. I would really enjoy this punishmen. It would give me a place in WP heaven. Can I place a last message on Norfolkbigfish's Talk page before receiving my IBAN? I would like to suggest him to approach the editors who vote for my IBAN, because they would like to experience the joy of cooperating with him for months. He should not deprive them of this joy. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I generally agree with the comments above of Onceinawhile, Ealdgyth, OneOffUserName, Girth Summit, Grandpallama and others. I've been amazed at Norfolkbigfish's patience & restraint under a long-term barrage of abuse. I had lots of comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1 his first FAC run in 2017, which rather stalled & was archived without passing. The 2nd one in June 19 is currently mostly invisible from a template lurgy now fixed - thanks Choess! - Ealdgyth, anyone? I think I contributed [actually I see I hardly did]. The Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Crusades/archive3#Johnbod third one also stalled before I'd completed comments. I think this was the first time Borsoka reviewed - interesting to see that he began "I think this is an excellent article, summarizing most important aspects of the crusades", and later "No, I am not an expert [on the Crusades]". I think this review was the point where things began to go wrong. I've always found Norfolkbigfish polite & pleasant, if inclined to let things drag on. Frankly I don't know why he persists with this article under these conditions. I haven't delved into my books on the recent issues (they are in boxes somewhere), & no doubt Borsoka is often right on points of detail. He had his particular angle in the FAC, but now seems to be attacking everything Norfolkbigfish does, which I doubt is right. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think your comment is the first one properly summarizing the case. 1. Yes, for the first time I went through the article very quickly and I was impressed by Norfolkbigfish's style. However, it was also obvious that the article does not cover crusading privileges properly. I raised the issue and Norfolkbigfish answered that they are mentioned seven times - which was true: they were mentioned randomly, but they were not mentioned in the context of the First Crusade or its background. Everybody knows the importance of crusading privileges - so Norfolkbigfish's response rang my bell. ([31], [32]) 2. His answers about the political crusades also convinced me that his knowledge about the crusades is very limited. For instance, he said that the Aragonese crusade (proclaimed in favor of Charles I of Anjou) was mentioned together with Louis IX's crusade because Charles I of Anjou was Louis IX's brother (link to the whole issue: [33]). 3. I started a more thorough review and I realized that the article contains plenty of errors and stated that I oppose its promotion ([34]). Do you think FAC is the proper place to write a FA? 4. I also realized that his methods are not always fair. He stated that my statement about three unverified sentences in the article was untrue - after he deleted one of the sentences and added citations to the remaining two sentences ([35]). Later he went as far as quoting a truncated text (describing the situation in Anatolia after 1070) to verify his statement covering 8th-11th-century Palestine ([36]). 5. He also stated on my Talk page that my edits are close to vandalism. 6. Yes, it was my first review. And I was totally astonished that there are editors who obviously had no knowledge about the crusades, but they are reviewing an FAC about the crusades and are pushing me to promote it - I refer to Lingzhi2 who also commented on this issue above after Norfolkbigfish approached him for "a kind word". 7. I am not an expert. What is the difference between myself and Norfolkbigfish that I have read dozens of books about the crusades before starting to edit on this field. 8. Nevertheless, an IBAN would be the heaven for me - I do not want to deprive other editors of cooperating closely with the talented Mr Norfolkbigfish. 9. @Johnbod: just a last question, because you actually studied his edits - I am convinced that he had a strong pro-Turkish and a less obvious anti-Armenian bias. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember being conscious of either, and would rather doubt it frankly. It might be some of his sources. He is at the least based in England, and until recently mainly wrote on English medieval history - I may first have encountered him in 2013, when I was (rather fatally) an opposer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1. Johnbod (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. No, his sources are not biased. Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Borsoka: serious question, because I'm finding it difficult to tell whether you are being serious in some of the statements you've made above. You've said more than once that you would welcome a one-way IBAN with NBF - are you being ironic, or was that said in earnest? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have been always serious. Yes, I could accept any ban, IBAN, TBAN or what you think is a proper punishment. If I were not banned, sooner or later I would start to fix Norfolkbigfish's edits. I am sure I would make dozens of sarcastic comments about them and this is a deadly sin in our community. Can you answer my previous question? Can I receive a badge or something similar about the ban? I would like to place it on the top of my User page because I will always be proud of my punishment. Thank you all for this experience. I really enjoyed it. Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Borsoka, we're not talking about punishment - we're talking about preventing disruption. Sarcastic comments are not a 'deadly sin' here, they are unfortunately commonplace (despite their being an ineffective way to communicate in a text-only environment populated by editors with significant differences in culture and levels of fluency in English). Your sin, if you have one, has been an apparent failure to even consider the possibility that, when half a dozen people disagree with you and nobody seems to agree with you, you might not be entirely in the right.

  Once again, I find myself wondering how much of your statement is in earnest, and how much is ironic - since I genuinely can't tell, I'll answer the question about a badge as if it were serious: no, of course you couldn't have a banner celebrating an IBAN. You would not be able to comment on the other person in any way whatsoever. No userboxen, no topicon, nothing. It would be logged here, and you would just have to remember to abide by it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Please believe me I am always serious. Can I celebrate my IBAN or whatever ban at the top of my user page? Can I link this thread to it? Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I thought I just answered that - no, you wouldn't be able to 'celebrate' an IBAN on your userpage. I will propose that the IBAN be enacted below. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: this is my very own private IBAN. Why could I not mention it at the top of my User page? For instance, "Hereby I announce that I am under an IBAN. I am really proud of it." Could you refer to a WP policy forbidding me to celebrate my IBAN? I am serious. Borsoka (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest that the community impose a one-way IBAN on Borsoka with regards to Norfolkbigfish. Borsoka seems to want one, it would perhaps help them feel like they don't have to be the one to address any perceived issues with NBF's editing, or feel the need to repeatedly open threads at various venues about them. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand the following part of the text: ", or feel the need to repeatedly open threads at various venues about them". This is my very first thread. I raised a theoretical question twice - it was not me, who revealed that I may refer to Norfolkbigfish. Please do not suggest that I took him to ANI several times. Yes, I know I should have taken him to ANI months ago, but I failed. Borsoka (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I was referring to the discussions that SN mentioned in his earlier post - that's why I said 'at various venues'. If you think the wording of the proposal is unfair, I'll be happy to amend it. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, I raised a theoretical/technical question twice, without mentioning Norfolkbigfish. Am I reasponsible for the words of administrators who did not answer my question, but began to investigate the (still not existing) case? If I am not responsible for their words, I would like to ask you to delete the part of the text I quoted above. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka: struck per your request. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It is OK for me, provided my limited knowledge about the crusades and my disability to understand basic information in English do not require a more severe sanction. May I ask a last favor? Could you answer my question above, I would like to know which WP policy forbades me to celebrate my IBAN/TBAN/whatever ban on my Talk page? Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I don't understand your statement about having a disability - I'm not sure what you're trying to convey there. The answer to the second question is found at WP:IBAN - specifically, you would not be permitted to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly - a reference to an IBAN would be an indirect reference to the editor that the IBAN is with, and hence not permitted. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am not a native speaker, so I easily misunderstand English sentences - as two administrators and Norfolkbigfish has (!!!) explained to me. OK, this is a secret punishment which actually is not a punishment, but it is a secret. Thank you for the clarification. I more and more enjoy this procedure - we are in the Roman Age. Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in the thread. However, Girth Summit, it's not clear to me that Borsoka fully understands the IBAN or what it's going to entail, or that we've fully thought through the likely outcome here. From looking through the article history, NBF's work on the article is so extensive and regular that an IBAN is going to work out to a de facto page ban for Borsoka (which I wouldn't be opposed to, but which I'm not sure he realizes); it's not absolute, but pretty significant. I also suspect Borsoka hasn't realized that a one-way IBAN means he can't touch and/or comment on NBF's edits to that page (or others), but that the same restriction is not placed on NBF. From what I've seen, it's not going to be pretty the first time NBF tweaks a Borsoka edit. The repeated accusations of bad faith, the self-imposed need to "police" NBF, the request to put one last message on NBF's talkpage, the speculation about NBF's nationality, etc., all suggest to me that the nature of the IBAN needs to be clearly laid out to Borsoka and that admins need to be pretty unforgiving in enforcing it. Grandpallama (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think the Crusades are pretty much the only area where their editing interests meet, so he may just have to stop editing on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to drive at. This IBAN is, in effect, likely a TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that I cannot interact with him at any area. I also understand that Grandpallama want to achieve a TBAN against me. I was considering to create new timelines about the crusader states and the crusades, but I and the comunnity can live wirhout my new articles. I really enjoy Grandpallama's comments - he is a main reason I am proud of any ban. I waited more than eight months to take Norfolkbigfish to ANI after he called me a vandal and referred to my country of origin and to my (assumed) religion in a negative context. Grandpallama is ready to expel me from any territory a day after I stated that his statements are funny or baseless (although I demonstrated above that at least three of his statements are funny or baseless). Grandpallama please suggest a TBAN for me. I promise I will never ask you to refer to a reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were established after the First Crusade.Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: for the record, as long as its a IBan and not a TBan, you can create any article you like (subject to the usual), and if you do it in your userspace, no-one else should touch it either. So it doesn't restrict you from writing new articles: just from interacting with another editor once they're in mainspace. See what I mean? ——Serial ^# 14:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. Grandpallama (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I perfectly understood it. Borsoka (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Nevertheless, if any administrator proposes a TBAN I will also accept it. Grandpallama, you have already concluded that my knowledge and language skills prevent me from adding value to the community in this area (crusades). Make your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I may be wrong, because I cannot understand basic English sentences, but I think this thread has reached a stalemate. 1. I am still convinced that Norfolkbigfish should not edit articles about the crusades, because his knowledge on the subject is limited, his edits are always extremly negligent and often biased. 2. I am still sure that none of the administrators who have made comments during this procedure were able to cooperate with Norfolkbigfish even for a month if he began to make regular edits in articles on which they had previously worked heavily. 3. On the other hand, I must acknowledge that I have been unable to convince a single administrator that Norfolkbigfish should be "rewarded" with a TBAN. (I was taught that a ban should not be mentioned as a punishment.) 4. I also must admit that I adopted a stronger language when communicating with Norfolkbigfish than it is usually expected in our community. Based on the previous statements, A) I am ready to refrain from making ad personam remarks on Norfolkbigfish; B) I am ready not to edit the articles Crusades, Crusader states and Historiography of the Crusades; C) I am ready to refrain from taking Norfolkbigfish to ANI for whatever reason, save edit warring or vandalism; however, D) I claim the right to review the three articles, but without opposing their promotion as a FA/GA; E) I claim the right to revert or comment Norfolkbigfish's edits in articles that I created or I proposed to be a GA/FA. I emphasize if the administrators decide that I should be "rewarded" with a IBAN or TBAN, I am still ready to accept their decision, because anything is better than fixing his edits. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

D) I claim the right to review the three articles, but without opposing their promotion as a FA/GA; E) I claim the right to revert or comment Norfolkbigfish's edits in articles that I created or I proposed to be a GA/FA.

With an IBAN in place, you would not be allowed to do those things, as they would involve interacting with NBF. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. My above comment contained an alternative. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

One which I am certain the community will not accept, as it does nothing to solve the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What problem? Norfolkbigfish's edits? Yes, he can edit any articles without any restrictions. My ad personam remarks? They will disappear. However, I emphasize I will accept any ban. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

On that note then, I Support imposing an IBAN per Borsoka's acceptance above, and encourage an admin to close this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(Needs Admin Attention) POV Editing at The Daily Stormer

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

Soibangla recently added a quote from Andrew Anglin, the founder of the White Supremacist website The Daily Stormer, describing Tucker Carlson as "literally our greatest ally," adding that Tucker Carlson Tonight "is basically 'Daily Stormer: The Show'. Other than the language used, he is covering all of our talking points."[37] The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed here. I subsequently reverted the edit here citing BLP, UNDUE and NPOV. Soibangla questioned my reversion in a talk page discussion which can be found here.

Soibangla's initial edit, and the cited source, appear to be a fairly transparent attempt to paint Mr. Carlson, a controversial political talk show host, as being an ally of White Supremacists. The fact the source is a naked attack piece from a website that has been frequently the subject of criticism at WP:RSN, and is without supporting coverage from other sources is also highly problematic. The talk page discussion suggests that Soibangla does not grasp some of our more important policies that deal with posting highly negative claims about persons who are protected by BLP. Under even the most benevolent interpretation of their edit and the subsequent discussion, I believe serious concerns exist regarding their general competence to be editing subjects of a highly sensitive and controversial nature and am seriously considering calling for a topic ban from American Politics (post 1932). -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, both the WP:AWARE criteria of BLP and AP2 have been satisfied. You, as a single admin, may topic ban them accordingly for any length you see fit, including indefinitely, as an AE action. El_C 01:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I am aware of that. However, out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting input from experienced editors before taking any direct action. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Aware of AWARE, you say? Anyway, has there been similar issues like these with this user? Because if so, a topic ban is probably due. El_C 01:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El C I don't think I have ever interacted with this editor before tonight. However an extremely cursory glance at their talk page and recent history is not showing anything quite this brazen. Though they do seem to take pride in their reputation for POV editing when it has been raised on their talk page. But in fairness, if RT was saying bad things about me, I might take a little guilty pleasure as well. My problem here is that I was content to let this go with a formal caution after I reverted their edit. But everything that followed in the talk page discussion has sent up all kinds of red flags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the article talk page does signal a bunch of red flags. It does not appear the user understands that their edit was inappropriate. Hopefully, that is something they will come to terms with rather than face sanctions. El_C 01:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

to take pride in their reputation for POV editing when it has been raised on their talk page is flatly false. In no way have I ever come even close to doing that. I displayed my amusement when a Putin propaganda outlet characterized me as "a known quantity" on AP2, and falsely accused me of making POV edits, as well as my amusement at a troll on r/The_Donald falsely accusing me of POV edits in an apparent effort to rally a MAGA troll army to come at me. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. BuzzFeed News, which Soibangla cited in his edit, is generally considered a reliable source by the community (see its entry at WP:RSP). There's no BLP violation in this edit; it accurately reflects the content of a reliable source. Soibangla calmly made that point to Ad Orientem on the article talk page, but Ad Orientem immediately escalated here to discuss a topic ban while mistakenly describing the source as unreliable. We don't usually topic-ban people for making accurate edits with a supporting reliable source. (Of course, the material may or may not belong in the article—that's a matter for discussion—but Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability.) The usual sequence is WP:BRD, not BRAN/I.

  Separately, El_C, surely you realize that Ad Orientem can't actually "topic ban [Soibangla] for any length you see fit"—an admin can't revert someone's edit as part of a content dispute and then topic ban the other editor. This is WP:INVOLVED 101. MastCell ^Talk 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• If it's a BLP violation, which I believe to to be, then Ad Orientem had a duty to revert it. That does not make him invovled. As far as I am aware, Ad Orientem is an uninvolved admin in this matter. Anyway, we cannot malign someone (Tucker) by association. I don't believe we've sank that low to editorialize like that. El_C 02:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur. There is no doubt in my mind it is a BLP vio. The sole source is a naked attack piece that makes Fox News look like the NY Times in their moderation and balance. It was used in a transparent attempt to tag Carlson as an ally of these vile people. That kind of insinuation is absolutely not allowed w/o very serious reliable source evidence, typically multiple sources. And no, I don't consider that piece to in any way pass WP:RS. My reversion was done in my capacity as an admin. I thought I made that clear in the talk page discussion when I stated I was in the process of writing a formal caution for Soibangla's talk page. That said, I do tend to favor getting additional input in cases like this before imposing sanctions. There is no immediate rush or threat to the project that would require quick and decisive intervention. And I am prepared to defer if there is a consensus against such a step. But the edit in question was a serious no no that did cross multiple lines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. MastCell ^Talk 06:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. However, I wouldn't have included the quote in Carlson's article, because I believe it's probably UNDUE. The Buzzfeed article has a quite-easily confirmable fact that Carlson is the TV host most quoted (by an order of magnitude) in the Daily Stormer's pages, so you could have a discussion about that, as long as it isn't being SYNTHed to accuse Carlson of racism. To paraphrase the Buzzfeed article itself "Carlson may not be a racist, but this bunch of racists are convinced that he is" - and that's not the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The source for the description of Carlson was the Daily Stormer/Anglin. That's not an RS for opinions about him. This edit was a serious BLP violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But the source in the edit is a RS, not Stormer. They are reporting on what Anglin said, and it's cited in the same fashion as in innumerable other edits on Wikipedia. Millions, perhaps. It's just that in this case the reported quotes come from a particularly heinous man. Are we now going to draw lines as to when someone's quote is acceptable and when it isn't? soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, imagine that a Holocaust-denial site wrote of a mainstream Holocaust historian: "He is covering all our talking points! Have you noticed how his numbers are always lower than everyone else's? He is literally our greatest ally!" You are arguing that we ought to add that view to Wikipedia, in the article about the Holocaust-denial site or to the historian's BLP, if we can find a minimally reliable source that repeats it. But of course we would never do that. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• There would be all kinds of problems to have this on Tucker Carson's page. I'm less sure here. If that coverage isn't WP:UNDUE, and I suspect it is, then it would be reasonable for it to be quoted (if say this was one of the main things the Daily Stormer was known for). As far as sources, there are other, sources that might be more acceptable for similar information ([38], [39], [40]). What this article from Buzzfeed News seems to have is an analysis of coverage of Fox news folks which makes it a bit more useful IMO. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, well, maybe - but if Andrew Anglin is that keen on the show (and there is no evidence the social media screenshots are fake) then that is a pretty big deal. Guy (help!) 12:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Even as someone who views Tucker Carlson as an ally to white nationalists (just going off of his rhetoric), I am surprised that the community sees Buzzfeed as a reliable source given their history of clickbaiting and racebaiting. Consensus is consensus I guess, but I do not think that treating buzzfeed as reliable will accomplish much other than giving the "Wikipedia is liberal propaganda" people ammunition. Darkknight2149 09:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Darkknight2149, some of us view it as BLP violation of the first order: as pure editorializing. El_C 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree with the use of Buzzfeed in this way (although the easily proved fact that Carlson is the most-quoted TV host by the Daily Stormer is not in the slightest unreliable), the people who think that "Wikipedia is liberal progaganda" aren't going to stop saying it unless we end up looking like Conservapedia (i.e. a complete work of fiction). In the post-truth era, when you've got at least three right-wing leaders of major countries who pump out easily-debunkable nonsense (i.e. lies) on an almost daily basis, this is always going to be a problem, because some people believe them quite vehemently. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, to your point, WP:RSP makes a distinction between BuzzFeed proper (a dubious, clickbaity source at best) and BuzzFeed News (which is viewed as generally reliable). The piece cited by Soibangla came from BuzzFeed News. In general, I agree with you that neither is an ideal source—I don't think I've ever used either one as a source for an edit here. But as an editor and admin, I can't just substitute my own opinion for community consensus about the source's reliability—which is what Ad Orientem and El_C did. That's my concern. I think it's fine if editors decide, through discussion, that inclusion of this material would constitute undue weight. I just think it's wrong that an editor was immediately hauled to AN/I for making a single, appropriately-sourced edit, and then calmly discussing the edit when it was reverted. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that in October 2018 an RfC about including praise of Carlson's show by white supremacists was opened. It was closed with a "no", saying it constituted undue weight. I participated in it and agreed with the result, as it was a blatant attempt to make Carlson look like a white supremacist. Soibangla participated too, and quoted this same Daily Stormer material. - DoubleCross (‡) 10:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised that the community sees Buzzfeed as a reliable source given their history of clickbaiting and racebaiting

Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News are different entities. Buzzfeed, yes, is a clickbait cesspit. However, Buzzfeed News has earned a reputation as a legitimate source of journalism. The problem is that folks see "Buzzfeed" and automatically associate it with the clickbait, before the "News" in the name registers. They'd have been better off changing names for the news entity a long time ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that folks see "Buzzfeed" and automatically associate it with the clickbait, before the "News" in the name registers was the trigger causing this ANI topic to be illegitimately opened in the first place. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think Soibangla's edit has any place in The Daily Stormer; if anywhere, it goes in the Tucker Carson bio, though there is clearly some doubt about that as well. But Soibangla is not IMO a disruptive editor, now nor did he act disruptively here, but went to talk when he was reverted. I believe he showed somewhat poor judgment in adding the material in the first place, per WP:UNDUE, but that alone, from a constructive editor, is far from being cause for a topic ban or indeed any kind of sanction. And if, hypothetically, it were, I don't think Ad Orientem should revert and then sanction, so I'm not in agreement with El C there. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

  Bishonen, right. Ad Orientem and others see a naked attack piece, I see robust criticism which cites its sources and shows its working. Whether or not it constitutes WP:UNDUE is another matter, but it's certainly not a BLP violation, because Buzzfeed News is a reliable source and the reporting, whose accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute, is legitimately troubling.

  This is investigative journalism, albeit of a somewhat facile kind. BuzzFeed News is an American news website published by BuzzFeed. It has published a number of high-profile scoops, including the Trump–Russia dossier, for which it was heavily criticized.[1][2][3] During its relatively short tenure, it has won the George Polk Award, Sidney Award, National Magazine Award and National Press Foundation award, as well as being a finalist for Pulitzer Prizes. This won't win any awards, but neither is it clickbait or yellow journalism. Tabloidish, at worst.

  Does Andrew Anglin love Tucker Carlson's show? Hell yes, and anyone can go and repeat the work documented in the article and verify its accuracy. Is Carlson a racist? I don't know, but the racists certainly think he is. And that is the problem we always have: how to distinguish conservative voices that are actually racist from those who are merely sufficiently unconcerned about racism that they are OK with repeating dog-whistles and racist tropes. I have no clue how to fix that.

  Including praise of Carlson by white supremacists from primary sources is clearly unacceptable, but this is a secondary source - and that in and of itself would legitimately call into question whether an RfC based on primary sources is still a valid consensus (cf. the Joe Biden sexual assault allegations, which were included after secondary sources reported). Is it undue? Likely, but it's not so obvious that it merits a sanction. We don't sanction people for boldly adding material that's later decided to be undue, unless they do it constantly or egregiously. This would need to go to AE, I think, with evidence of a systemic problem, not just a single incident. Guy (help!) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bishonen, did you mean "nor did he act"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Jo, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, nog är det så alltid. Bishånen | tålk 14:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

• I guess I'm in the minority here in seeing it as an egregious BLP violation by virtue of it being so UNDUE. I can accept that. But Guy raises some fine points, too, so I value his (mostly) excellent analysis. El_C 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, heh! If faint praise is all I can get, I'll take it, my friend :-) Guy (help!) 13:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this seems to be mudslinging for reasons the BLP subjects can't themselves decide. Similarly, there is an Associated Press article (credited to a Washington Times journalist) that the former KKK leader David Duke supports Ilhan Omar for her comments about Israel. I also think pushing for including that in the Omar article would be negative POV-pushing. And importantly, as the Daily Stormer article states, the site is involved in trolling. Connecting their more or less trollish comments to others is highly problematic for BLP reasons. --Pudeo (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Folks, there's genuine content disagreement here, over which reasonable people can have differing opinions. Whether the material should be included, and if so where, is a valid topic for consensus-seeking discussion, and the place for that is not here. Whether User:Soibangla should be sanctioned is a valid question here, and I'm not seeing justification for it - there's an UNDUE (content) discussion to be had, but I'm not seeing a violation of BLP or American Politics sanctions, as those sanctions do not prohibit the inclusion of negative material supported by reliable sources (and it's a source generally considered reliable). Also, I definitely agree that an admin taking part in what is actually a content disagreement should not be the one to impose sanctions in the event sanctions were considered appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. And the fact that there's "genuine content disagreement here" means, in my view, that this wasn't a clear-cut BLP violation that should result in a block of any kind. Grandpallama (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• There was already an RfC about this and that settles the issue until a new RfC. Not only is it a blp violation and undue but making that edit was circumventing consensus. [41] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, it's not a BLP violation because it's reliably sourced. It may be UNDUE. Guy (help!) 13:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, it can be two things. El_C 13:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, it can be, but it isn't, because it is factually accurate and a RS. Also, and at least as disturbing, see this from today: https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/1281061199728312320?s=20

As I said above, I do not know if Tucker Carlson is a racist, but the racists sure as hell think he is. Guy (help!) 13:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What can I say? That's hard to argue against. El_C 13:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it's reliably sourced; the Buzzfeednews tech column, and the NBC and Esquire opinion pieces, aren't RSes for suggesting a living person is an ally of white supremacists, and I don't see that the GQ article supports the edits in question. I guess count me in the minority. My barometer is that if it's a controversial statement that is not sourced to multiple, high quality sources, then it's a BLP violation. I get that from "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This counts, to me, as contentious material that is poorly sourced. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this now, with a suggestion that the editors return to the article talk page to discuss any remaining DUE WEIGHT issues? SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Having read through the comments that have appeared since last night, I see a rough consensus that no BLP vio occurred, a rough consensus that there are questions of UNDUE and a rough consensus against any sanctions. While I don't agree with the first conclusion, I bow to what appears to be the general take among my collegues as expressed in their comments. In light of which I will not take any further administrative action and will be satisfied that the edit in question, or anything similar, shall not be reinstated w/o clear talk page consensus supporting it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am striking my above comment. Based on subsequent comments and discussion it appears to have been premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• The edit is a brazen BLP violation as far as I can see. This is a pretty alarming condemnation that should only come from the most reliable sources. I wouldn't allow this kind of derogatory BLP violating nonsense in an article about Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow with this flimsy level of referencing. Whatever happened to the efforts to approach BLPs with diligence and na effort to "do no harm"? When editors make it their mission to only add the negative (and use less then substantive references) and little to "edit for the opposition", one wonders how we can defend them as here for the general good?--MONGO (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  And the person in question seems to think this is just fine [42]. Sad.--MONGO (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

LOL! guffawed the person in question soibangla (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Taking a victory lap at Talk:The Daily Stormer--before this thread is even closed--makes me concerned about continued editing in BLP and AP2 topic areas. WP:Battleground statements like I'm pretty sure that, as an admin, Ad Orientem knows the right thing to do here now. The only question is whether he will demonstrate a modicum of courage and integrity to do it. do not give me confidence in an editor's ability to communicate with other editors in these very fraught topic areas. If what soibangla takes from this discussion is "I was right", I fear we are going to have problems in the future. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

As I am the subject of this topic, I will not presume to close it, but I recommnend someone do it, as the individual who opened it effectively closed it. soibangla (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• BLP vio plus disregarding consensus to keep it out. I would support a 6 mos. t-ban. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't imagine why people might associate Carlson with racists. Another story breaking from RS about this issue. Grandpallama (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I will explain my link here, since Ad Orientem suggested it was both a BLP and NOTFORUM violation; I'll strike the snark from my comment as potentially inappropriate, but I consider the rest of what Ad Orientem wrote on my talkpage to be a deliberate attempt to chill criticism of his attempt to push sanctions through on a good-faith editor. As far as NOTFORUM goes, the link is certainly relevant to what is being discussed here, because reliable sources continuously and regularly associate Tucker Carlson with white supremacists and racist language. The whole discussion here revolves around whether an editor adding a reliably sourced (and it's disturbing that Ad Orientem repeatedly calls Buzzfeed News anything other than a RS, as the community has established consensus that it is) statement should be sanctioned for his edit. Most everyone, myself included, agrees that the edit doesn't belong in the article and that it attempts to establish guilt by association in an inappropriate manner. But the further argument, that soibangla committed some gross violation by calmly discussing the reversion of his edit at the talkpage, or that it was unreasonable to think reliable sources regularly writing about connections between racist/supremacist groups and Carlson might merit a mention, ignores the reality of what RS are publishing on this subject. By all means, nothing should go on Carlson's or The Daily Stormer page that violates consensus or Wikipedia policies, but as recently as today, stories are breaking about Carlson's associations. To implement a punitive block on an editor (because the fact that he has made no attempt to force in his edit means you can't possibly call this preventative) for thinking the article should address this topic is highly troubling. Grandpallama (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, Thanks for your comment and as I noted elsewhere, your entitled to your view. I will make just one point though. AFAIK nobody was considering a block. I certainly wasn't. The only sanction I considered was a TBan. That is under discussion below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct--slip of the tongue on my part and the fault of editing late on a Friday night. That said, I find everything I argued equally applicable to the notion of a TBAN on the editor for this one edit. Grandpallama (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for 6 mos. t-ban

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

---

Soibangla added a quote in violation of BLP, UNDUE and NPOV and disregarded WP:Consensus that was against adding such material; noncompliance with consensus is a violation of policy.

• Support for the reasons stated. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Adding - this ArbCom Principle which I included below after a bit more research in an effort to validate or dismiss the BLP vios argued by Ad Orientem, Levivich and others, myself included. I'm of the mind that the following principle stands out like a sore thumb in this case, and unequivocally validates the BLP argument. (my bold underline):

Quotation of material from an unreliable source
8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as there is obvious consensus after discussion that there was no BLP violation. Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive, and no evidence has been provided that soibangla requires a TBAN in order to prevent disruption; on the contrary, he has followed BRD. Grandpallama (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a point that I find weighty. There is not a current consensus on the question of a BLP vio. Opinions are divided rather sharply. However, we do have a broad agreement that the edit was inappropriate and UNDUE. But Soibangla has not attempted to reinstate the edit. Nor, a few snarky comments aside, have they suggested that they would do so. As the OP I am INVOLVED so I am not going to close the discussion. But, I will suggest that if Soibangla acknowledges the consensus that the edit was inappropriate and that they understand why, I would be fine if someone closed this on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, let's make a deal: I will acknowledge that my original edit was inappropriate, with a pledge to be more careful in the future, if you acknowledge you bypassed BRD — perhaps the most overarching principle of Wikipedia — to inappropriately open this topic. With the concurrence of other admins that our mutual agreement obviates further discussion here, we can close this topic and everyone can resume constructive editing. Deal? soibangla (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: No deal. I opened this discussion in lieu of unilaterally imposing a TBan on the basis of what I believed (and still believe) to have been a flagrant BLP vio and POV edit. Your general response to this discussion continues to cause me grave concern. Either you understand that your edit was seriously inappropriate, or you don't. That is not, and should not be a subject of some kind of quid pro quo negotiation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Their last 50-100 contribs raise broader concerns:
  • "this is not Carlson's BLP" makes me question if they understand BLP applies everywhere
  • Using Raw Story as a source to associate Michael Flynn [43] with QAnon [44] (Raw Story has the same owners and editors as AlterNet, which is red at WP:RSP); Raw Story is not listed.). Using Mother Jones for the same thing, without attribution (see WP:RSP, MJ requires may require attribution for politics and, in my opinion, does require attribution for an edit linking Flynn with QAnon) [45]. I'm not sure why WaPo is included in the references in that last edit; the WaPo article doesn't mention QAnon or Flynn.
  • Using Media Matters (yellow at WP:RSP, requires attribution) without attribution for negative information about a directly competing, ideologically-opposed watchdog group Judicial Watch [46]
  • Using CNN (a direct commercial competitor) as a source for negative information about Fox News [47]
  • "Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences" sourced to WaPo, except the article doesn't say that in its own voice; it attributes the accusation. Specifically, it says critics of Obama said he adopted a scolding tone towards black audiences. Yet it's included in our article in Wikivoice. [48] Also the article is 2013. It's WP:RECENTISM, it's almost a primary source as a contemporary news source. At this point, there is such better (academic) sourcing available for Obama and black audiences. It really feels like we found an obscure article from years ago just so we can say what we want to say.
  • Same article, this edit is inserting politics into the section about policy. The first two sentences are sourced to WaPo and Politico, but then Mediaite is included and that's RSP yellow. The sentence Obama praised police officers throughout his presidency is sourced to a bunch of examples of Obama praising cops. It's WP:SYNTH. Then we add a cherry-picked quote [49], which is WP:PUFFERY.
  • Kind of misrepresenting a source to make a point: [50]. The source doesn't say "falsely", it says "out of context", which is, sure, a type of falsehood, but stepping back, "political candidate quotes opponent out of context" is hardly the kind of significant information that should be included in the candidate's campaign article. An article about a campaign should summarize the campaign, not catalogue every tit-for-tat. See also: this WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions [51] and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here.
  • The history of Rudy Giuliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Giuliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring" edit warring at Rudy Giuliani), including comments like [52] [53] [54] [55]
  • Their responses to this thread: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
  • I noticed at User talk:Soibangla, from last year, this comment: "@Doug Weller: I am aware that some partisan editors use this alert in an attempt to intimidate others into silence. Unless you have a specific complaint about my edits, I suggest you refrain from sending generic alerts without cause". Battleground.
  • Admittedly the last 50-100 edits is a small sample size, but I can't help but notice that every single one is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals. I find this ironic in light of their reference to "my amusement at a false reputation projected upon me by brazen hyperpartisans" [62].
  • Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. (Note I edited many of the above articles to address my concerns.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • A number of these analyses are misleading.
      • Mother Jones is green at WP:RSP, and statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed (emphasis mine), which is a far cry from ""requires attribution".
      • There is no policy stating that a group cannot criticize another competing group. At most, the Media Matters critique of Judicial Watch requires attribution, but we are not barred from using one group to critique another group.
      • See above on the claim that sourcing a critique of Fox to CNN is somehow problematic. No policy backing, and according to this reasoning, who would be allowed to critique Fox? CNN is a RS, period.
      • There is a misrepresentation of the scolding comment on the Obama page. The title of the article is "To critics, Obama’s scolding tone with black audiences is getting old", but the full text of what soibangla wrote is Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences, admonishing black men to be more responsible to their families and communities., which primarily comes directly from the second paragraph of the article in WaPo's own voice: During the speech, Obama admonished black men to take care of their families and their communities and told the graduates that despite the lingering legacies of slavery and discrimination, "we’ve got no time for excuses."
      • The concern of "falsely" vs. "out of context" is undermined by the conclusion reached by the CNN fact-check article: Clearly, the "enemy" comment was not some sort of general assessment of police officers or even a statement about how police officers are generally seen by communities. It was specifically about perceptions of police who use particular equipment in particular circumstances. Using the word "falsely" in light of that summation is perfectly acceptable and in no way a misrepresentation of the CNN article or its claims. Also, the argument that a campaign page shouldn't document every "tit-for-tat" is questionable in this context; the article breaks down the presidential campaign by month, with sections for each, and includes this as part of the July section. Considering the national unrest and conversations about policing in summer 2020, candidate statements and claims about police and police actions are reasonable additions.
      • The mention of the Rudy Giuliani talkpage is frustratingly misleading. It fails to mention that after MelanieN told both soibangla and the other editor to stop edit warring, she very clearly articulated that the other editor was failing to follow BRD and admonished them (but not soibangla) to do so; she also confirmed that the other editor was engaging in borderline personal attacks, but again, did not mention soibangla. It also fails to mention that soibangla disengaged.
      • The observation that "I can't help but notice that every single [edit] is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals" seems to suggest that this isn't permitted. If you want to argue that soibangla needs to tone down battleground verbiage, that's one thing, but what else are you implying? Most editors, including a fair number in this very discussion, edit positively about one party and negatively about another. That's not against policy, as long as they're not being disruptive.
      • This is warning-worthy behavior, not immediate TBAN behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Levivich,
      • RSN is silent on Raw Story. It's fair game.
      • Media Matters: don't they provide "attribution" to the source documents? As I've explained previously elsewhere, I've never used Media Matters for their opinions, and I actually removed[[63]] such a cited use by another editor just days ago. I use it exclusively for the videos, transcripts and documents they provide, which are objectively indisputable. I use it as a secondary source simply to convey what would otherwise be primary sources.
      • Mediate: it's yellow, not red. Proceed with caution, not stop. And I proceeded with caution, using it only for the video/transcript of a Fox News host claiming "anti-police rhetoric"
      • Obama police speeches: I don't think it's SYNTH. One might assert two of the sources (CSPAN videos) are primary, but "Primary" does not mean "bad"}} soibangla (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      • WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions It's not UNDUE, that section contains several similar short anecdotes, and the Sessions quote in my edit is from an exclusive interview with the NYT soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here which we are apparently expected to believe simply because you say it's so. Kindly be specific. soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Soibangla, I assume you mean RSP, not RSN, because there are half a dozen threads at RSN about Raw Story, going back over ten years. When you say things like: because a source is not listed on RSP (or RSN, if that were the case), "it's fair game", it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed from AP2 and BLP. It's very much not the case that a source that is unlisted on our noticeboards is "fair game". In fact, many, many... the overwhelming majority... of unreliable sources are not listed at RSP and never discussed at RSN. You need to make an independent determination as an editor as to whether the source you are using meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and our other policies and guidelines.
          Now, if your attitude was one of, "Oh, I didn't know Raw Story is an unreliable source", or even "I disagree with Levivich and I think Raw Story is a reliable source because [reasons relating to what our policies say about what makes a source reliable or not]", I wouldn't think of a TBAN. But instead, your response is to suggest that Raw Story is "fair game", even after I told you why I thought it was unreliable (because of its ownership and editors). But you don't respond to the "meat" of my argument -- to whether Raw Story is reliable or not -- and instead, you play a "gotcha game" of "RSN is silent ... It's fair game". This is not an approach that we can tolerate in DS areas. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
          • If you want to argue it's not reliable, you can do that on RSP, or in the edit, or note that someone challenged it in the edit, but I don't think it makes much sense to come here now and unilaterally assert it's not reliable, especially since you haven't specified exactly what in the reference you deem questionable. it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed Perhaps you've noticed, just in this one thread alone, that a good number of admins have difficulty agreeing on major policies that have been hammered-out since forever. Should they all be banned, too? soibangla (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Per Levivich's comprehensive analysis. El_C 07:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, I note that you, Springee and DoubleCross voted on the basis of this “comprehensive” analysis, before grandpallama and Aquillion critiqued it to reveal numerous significant weaknesses, which I may add to. I encourage you to consider those critiques. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  OK, I'll add some examples of my own interactions with you [[64]]. From that link we have two examples. Here you suggest editors on Wikipedia who disagree with you are liars [[65]]. In this case[[66]] you say, "I get the sense you don't like me very much. I take that as a compliment of my work. ". How is that not a BATTLEGROUND mentality towards editors who disagree with you? So in addition to the other issues I have BATTLEGROUND examples from my own interactions with you. Springee (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, I did not call you or other editors a liar, I was referring to well-organized groups.

  You innappropriately pinged me here, when you should've come to my Talk page, then took a gratuitous swipe at me that "This isn't something to be proud of," referring to my amusement at an r/The_Donald troll brazenly lying about me in an apparent attempt to rally a MAGA troll army to come after me. And now you're here to pile-on in vengeance. Can you credibily say now that I don't have good reason for my ""sense you don't like me very much?" That's enough, just drop it.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_6_mos._t-ban soibangla (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Your comment about liars was clearly directed at people here, "I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here.". Note the "including here" part. I don't recall pinging you here at all so I'm not sure how I could have done it inappropriately. It certainly doesn't justify an out of the blue comment like linked above. Springee (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Soibangla, I'm happy with 3 months, too, but the point is that you need a not insignificant break from the topic area to reassess. El_C 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich's analysis as well. Springee (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich. - DoubleCross (‡) 14:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While soibangla could stand to be more cautious, most of Levivich's arguments are breathtakingly wrong. Mother Jones is a high-quality source; yellow sources, like Media Matters, are use-carefully and not ones I would rely on, but it's baffling to suggest such a broad six-month topic-ban based on that. But by far the most shocking part (and the one that compelled me to comment) is the argument that we cannot cite CNN about Fox, an argument without the slightest sliver of grounding in policy and one I would expect to see more from a POV-pushing IP than an established editor. By that argument, no article on a news channel could ever have any citations to news, no article on a publisher or writer could ever have any citations to books, and no article on academia (or even topics within academia) could ever have any citations to other academics within their field. Given the importance of this, I'm going to take this to WP:RSN, since it's absolutely not an interpretation we can have floating around. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Note discussion was already underway at Talk:Fox News#Using biased sources and competitors as sources before the CNN-criticizing-Fox edits were made. (And that discussion isn't about CNN, it's about other journalistic sources.) I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to use CNN as a source for criticism of Fox, any more than it would be reasonable to use Fox as a source for criticism of CNN. They're the two largest cable news networks, both for profit, on opposite ideological sides. They're direct competitors with a financial incentive for making the other network look bad. This is like using Coca-Cola as a source for negative information about Pepsi, or using a political candidate as a source for negative information about their opponent. And of course this doesn't translate to academia... because it's not a for-profit company. And it doesn't extend to all media, either. You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post, and vice versa, but you can use NYT as a source for negative information about CNN or Fox because they're not direct competitors--not even in the same media. If you need an all caps blue blink, see WP:COMMONSENSE. Also WP:NPOV though. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post. Of course you can. The NYT is one of the most reputable sources in the world; suggesting that they would be unable to write impartially about the New York Post - or that CNN is unable to write impartially about Fox - is laughable to the point that it raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are not high-quality news sources with sterling reputations; CNN and the New York Times are, and throwing that reputation into doubt requires more than just "they're both news stations and disagree on stuff." I have and will continue to cite them in that context, will always restore such cites when I see them removed, and would naturally add them when absent, since such high-quality sources with an expertise in the field are some of the best to cite in this context. Not only is CNN citeable when it comes to Fox, it is a high-quality source worth adding, and using it in that context is commendable; I find the fact that you are doubling down on such a plainly inaccurate and groundless objection to be baffling. You have some (weak) points about other areas where soibangla could be more cautious, but by trying to push through this absurd and indefensible position you are undermining your entire argument. Also, I'll note that you described Fox and CNN as being on opposite ideological sides, which is inaccurate; Fox brands itself ideologically, but CNN does not. It is possible that this fundamental misunderstanding of the American media landscape contributes to your error here, though I'm still baffled that anyone could seriously suggest that Fox's status as a cable news company makes it immune to criticism from the entire cable news spectrum. (As an aside, Fox is owned by New Corp, which owns several newspapers - how does your logic not extend to immunizing it from newspapers as well?) --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha... CNN is not a "high quality source" like The New York Times. They're not even in the same league. You can't compare cable news to the US's paper of record. But even the US's paper of record is not an appropriate source for negative information about its direct financial competitors. And, Aquillion, believe me, as much as you say you think my position is "indefensible", I think yours is laughable. So what? That's what content disputes are about. Anyway, the place to discuss this is the RSN post you started, not here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that this isn't a content dispute. This is you invoking a non-existent policy about RS as part of a justification for imposing a TBAN on an editor, and then doubling down when shocked Wikipedians point out how "breathtakingly wrong" that justification is. Whether or not you like that CNN is a RS for reporting on Fox (or any other subject) can be taken up elsewhere, but imaginary policies can't be used to censure editors. Grandpallama (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, please do not put words in my mouth. I invoked no policy whatsoever - I never said anything even close to that there is a policy or a guideline or even an essay. Further, I did not say he should be TBANed for it. My last bullet point is clear that I, like you, think these are only warnable offenses, and my last bullet point explained why, and under what conditions I supported a TBAN. I think I was exceptionally clear and you are completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've written. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Your last bullet point states I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN, after specifically saying you don't think a warning suffices in this context; please don't play games and claim you opposed the TBAN after just voting to support it. As for CNN, you didn't call it a policy or a guideline or even an essay...and yet it's a partial justification for the TBAN you supported. But it's something people can't do. But it's not a policy. Gimme a break, Levivich--the only misrepresentation in your bullets came from you. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I've made my point(s), repeatedly, in this discussion, so I plan to refrain from commenting further unless pinged with a direct question. I don't want my commenting to turn into a bludgeon. Plus, I have bookshelves to build! Grandpallama (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how you find this unclear: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. That means I don't think these kinds of edits are TBANable, rather I think the attitude and not interested in learning how to improve are the reasons (for as long as that remains the case) that I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Hope this clears up your confusion about the reason I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Improper/questionable sourcing does matter when determining a t-ban and the problem is consistent. For the record, Mother Jones is not "high quality" - it is a generally reliable source with caveats per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Mother Jones. Next, Media Matters, questionable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Matters_for_America, and all the cited competitor sources fall under COI. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

While I didn't cite any policy, the policy is WP:V, footnote 9, which advises against using articles by any media group that ... discredits its competitors. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Levivich. I cited that same policy just over a week ago at RSN. Atsme exclaims, "My memory is so bad!" Levivich asks, "How bad is it?" She replies, "How bad is what..?" ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear: you supported a TBAN based upon your heavily flawed "analysis" while claiming, somehow, you don't support a TBAN based on your highly flawed "analysis"; if it didn't factor into the decision, why do it? The disingenuousness of this is tiresome. If you're hanging your hat on a footnote at WP:V as an argument that CNN cannot be cited as critiquing Fox, you're not going to make much headway. And I don't care how much people want to quibble about Mother Jones--Wikipedia has determined it's a RS, and the caveats for its use are other than what was presented. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RSP. Grandpallama (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're having such a hard time understanding the concept of "It's not the mistakes, but the refusal to correct the mistakes, that justifies a TBAN." I'm also saddened that you accuse me of doing so many bad things all the time. One of these days, I hope you can disagree with me without calling me a bad editor. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support with regret, based on the analysis by Levivich and the general response of Soibangla, including especially their most recent comment, which suggests that they just don't get it, likely coupled with a bad case of IDHT. Under the circumstances I don't think they should be editing anything related to post 1932 US Politics. We can revisit the subject in six months and see if they have a better understanding of the problematic nature of their edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum I actually would prefer the TBan be indefinite with the possibility of review after six months. I am still not seeing any acknowledgement from them that their edit was seriously inappropriate. And while I concede there is a sharp difference of opinion in this discussion as to whether or not it was a BLP vio, there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE. Until Soibangla acknowledges this, they should not be editing anything dealing with AP2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, the primary reason for your perceived intransigence on my part is your persistent refusal to acknowledge some basic facts of how this topic arose in the first place. For example, in your opening paragraph of this thread, you state The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed, having asserted on the Talk page that it was an op-ed from Buzzfeed, a yellow source, but I showed you there that it was a news report from BuzzfeedNews, a green source. MastCell also showed told you that BuzzfeedNews is a reliable source. Before you struck it, your findings of comments found a rough consensus that no BLP vio occurred, a rough consensus that there are questions of UNDUE and a rough consensus against any sanctions but now you assert there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE (italics mine). And if that's the only offense remaining, that could have been — and should have been — properly handled by standard BRD in Talk, which you precipitously bypassed to seek what is tantamount to a death sentence for me — for one edit out of many thousands. You also continue to assert that you had the unilateral authority to ban me on the spot, even though MastCell correctly pointed out that because you reverted my edit, and we were the only participants in the ensuing Talk discussion, you were the INVOLVED party and should properly recuse yourself from asserting authority to ban me. I again refer to MastCell's comments, which succinctly summarize the core problems with your approach, and to which you have never responded. The fact that you never addressed my points on Talk, precipitously escalated to ANI, and then failed to address MastCell's analysis strongly suggests that you are knowingly, willfully and steadfastly ignoring strongly exculpatory evidence in my favor. You refuse to acknowledge any of this, and instead you insist that I simply won't accept any responsibility and further escalate the matter, now returning to calling for my permanent removal. I am truly at a loss to understand what is motivating this.

Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. — MastCell

Look, I readily concede from the all-hands-on-deck pile-on now occurring that sometimes I demonstrate a bad attitude, and can sometimes even be nasty, and sometimes make sloppy edits. People are telling me to get my act together. I get it. I really do. I will take it to heart and conscientiously endeavor to do better going forward. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Aquillon, and could this please be punted to WP:AE? Nothing is going to be accomplished by page long arguments from involved editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Initially, I was going to oppose this under the condition Soibangla recognized that the edit was UNDUE and agreed to be more careful in the future. But his response to Ad Orientem above where he tried to negotiate with him changed my mind, as did Levivich's post outlining more examples of policy-violating behavior. Though he certainly is the only editor who does it, adding every bit of negative trivial information you can find to an article about a person or organization you don't like is not an appropriate way to edit. Also, Siobangla recently edited the Fox News article with trivial information about Fox cropping a picture of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump using CNN as a source. The edit contained a clear BLP violation that called Epstein a "former Trump associate" (something the CNN article did not say). I reverted his edit with a summary indicating it was both a BLP violation and UNDUE. He then restored a modified version of this original edit.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support and would suggest an indefinite topic ban, as this type of BLP violation has happened before. I suggest an indef ban because Soibangla was unable to understand that "a claim" and "the claim" are not synonymous:

• Soibangla (with support from Aquillion*) used an ambiguous statement in the NYT to make an unambiguous claim at the Jeffrey Epstein page, which constituted a BLP violation for Epstein's main victim, Virginia Giuffre by stating she admitted to having lied about seeing Bill Clinton on Epstein's island.*, *, *
• Soibangla was told by SlimVirgin in the related RS/N that the cited sentence in the NYT was ambiguous and couldn't be used to make the claim Soibangla was making *
• Soibangla never concedes, continues at Sarah's TP, and then doesn't show up to the related RfC to argue his case. For all we know, he still thinks he was right.

This false claim was live on the Epstein page for over a month because I was continually disallowed from correcting it. I'm not sure where an editor with the comprehension difficulties exemplified here belongs, but the American Politics area is troubled enough as it is. petrarchan47คุก 04:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a call to ban Soibangla to settle a personal grievance of yours. If so, I don't think you've shown that your pain rises to the level of a community concern. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not aggrieved by evidence of a BLP violating editor? Why not? petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the publication of excerpts from your diary -- matters that have nothing to do with the question at hand. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla's repeated addition of content was a BLP and WP:V violation. He was told by multiple people that he is wrong to claim there is a trivial difference between "the" and "a"; he used WP:OR to make his edit to the Epstein page, and he was in error. He still to this moment argues that he was right, meaning this RfC, Newslinger, and Slim Virgin (and I) were wrong. This is deeply concerning. My addition here has nothing to do with a petty grievance. My intention is to alert fellow editors to a what I see as a serious problem justifying a ban. (I haven't kept a diary, by the way, since I was 15.) petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I confess that that encounter was among the most exasperating I've had on Wikipedia and I finally had to walk away. Your insistence then, and still now, that "a claim" was unspecified in the NYT article is belied by the fact the sentence clearly stated it was a claim that Clinton had visited Epstein's island, which Giuffre later conceded was false. You latched onto parsing the trivial difference between "the" and "a" while disregarding that the sentence clearly stated what "a claim" was about. My repeated efforts to explain this obvious reality to you proved futile. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So you do still believe you are right. As Newslinger wrote: This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text. Guiffre never conceded it was false, and the NYT doesn't directly say she did. In fact, CNN directly counters she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office. Multiple editors tried to explain that you cannot conflate a nebulous "a claim" with "the [specific] claim", and indeed your doing so resulted in a false statement printed in Wikipedia that smeared a living person as a liar. You stated that The unsealed court documents also showed that Giuffre later acknowledged her previous claim about Clinton visiting the island was false is the only way to accurately summarize (from NYT) The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. This should be worrying to all Wikipedians mainly because you don't seem capable of understanding the problem. petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

From the Daily Mail: On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to a dinner which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr Clinton shortly after he left office. But, as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait, nor did he here: Epstein once threw a dinner party at the [Manhattan] house in Mr. Clinton’s honor. The former president never showed, but the magazine reported that the other guests included Mr. Trump. Guiffre never conceded it was false, and the NYT doesn't directly say she did. The NYT unambiguously reported she did, under oath this time, and no amount of parsing "a" versus "the" can change that. What really happened here is that years ago Giuffre made this claim, Clinton haters accepted it as established fact, incorporated it into their belief systems, it became an element in the evolving Pizzagate/Qanon theories, then years later the allegation was debunked and cognitive dissonance prevented the believers from accepting it. It's disgraceful that by removing that NYT article, WIkipedia has been made passively complicit in falsehoods that contribute to the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope editors can see the problems here. Soibangla is quoting the Daily Mail, although he acknowledges here that it is unreliable, he then changes the subject to a dinner party in NYC, and launches into a conspiracy theory. He ignores the result of the [RfC and the fact that Newslinger discovered there is no such claim in the source material (court documents) cited by the Times. Soibangla ignores the fact that Newslinger had to issue a request for correction to the Times. Soibangla instead wishes we hadn't removed the piece. He also ignores:

• Sarah SV: But which claim exactly? ... The WP article discusses "her previous claim" as though there was only one claim—that Clinton visited the island—and therefore that must be the claim that is false. I agree that we can't infer this from the NYT article
• Newslinger: This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text.
• CNN: According to a transcript of a video deposition Giuffre gave in 2016, she disputed aspects of a 2011 story in the Daily Mail that was based on a series of interviews Giuffre had given...she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton shortly after Clinton left office.
• There is now a second alleged witness to Clinton's island visit, as seen in the Netflix documentary, per: Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, and Fox: A longtime tech worker on the Caribbean island claims he once saw Clinton with Epstein in the porch area of Epstein’s villa home ... Previously, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims she became Epstein’s “sex slave” at age 17, said she recalled seeing Clinton on the island

petrarchan47คุก 01:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support T-Ban Confess my dealings with Soibangla have been less than pleasant, but, comeon, if the most recent 100 or so edits have been as problematic as the ones shown by Levivich and others above, with that sort of pattern does anyone expect that earlier edits to be any better? While old now, his BLP violating comment here about a WSJ contributing editor "Her opinion ain't worth a bucket of spit. She is notorious for just making stuff up. She is yet another compulsive liar. Period."[67] is not atypical. After I gave him a 3RR reminder he retaliated with [68].--MONGO (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Levivich's analysis, which I found weighted and occasionally bogus. --Calton | Talk 10:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Largely per Levivich which held a lot of weight for me. I honestly was not sure if I was going to give an opinion here. Me and Soibangla have interacted quite a bit and even had fun and joked around, but it is hard to deny the issues when laid out like this. When taken as a whole it seems to come off as a case of Sealioning. Never accepting that there are legitimate issues with the content they are trying to add to articles and attempting to transfer the onus to the person who reverted. Something all to common in the AP topic area and something that should be addressed. As noted above yes when reverted they generally head to the talk page and start a discussion, which is good. Though as I explained that is not where the issue ends. So when taken as a whole there are major disruptions cased by this.

I am also rather disturbed at the debate over the BuzzFeed News article. Yes RSP says generally reliable, but the purpose of RSP is not if something is or is not reliable but if it is generally reliable. That is a distinction that is worth mentioning, it is still a case by case basis. The community has consensus that it is generally reliable, not that it is always reliable. So we have BuzzFeed News with their source being The Daily Stormer attacking a BLP. In this instance I would argue that the BuzzFeed article is not a RS for that info on a BLP. There are also arguments while it is not a BLP vio it is just a UNDUE situation. That is false as well. If it is UNDUE for a BLP it is a BLP vio to push to include it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, anyway. This thread opened with what should've been a non-starter. It's a sourced statement (and not to an op-ed in an unreliable source, as was presented) that relates to an aspect of Tucker Carlson that gets an awful lot of press attention. It's not a BLP violation that needs addressing on a noticeboard. That doesn't mean I think it should be in either the Daily Stormer or the Carlson article (that particular language is probably undue for both), but it was added one time, reverted, and not restored ... it's a content dispute. As for Levivich's list above, I agree with Aquillion about some of it, and there are some things that are minorly concerning. I checked the AN/ANI history for other instances of Soibangla being reported here, assuming that to jump so quickly to a tban proposal there must be some history, but there's none I can find. I see one 3RR block from six years ago and one AE request that was closed as a content dispute without action (as this should've been). Soibangla, if this is closed without action, maybe take it as advice to try to err on the side of caution and discussion a bit more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per Levivich, especially this part: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Without commenting on soibangla’s overall conduct, I’d like to object to User:Levivich’s misleading characterization of the discussion at Talk:Rudy Giuliani, where he seems to imply that I found fault with soibangla at that page. I'd also like to thank User:Grandpallama for correcting and clarifying the situation; without his ping I might not have noticed this thread. In fact I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct; I merely warned him and the other editor for edit warring. My talk page criticisms were directed to the other editor, who was repeatedly disparaging and insulting soibangla. Please disregard that item in Levivich’s list of accusations. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  MelanieN, sorry, what misleading characterization do you see in what I wrote: The history of Rudy Giuliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Giuliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring"), including comments like [94] [95] [96] [97]? I'm not "implying" that you found fault, I'm quoting your explicit finding of fault. Are you saying the two of them were not edit warring on Rudy Giuliani? Looking at the history of the page, it looks to me like they were. Those four diffs are the specific concerns I had at that talk page, and they're all by soiblanga, not by you. I guess I should have just said "edit warring at Rudy Giuliani with another editor" rather than quoting you; I'll do that next time; and it certainly wasn't my intent to mischaracterize you, but I didn't realize that you didn't think they were edit warring? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  I did warn them both for edit warring. My point here is that I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct - which is what was implied by your citing me along with a bunch of links to things soibangla said. If anything, I thought soibangla was remaining commendably calm and content-focused, rather than getting baited into attacking back. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't understand how anyone could perceive that implication in what I wrote. Sorry, it wasn't intended. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Aquillon and Grandpallama. A Tban is way overboard. Curdle (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support largely per Levivich's analysis. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aquillon, Grandpallama, and Rhododendrites laid it out well. Soibangla can be more careful, but I do not see sanctionable content here rising to the level of anything beyond a word of advice. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The initial content dispute should have been discussed further at article talk or possibly BLPN, there was no conduct issue that needed to be escalated to ANI. It's also unclear what "...disregarded WP:Consensus that was against adding such material" in the tban proposal refers to since the material in question doesn't seem to have been previously discussed, perhaps Atsme could clarify?

Regarding the sources, CNN and Buzzfeed News are generally reliable, especially in cases like these where they are giving factual accounts of what took place and quoting those involved. The rest of Levivich's list varies in quality, as others have pointed out, but again there's nothing that can't be resolved through our normal editorial processes. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This request was triggered by an instance in which Soibangla made a single reasonably-sourced edit; the edit was reverted on WP:DUE grounds; and discussion ensued at the talkpage. In other words, a standard WP:BRD cycle. There was no BLP violation, as consensus above has made clear. He made a bold edit; discussion & consensus led to the conclusion that the material didn't belong in the article; and as far as I can tell, Soibangla has accepted that and not tried to reinstate it or to edit-war. I don't really get the efforts to paint this as some sort of abhorrent behavior, nor to compel an apology for it. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: This entire process has been a sham from the getgo, it was predicated on a false pretext, and it should be immediately closed without further consideration. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence, growing by the day, now beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this began with shoddy police work, leading to a fraudulent indictment, followed by prosecutorial misconduct which over time escalated from merely improper to egregious to actually malicious. It opened the door to an angry mob to storm into the courtroom with torches and pitchforks demanding vigilante justice for a variety of unrelated grievances and grudges, often presenting dubious evidence. With increasing intensity, the prosecutor has attempted to coerce me into making a false confession for a crime that did not happen, to take a plea deal for a lighter sentence, but if I don't capitulate to this coercion, I will be sentenced to death — all to make me the fall guy for the spectacular blunder he made that he cannot own up to and must cover up. Because the original charge was bogus, this topic should never have been opened, and the ensuing vote is thereby invalid. This farce has visited a great wrong on me, I am being framed and railroaded, which is needlessly (but not necessarily unintentionally) inflicting enormous and irreparable damage to my reputation, poisoning the well for my future participation on Wikipedia. This is the stuff of a kangaroo court found in totalitarian regimes. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oof. I would gently suggest it's in your best interest to let this play out now based upon all the evidence that's been submitted, because further commenting can only hurt, not help, you. And whatever the validity of the initial claims (which I obviously had serious concerns with), if people feel you're engaging in battleground behavior now in this discussion, that can absolutely be grounds for a sanction. I understand the frustration that would lead to the courtroom rhetoric and the deliberate hyperbole, but I don't think it is to your advantage. Grandpallama (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Jeez. Talk about acute rhetorical excesses which prove why the ban is needed... El_C 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest taking a look at the evidence I provided and the responses from Soibangla; I think it proves a ban is warranted and that some sort of mentorship should be required for Soibangla to continue editing any topic area. There are staggering comprehension issues and I would argue that to ignore them is grossly unfair to other editors. petrarchan47คุก 01:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself here. Several of us have opposed this proposal due to lack of merit in the complaint(s) it's predicated upon, but have expressed concern about [your approach, more or less]. These comments exacerbate those concerns and certainly aren't going to convince any in the support column. My advice: you've made your frustration known; the time now is to take it down a few levels and abstain from commenting unless it's going to be measured and at least somewhat reflective. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Excuse this wall of text, but the support votes are based on Levivich's egregiously deceptive wall-of-text, so it needs rebutting. The support votes are based on a bad and misleading analysis by Levivich who has a track record of posting similarly shoddy analyses to get editors banned whom he disagrees with and who edit against his POV while he similarly skews the facts to unflinchingly defend the most problematic editors on this encyclopedia for the sole reason that they edit content in a way that he personally likes. When Levivich sought to get me banned, he literally cited examples of me edit-warring with white supremacist sockpuppets with 88 in their username, genocide denying IPs and other insanity as an example of my horrible edit-warring ways. This is not an editor who engages in careful nuanced analysis of a situation and weighs evidence accordingly. Instead, he sifts through everything in an editor's past and drowns the discussion with a Gish gallop mixture of bad evidence, straight-up deceptions, and of course the occasional mistake that any editor might make. Some editors are then impressed with what superficially appears to be a thorough and well-formatted, even though it falls apart upon closer examination. Going through Levivich's list of 12 bullet points, only three of them are problematic (and all of them would be fixed by instructing Soibangla of how the attribution rule works precisely and that BLP doesn't just refer to biographies) and the rest of the bullet points contain errors by Levivich or are nothingburgers:

1. "this is not Carlson's BLP" does indicate that the user doesn't fully realize that BLP doesn't merely refer to "biographies" (which is a common mistake that non-veteran editors might make). Now he knows better. Nothingburger.
2. Levivich falsely claims that RSP says that Mother Jones "requires attribution for politics" (it says MoJo "may" neeed attribution). Furthermore, the content that Soibangla added (sourced to Mojo) is blatantly accurate (and confirmed by other RS), meaning that the "may" qualifier doesn't apply in any way whatsoever.[69]
3. Analyses by Media Matters should be attributed, but their analysis is 100% correct and verifiable. Making the editor aware of the attribution requirement (even in cases when content is 100% accurate and verifiable) would solve the issue. Nothingburger.
4. There is nothing in the slightest wrong with citing CNN, a RS, in an article about Fox News[70]. It's embarrassing for someone to actually type this out and present it as a reason to ban someone, but it does not surprise me in the slightest that this is the level that Levivich stoops to.
5. I agree that the Obama content should be attributed[71], but it doesn't seem like a big issue (there is lots of RS content, including academic, on Obama and his rhetoric on race, which has often been characterized as unusually conservative). I saw the edit, and considered reverting it or exploring the sourcing, but decided not to, because I was aware of the existing academic debate on the topic. It's a nothingburger. It also conflicts with your claim that Soibangla has a pro-Democrat bias.
6. There's nothing at all wrong with the content on Obama and police[72], beyond the usual tweaks to language and placement that applies to most content on this encyclopedia. The editor uses multiple secondary RS, which would be sufficient on their own as citations for the content, but also does readers the additional service of adding supplementary primary sources (which are not needed, but are helpful additions). As for picking one particular quote[73] (in addition to all the secondary RS content), our bios on presidents and political figures are filled to the brim with primary sourced quotes. I have a very strict anti-primary source policy (which many other editors do not have, definitely not Levivich), but there's nothing in the slightest sanctionable about this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
7. That Levivich uses this as an example gets to the rotten heart of his case: [74]. It is 100% a verifiable falsehood and the RS clearly identifies it as false. Although it doesn't explicitly use the term "false", it just delineates how it's false. Countless other RS explicitly call it false. Nothingburger.
8. The Rudy Giuliani diffs, which were misrepresented to portray Soibangla as having been scolded by an admin, have been debunked by other editors, including the admin in question. Literally in the same comment by MelanieN that Levivich misleadingly quotes, she says that a particular editor is "the one who keeps trying to change or remove longstanding content, you need to explain and establish your reasons for doing so; you can’t just keep doing it." Was she saying it to Soibangla? No. She was saying it to the editor who Soibangla was tangling with. Levivich doesn't present such context, because it flies completely against the case that he's trying to make. It's infuriating to read such deception, and it saddens me that some lazy editors read Levivich's well-formatted wall of text, take Levivich's argument in good faith, and presume that Soibangla is an extremely troublesome editor on the basis of this deceptive analysis.
9. I checked the first diff: [75]. Who cares? What is this? Nothingburger. Throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if something will stick.
10. It's not nice to respond that way to Doug Weller. Many editors who are engaged in content disputes do not respond well when they get templated or get instructed to follow the rules.
11. In this bullet point, Levivich is whining about how Soibangla is anti-Republican. However, as his diffs have already shown, Soibangla added content to Obama's bio which could clearly be construed as negative. But then again, Soibangla also added content about how Mike Pence brazenly lied and Levivich personally disagrees that it was a lie (which points to Levivich's personal politics), so Soibangla must anti-Republican and so biased that he is not fit for editing.
12. Levivich tries to portray himself as a neutral observer with his "Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits [BUT YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY BAN THEM]" bullet point, yet Levivich has shown a strong bias on these subjects and has already tried to ban editors with a different POV and staunchly defended way more troublesome editors who fit his POV. If someone were to present these diffs as evidence of SashiRolls's troublesome editing, it would rightfully be laughed off this noticeboard and Levivich would be calling for a boomerang on the proposer of the sanction.

• A final note: it's unbelievable to see Levivich present himself as an ardent principled stickler for high-quality sources and consensus when Levivich last year sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying and he could only come up with rubbish op-eds to defend his wanted to juxtapose RS content with misleading pro-Republican talking points of what the article should say), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[76] from the page after it was approved by consensus in a RfC[77]. Nothing that he accuses Soibangla of reaches that level of tendentiousness. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for calling it "well formatted". I appreciate the compliment. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Pure WP:BATTLEFIELD of an indictment, filled with vague innuendo. Accusing Levivich of the very thing being submitted. This account is not matter of fact. It descends the level of debate. Much like with Soibangla's latest statement. Way too much vitriol, which is not conducive to a healthy discussion. El_C 02:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Was that wall of text intended to defend Soibangla or shit on Levivich? PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, all due respect to your concerns about the level of discource, but Pure WP:BATTLEFIELD of an indictment, filled with vague innuendo is a pretty accurate description of the evidence Levivich presented (though it was maybe not so vague). Multiple editors have called bullshit on it, and dissected portions of it; I would think every admin should be alarmed that Melanie, strategically not pinged when she was quoted, felt obligated to come to this discussion just to object to the characterization of her actions and selective quotation of her statements. And every editor (including admins) should be alarmed at the "CNN is fake news" dog whistle in this discussion; arguing that CNN is not a high quality (i.e., reliable) source is the domain of WP:NOTHERE SPAs. There's an understandable focus on Levivich's diffs and claims because they have served as a hinge for many of the support votes. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, arguing that CNN is not a high quality (i.e., reliable) source ... are you kidding? Did you just say "high quality" = "reliable"? That's not true. "Reliable" is like a minimum standard, and "high quality" would be above that. CNN is not a "high quality" sources. That doesn't mean it's fake news. More concerning to me than soiblanga's conduct is how many AP2 editors apparently have ridiculously bad ideas about source quality. It's bad enough that you don't think the original edit was a BLP violation -- it's even worse that you think CNN is a "high quality" source. "High quality" refers to academic sources and the very top tier journalist sources like BBC and NYT. It doesn't cover CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or Buzzfeed News. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said, admins and editors should be alarmed. Grandpallama (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who cannot perceive the difference in quality between CNN and The New York Times should not be editing AP2. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, sorry, but I still don't think derision and battleground rhetoric ought to have any place in this discussion. If editors, of either side, feel so strongly about the subject matter (AP2) to the point that they can't help themselves but to descend to that level of debate, they should probably just not participate in it from the outset. Again, that also includes Soibangla themselves. I am rather firm in that position. El_C 14:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I am not seeing Grandpallama expressing any strong view as to AP2 subject matter. I do see that Grandpallama has expressed concern as to Levivich's conduct, and that conduct has been a significant factor in this thread and discussion. As you may recall, @TonyBallioni: raised similar concerns about Levivich's conduct and participation in community discussions, which were then documented by various editors at a June 2020 ANI thread. Given the unfortunate possibility that some editors on the current thread may rely on Levivich's post largely because it is a well-formatted list of assertions that is onerous to fact-check, I do not think Grandpallama's participation was out of bounds here, where everyone's behavior is potentially on the line. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for calling it "well-formatted". I really appreciate everybody complimenting me on the formatting of my posts. SPECIFICO, do you think our colleagues are so stupid as to simply accept whatever I say without checking it for themselves? Are you willing to go "on record" as claiming that everyone voting "support" has been bamboozled by the formatting of my post? Or do you think our colleagues think for themselves? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, my complaint was never about Grandpallama's behaviour, I think you misunderstood to whom the reference was intended. It was indended toward this comment (incomplete diff) by Snooganssnoogans and this comment by Soibangla. El_C 15:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Levivich, I was just quoting @Snooganssnoogans: that your indictment was "well-formatted". But your quick retort with a silly straw-man rhetorical question is the same kind of unconstructive behavior by you that was discussed at the previous ANI and now this one. For the record: I do not think we have stupid WP edtiors or WP editors who are easily fooled. But, I do think we have editors who are busy IRL and on WP and do not always take the time to do the exhaustive fact-checking of links and their contexts that, in the given your style of argumentation, often reveals misrepresentations such as have been documented by other editors here. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm bummed to hear you don't think it was well-formatted. Do you think that any of the editors !voting "support" have carefully reviewed the evidence, or are you saying that nobody supporting a sanction has carefully reviewed the evidence? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• OpposeYou can’t topic ban someone on the basis of such flimsy evidence. P-K3 (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• ArbCom Principles - It is rather disconcerting that our BLP policy has been so misunderstood, and in some instances dismissed, or at least not understood in compliance with the precedent set by ArbCom in the following case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi#Principles. I have listed the most relevant principals that apply here regarding the defamatory material and the attempt to imply "guilt by association" when the two are not associated at all, which makes the attempt even worse:

  Reliable sources for biographical material

  3) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources requires that any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

  • Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).
  • Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip ask yourself consider if the information is true and if it is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

  Quotation of material from an unreliable source

  8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

  Guilt by association

  10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

• I'd say the above covers it quite well but I will add that WP:REDFLAG also applies here, and so does WP:LABEL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Insufficient evidence of intractable issues: no prior recent sanctions or ANI discussion; the edit in question was discussed but not reinstated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Per Levivich's analysis, which I find very convincing. This edit by Soibangla is not a one-time situation, and it is essential that Wikipedia strictly adheres to NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Someone who cites Levivich's egregiously deceptive analysis at this point in the discussion should have their vote fully disregarded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest Close As the OP I note that this discussion has been open for four full days (+). That is long enough and those who wished to comment have had a reasonable opportunity to do so. I'm not a fan of the never ending debates that just keep going over the same ground one sometimes finds on noticeboards. Perhaps an univolved admin can review the discussion and close it. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I can't see closing a discussion that is ongoing, with additions by editors who are raising new points in response to others. Don't we generally wait until the thread has died down before reaching a conclusion about what's under consideration? SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Have you not seen this close, which led to this review? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions. I do not believe this is a BLP violation so egregious that it deserved to be brought straight to ANI with no intervening BRD process. This entire mess is because people have misunderstood the difference between Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News. Soibangla quoted a legitimate news source, Buzzfeed News, which made the statement. There are legitimate concerns that this might not be DUE as it was applied, but the insistence that it was a blatant BLP violation seems over the top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW, I am not confusing BF with BFN. I think this edit is a BLP violation because it is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY statement without extraordinary sourcing, and that makes it "poorly sourced" within the meaning of WP:BLP. Further, the single source, BFN, is repeating something from The Daily Stormer, and per the Arbcom principle linked above, "Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I'm quite alarmed to see a number of editors say that this edit is an OK edit. It's BFN repeating The Daily Stormer saying someone is a friend of white supremacists. If it said "so-and-so is Jewish", there would be wide agreement that the one source wasn't enough to call the guy Jewish. Cuz we'd need at least a statement of self-identification for that. But somehow a single source repeating a non-RS is enough to say he's a white supremacist. In my book, it's much worse to call someone a white supremacist than to call them Jewish. Our standard of sourcing for "white supremacist" should be at least as rigorous as it is for ethnicity or religion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits, Levivich has again set up a straw man. The analogous statement would, of course, be if it said "X said, 'A said so-and-so is Jewish'" NOT "X said so-and-so is Jewish". The former is easy to verify, which turns out to have been the case here. Note, I am not commenting on whether the initial edit was DUE. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a straw man, it's the heart of it. What alarms me is specifically (no pun intended) that you (and others) think "[white supremacist] said [person] is a white supremacist" is different than "[person] is a white supremacist". The two statements have the same meaning and effect: to suggest to our reader that [person] is a white supremacist. The edit in question exactly follows the format of [white supremacist] said [person] is a white supremacist, and it's only cited to one source, and not even a top-notch source at that (not academic, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has always made a fundamental distinction between in-text attribution and Wikipedia-voice ("According to X, Y is a..." vs. "Y is a..."). In one case, X is making a claim which we report (if it's notable/due-weight/etc), and in the other case Wikipedia is asserting something as fact. That distinction is codified in basic site policy, so it's incorrect to claim that these two statements are equivalent. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Levivich, speaking of attribution, you attribute a view to me that has no basis in anything I have ever done or said on Wikipedia. That's may not rise to a personal attack, but it is disingenuous and couterproductive. Yet another straw man piggybacked on the soft shoulders of the other two stuffed puppets. You repeatedly make arguments, many but not all of which are logically correct, that have no basis in fact and are unsupported by the vague and misrepresented "evidence" you cite. For the record, I don't have any opinion about Daily Stormer, Tucker Carlson, or any other content that's been raised in this dispute. I do think that Levivich's behavior in this thread qualifies him for a TBAN and I would support that if anyone would like to propose it. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  You just love making threats against editors. Anytime you want to have the community review both of our recent AP2 edits, you go ahead and start the thread. I'd welcome it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per MastCell, Snoogans and others. This discussion has gone on long enough, so I won't repeat their arguments again, but suffice to say a topic ban is not warranted here. Calidum 17:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This was a content dispute that should not have been escalated. The WEIGHT issue is irrelevant. Soibangla did not edit war. The purported evidence of other additional or tangential problems has been debunked by several editors. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment(!voted above) : A number of editors who object to the tban do so based on the not unreasonable stance that the single edit to the Daily Stormer article was insufficient to warrant a tban. I think many supporting the tban, myself included, would agree. The issue is this is part of a pattern of both bad editorial choices compounded by BATTLEGROUND behavior when confronted. I gave two examples above from my personal experience with this editor. In one case they were making very POV edits [[78]] which were edit warred into the article after myself and another editor objected. Rather than engage in a good faith discussion Soibangla accused someone of lying. Their statement was vague enough so they could deny that either myself or the other opposing editor was specifically the target of the statement but they refused to identify the editors in question [[79]]. I think a question by an admin prompted their eventual striking of the comment. This pattern of highly questionable edit then hostility towards anyone who questions the edit is a repeating pattern. Here Soibangla casts aspersions (suggesting I don't like them) and then says that is evidence they are doing good work here [[80]]. Right or wrong, how is suggesting another editor "doesn't like you" not BATTLEGROUND? The suggestion that that making an editor "dislike" someone is proof they are improving Wikipedia is really a problem. This certainly isn't behavior reserved for me. Here Awilley tells Soibangla to discuss content, not contributors[[81]]. This was an informal warning before Soibangla discussed me rather than our content disagreement. Soibangla seemed to ignore the warning and was warned just a month later by the same admin[[82]] for this edit summary [[83]]. Looking through Soibangla's edit history and you can find more BATTLEGROUND edit summaries [[84]], [[85]]. None of this improves civility in controversial topic areas. Springee (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

One problem that I and other editors have is that there has been no formal warning given to soibangla. It's not mandatory to receive such before a TBAN is considered, but the problem should be so pervasive and disruptive that it's obvious to all that skipping right past the warning stage is necessary. In this case, not only has there not been any warning, but the TBAN proposal went straight to 6 months. It seems very excessive, especially given that blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative; in a good faith situation, an editor should get that warning first and a chance to demonstrate correction. The question of the proposal isn't whether or not problematic behavior has been demonstrated, but whether the proposed action is suitable in proportion to the behavior, and whether it is necessary to prevent further problematic behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair point. I think Soibangla has previously been warned enough by enough editors that a formal warning isn't required for this tban. However, if consensus doesn't support a Tban I would suggest a warning including strict adherence to CIVIL and rules related to BLP. It's clear many editors see a problem here. Springee (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC) underline edit added for clarification Springee (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a formal warning is probably merited. There seems to have been some disagreement in the discussion before the proposal about whether the edit that prompted this actually constituted a BLP violation, but I think I see fairly clear consensus that battleground language and attitude is present, and should be addressed. Grandpallama (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good summary. I can live with that. I admit that I'm still taken aback by this aggressive comment that soibangla had made right in this very ANI. That does not reveal a lot of self-reflection, I'm sorry to say. Some recognition is due about maintaining nominal decorum. Stressful times, I get it. But let's retain some perspective. El_C 22:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You may be right and even though I would prefer a tban, perhaps its best to go the other way. A warning that states zero tolerance for further battleground behavior, further focusing on the editor rather than the content and failures to follow BLP policies should address the issue. If Soilbangla follows the rules then those of us who supported the tban should be satisfied as the problem will be addressed. If El_C's concerns are correct any admin will be within their discretion to tban for failing to heed the warning. Springee (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, it is an aggressive comment, and it does not reveal much self-reflection. And if it were the inciting incident, I might feel differently. But being brought to ANI is going to make someone angry and defensive, especially after seeing the majority of the admins who had weighed in pre-proposal express skepticism, and so the indignation of that post isn't terribly surprising to me. It's not unlike the raging that you see editors engage in after a block to work their frustration out of their system. It certainly adds weight to the argument that a warning is in order. Grandpallama (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NOPUNISH Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. Soibangla's bahvior demonstrates an understanding and does not require a a TBAN in order to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Because of this fact I was troubled by the No-Deal comment from Ad Orientum. Lightburst (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal for an indef t-ban

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

---

I'd like to formalize my suggestion that this user be indefinitely topic banned from American Politics (post 1932) as a repeat WP:BLP offender. To borrow from the OP, I believe serious concerns exist regarding [Soibangla's] general competence to be editing subjects of a highly sensitive and controversial nature.

At the Jeffrey Epstein article, Soibangla inserted a false statement about Virginia Roberts Giuffre, and undid my attempts to remove the BLP violation. Multiple editors and admins attempted to explain the problems with his edits to no avail. There is no reason to believe he would not repeat the same mistake again.

• Aug 12, 2019
• Sept 5
• Sept 7.

His source is a nebulous statement in an August 19, 2019 NYT article: The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue. In an early October RS/N, Newslinger * and Sarah SV joined me in saying that the NYT should not be used to support Soibangla's text because it is too ambiguous. Soibangla continues to declare the NYT is unambiguous *, and on Oct 12 removes from the Epstein page an accurate summary of the NYT piece, along with a Forbe's-cited mention of Clinton on the island. Newslinger tries to explain to Soibangla that the claim is unspecified, it is "about", meaning "related to". Soi calls this "insanity". Newslinger tries again but is ignored. The RfC unanimously decided to remove the NYT piece; Newslinger wrote This is an exceptional claim that is only supported by a vague sentence from The New York Times's article. An examination of the Epstein documents, the underlying primary source, failed to reveal information that could be used to support this text.

Soibangla still believes he was right and we were all wrong, saying on July 13 The NYT unambiguously reported...and no amount of parsing "a" versus "the" can change that. and It's disgraceful that by removing that NYT article, WIkipedia has been made passively complicit in falsehoods that contribute to the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• There's a proposal for a 6 month topic ban that looks unlikely to be closed with action (we'll see, I guess). Now that we're here, you're proposing a more severe sanction ... by introducing diffs from last year? And to look at the subject of the diffs it looks like a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion in which consensus was not in Soibangla's favor and he/she thinks we got it wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. If the edit war were still going on, that would be one thing, but you're bringing up an old dispute and holding up Soibangla's disagreement with the result as a smoking gun? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  More Tales from the Crypt. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, your characterization is entirely correct. Petrarchan47 effectively insisted the NYT reported this:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made was untrue

so Petrarchan47 asserted the NYT did not specify the nature of the claim, when actually they reported this:

The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue

After my attempts to show the sentence was unambiguous proved futile, I abandoned the matter in exasperation, an RfC was later opened, other editors reached a consensus without my participation, and I have ever since accepted that consensus although I continue to insist it is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Jason Drummond vandalism

• Jason Drummond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• I read the news today (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page for Jason Drummond continues to be vandalised by user I read the news today. I have previously asked for the page to be protected, which was done, the user then returned. It is seemingly only this user who wants to make Drummond look bad and if you look at the user's contributions Special:Contributions/I_read_the_news_today, you will see that he focuses solely on adjusting Drummond's page to his liking. I have suggested on Drummond's talk page that he is possibly the same vexatious litigant who is mentioned in the article for having brought a private prosecution against Drummond in August 2019 using forged evidence, however I have no proof that it is this same person, it just seems like a logical conclusion, given that the user previously submitted an edit where he referenced a campaign that was started by the same individual mentioned in the private prosecution (or at least one with the same name - seems like an improbably coincidence). The same campaign had no contributors, no followers and no publicity, so only this person could have known about it. I have made multiple 'undo' changes to Drummond's BLP and reverted it multiple times to a cleaner and more preferred version but the user continues to vandalise and post links that either don't work or have no relevance to BLP. I previously reported this user on the vandalism admin page and the request was seemingly ignored - I did not receive a response so I am now posting it here for discussion. JulianParge (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever is going on at that page, what that editor is doing isn't vandalism, questionable yes, with a touch of BLP violations and poor sourcing. There's clearly some long-term COI editing going on from other editors, and reasonable deduction would have me think Jason7477 (talk · contribs) is the subject of the article. Some other accounts there are no less suspicious. There's enough going on at that page to warrant further examination at WP:COIN regardless of the outcome in regards to that user. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I dispute that I am vandalising the page Jason Drummond . I am seeking to add sourced and relevant material. Whether that makes the subject look good or bad does not concern me - just that it is sourced and accurate. I am more than happy to see all relevant and sourced material posted about the subject. User JulianParge has gone the opposite way and has sought repeatedly to revert to a "Wiki Lite" treatment of the subject as he and others have effectively systematically removed a number of relevant and neutral postings over time. The latest revision by user JulianParge again removes on a wholesale basis a number of perfectly relevant and well sourced postings. These could and should have been left on the page through more precise and targeted editing rather than a wholesale removal. I have removed virtually nothing posted by previous posters, unless those postings are unverifiable, but have sought to add only relevant verifiable material. Through his actions JulianParge seeks to continually suppress and conceal neutral and sourced material. In a free society this is wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I read the news today (talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist for you to exercise your freedom of speech in a way that could be damaging to other individuals. You have ignored almost all of the fundamentals of BLP in your edits. Every single one of your sources were primary sources and a number of them didn't work because you don't seem to know what you're doing. This is further supported by looking at your historic edits - the very first contribution you made to Wikipedia to Coventry_City_F.C., was reverted. Further, you fail to sign your comments properly. On Jason Drummond, you were providing cached links to Companies House submissions which didn't work properly, as well as public company announcement archives which required registration to view. Arguably, the content you were submitting was also irrelevant: if the media hasn't written about, it's probably not important enough to go into the page. As I said in Talk:Jason Drummond, no other BLP contains a complete index of Companies House historic data on every single company of which the subject of that page has been a director. It is simply too much information and it is not relevant to BLP. I also continue to question your focus on the standing of companies with which Drummond is no longer involved. The only person who could care about that kind of information is the vexatious litigant (and any associated parties), who started a private prosecution against Drummond in August 2019 using forged evidence, because they are clearly on some kind of harassment campaign. Further to that point, one wonders why the only page you've edited is Jason Drummond? I propose you leave that page alone and spend some more time on Wikipedia, getting to learn and understand how it works and what is and is not acceptable. In any event, your historic contributions to the BLP of Jason Drummond have not been helpful or purposeful. They seem to have been intended only to frame Drummond in the way in which you want others to see him, and I think this is what is 'wholly unacceptable'. Please stop vandalising the page. JulianParge (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the news today is now resorting to using primary sources to deliberately mislead the article and criticise Drummond. He has continued to ignore the fundamental principals of BLP (namely tone, balance and misuse of primary sources). This user is obviously very desperate to have Drummond's article edited to his own liking to present Drummond in a negative light. It is not unreasonable to assume that this user is the same person as the one who started the vexatious prosecution against Drummond in August 2019. He has provided no grounds for reasonable doubt against this assumption, despite that I have raised the point several times, and if it is that same person, then why is he free to continue vandalising the page? The case was dropped because he was relying on forged evidence, so he cannot be trusted to edit this page. It should also not come down to other Wikipedians to keep removing this person's edits. The user should be blocked from the page or banned entirely. This user's only purpose seems to be aimed at editing Drummond's page which only indicates that he has a very unhealthy obsession with Drummond. JulianParge (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the news today is still making unnecessary and harmful edits to the page. JulianParge^talk 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Now seeing spam-related edits from India - Special:Contributions/43.251.93.252, whether this is related is not clear. What is the origin country for the IP of I read the news today? JulianParge^talk 12:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

JulianParge, please could you stop using the word vandalism in this context. What I read the news today has been doing is not vandalism. There might be other issues with it, but it's not vandalism. This revert in particular confuses me - the assertion is neutrally phrased, and is sourced to an article in The Guardian which appears to support the assertion. One could have a discussion about whether it's DUE, but vandalism? Can I ask whether you have any connection to Drummond? I ask because the majority of your recent editing concerns him, and your comments above seem to contain some knowledge about his private life (the private prosecution stuff). GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Drummond is an investor at a company that I have done some work for (as a contractor). I don't know know him personally but I have been following his career since I met him and I like his story. I find him quite inspiring and interesting. That being said, I've barely spoken to him and so I don't think that this can constitute as a "close" connection. Everything I've referred to about the private prosecution is public knowledge and can be found on the news article about it. I am not sure I agree about your vandalism perspective, given the clarity in the lack of a neutral point of view, as well as that Wikipedia is neither a newspaper, directory nor a source of documents, and because I read the news today has repeatedly violated all of these principals in his historic edits to the page. Even if his most recent edits were in line with Wikipedia policies, his ultimate intention seems to be to misrepresent Drummond. You can clearly see that his sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to edit Drummond's article to his own liking, as he has not made any other edits (which haven't been reverted), and his larger historic contributions to Drummond's BLP have been along the lines of vandalism. If you look at the historic edits to the page by this user, you can see that there are a number of really questionable sources, including the one from 'crowd justice' started by the same individual who is mentioned on that news article as having brought the private prosecution against Drummond. It strikes me as incredibly coincidental, particularly since that 'source' had no followers and no activity - how would anyone else have known about it beyond this user? It's not an unreasonable conclusion that this is the same person and that he's now here trying to make Drummond look bad because he couldn't get his way in court. My edits and reverts were intended to keep the page clean and clear from this user's perspective. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2006, and this user has been here for less than a few months and all he's doing is editing Drummond's article... if anything, it's probably easier to assume that this user may be a close connection to Drummond, if not the vexatious litigant from the aforementioned private prosecution? I think I read the news today should really state their case here in any event and state both their connection to Drummond and whether or not they are the same individual from the private prosecution. JulianParge^talk 13:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User Ms96 civil right-wing POV pushing

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

---

• Ms96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I encountered this user only just recently at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory; I've been active at that page recently but didn't notice their active discussion at the top of the talk page until today. They're one of a seemingly endless string of accounts coming to the page to advocate for including irrelevant demographic statistics to this article on a batshit crazy white supremacist theory that Jews are conspiring with government agents around the world to exterminate the "white race". Since Ms96 opened their version of the discussion on 15 June, they had managed to convince exactly nobody of the merits of including these irrelevant statistics but was still going on about it, so I closed the discussion. They reverted my close (another editor restored it) and then took to my talk page to continue the argument, which I did not engage, just warned them that they had already been advised about AP2 discretionary sanctions. Another editor did engage briefly but Ms96's last comment there was a loose legal threat which I removed. (Not diffed because it probably doesn't meet the WP:NLT threshold, but they're definitely escalating).

Afterwards, I reviewed some more of this user's recent work:

• On Reverse racism, Ms96 made a bold edit to the article's lede stating bluntly that reverse racism is a real social phenomenon, rather than the sourced consensus that it's alleged by conservatives as an attack on affirmative action programs, or the zero-sum white supremacist belief that all societal gains by non-whites come at whites' expense, basing their edit solely on the existence of discriminatory policies against whites in Zimbabwe (Mugabeism). When another editor tried to incorporate some of their useful Mugabeism material into the article in appropriate context, Ms96 reverted to their preferred "reverse racism is real" version. Their edit was later entirely reverted by another editor. Ms96 again started a discussion which failed to convince anyone of their POV.
• On Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (diff) they removed a see-also link to Right-wing terrorism, wondering in their edit summary "how this POV has remained intact so long". The link is not POV: an entire half of the section it heads is devoted to UK right wing entities which have been described as terrorist organizations.
• On Racism in Zimbabwe, the edit summary in this revert speaks for itself: "Your actions in white washing the issue of racism against whites is strikingly alarming."
• On Talk:Black Lives Matter, they're pushing for the organization to be labelled Marxist in Wikipedia's voice. They claim to have sources but what they really have is a novel synthesis based on sources identifying various BLM "leaders" as Marxist. Several editors have rejected this but they're still going as of today.

Furthermore, in response to being warned about edit warring for reverting my close (a warning that was probably not due, to be honest) they responded by attacking the editor who warned them, and others who replied. These attacks contain such gems as:

• "Things won't change as long as the left breeze sweeps through WP ... freedom of non-profit organisations in a Western democracy is a complete hoax ... have fun with your falsehoods."
• "A Tribute to My Left Fellas in the Talk Page of the Carcass of a Canceled Retarded Rural Psychopath" (in a comment directed at a named user, whose name I purposely omitted)

I believe, to put it lightly, that this user should not be near anything having to do with post-1932 American politics, right-wing politics globally, or anything to do with racism or race relations, and propose that they be banned from those topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Their talk page discussion makes it clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and can be expected to be a continuing disruption. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC) O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the source they cited to call BLM Marxist is a hyper-McCarthyian conspiracy theorist work asserting that Marxists have been infiltrating the government and that their influences include FDR's New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and Johnson's War on poverty -- not to mention Black Islam. That alone should result in at least a topic ban from all political articles, if not history and race as well. There's also them bending over backwards to defensively re-interpret someone else's utterly false statement that only a single Guardian article is used "to declare white genocide in South Africa a myth" ^{(that thread quickly closed as NOTHERE pot-stirring)}. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Given the suggestions of topic bans in multiple areas, the clear POV-pushing and conspiracy nonsense, and their cavalier use of slurs and PA's, I have simply indeffed them for WP:NOTHERE. Another admin is welcome to unblock them with a reasonable request and at least a politics topic ban, but I see no need to waste time on this thread and user. They're just another time-sink who wants to right the great wrongs that folks perceive on Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Continuation

User has continued their diatribe on their talk page, might be time to revoke TPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1292simon

1292simon is following me around on pages through my contributions and either restoring disruptive edits by users, removing my edits or badmouthing about me to users. Recent examples are here, here and here. Instance of the above mentioned badmouthing can be found here. The only reason I can see is of personal hatred and grevience against me. I attempted to discuss this with him over his talk page but he removed the discussions. I've had enough with this user's petty behaviour and therefore request the administration to take proper action against this user.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There may or may not be an issue with MOS:OL, however, I think one would be hard pressed to make a case of WP:HOUNDING as it appears most of these articles 1292simon was already at when U1 arrived, at least according to the interaction analyzer [86]. Chetsford (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford 1292simon never edited at any of the articles I mentioned according to the analyser and the only way he is going there as I suspect is through my contributions. It got worse at Toyota HiAce when he bad mouthed about me to the user whose edits I reverted.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Now the same thing happened at Lamborghini Centenario, 1292simon wasn't at this article in its entire history and he went there just to restore a disruptive edit made by an ipv6 IP and is continuously citing WP:BRD while he has not read it himself and continues to violate WP:HOUNDING. This behaviour needs to stop.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Content disputes of this nature are best handled on the Talk pages of the relevant articles, not in back and forth comments in edit summaries as you two seem to be doing. I think if there were some — any — attempt to discuss the difference you two have over specific edits at the article Talk pages we'd be able to conduct a more lucid evaluation of the merits of the claims. ANI really should be more of a last resort for editor disputes, not the first point of contact. In my opinion, a HOUNDING case would be better made if (a) there were more than three lifetime examples of the other editor coming to a page you'd edited, having no prior history at that page, specifically to undo your edits, and, (b) this was widely occurring on a number of articles you've recently edited rather than what appears to be a minority that could be explained by the singular interest you both seem to have in automotive related articles. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford this is definitely a hounding case. This user is following me around for unknown reasons and undoing my edits and it has been going on for a few days now. I just mentioned some articles but now it seems that everywhere I edit, this user is there to revert it so simply because he doesn't like my edits. He hasn't read the policies but continues to use them in his defence. In a more recent incident at Ferrari 360 this user specially came there to undo my edit because it was not vandalism in his opinion while the reality was opposite as this user didn't care to read the source, he preferred to just revert my edits and be done with it. In the pages I mentioned in my original post, this user has no editing history and the analyser shows that. I had attempted to discuss this matter at this user's talk page but he is more interested in removing my posts rather than responding. I edit here as a hobby, not be hounded by some user who seemingly hates me because I do not agree with him. Wiki could do better without this non sense. In accordance with WP:HOUNDING Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. this user is indeed causing me distress due to some personal vandetta he seems to have against me.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, this user badmouthing about me at Ominae's talk page is something beyond a content dispute.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no hounding here, and nothing else that merits administrator intervention, but just a common interest in cars, which seems to be one of those subject areas where editors are unable to discuss things like adult humans on the article talk pages. Just stop reverting each other and talk about what should be in the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

How is there no hounding Phil Bridger? This user literally follows me around to specifically undo my edits on pages where he has never been before and saying bad things about me to users whose edits I revert. I don't think any wiki policy instructs users to follow each other on articles and cause disruption there which this user has been doing as of late. This definitely demands administrative action. I want this user off my tail so I can edit here peacefully.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Now this hounding continues and is going at an unbearable level. The constant silence from the admins is questionable. This user is clearly violating WP:HOUNDING and the case is being dismissed as a content dispute. There is a content dispute but it arises after this user follows me to an article where he has never been before. I request the admins to take action.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this about cars? Maybe you should go edit on some calmer subject matter, like professional wrestling. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe this user should be sanctioned about his actions so I can edit with a peace of mind. About professional wrestling, lol. It is hardly a calmer subject matter. A discussion below about it will explain better.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro, have we not been here before with you and cars, and you inability to get along?Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven this is something I can't get along with. A user follows me around for no reason on pages while bad mouthing about me and you put all the blame on me over that.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

How was He following YOU if he was there first? Multiple edds have told you it was not following you. This is following the same pattern as the last few times you have either been reported or reported someone else. Always to do with cars.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention Slatersteven he is more interested in removing my posts on his talk page rather than responding to them.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Has he been on Lamborghini Aventador before? No. Lamborghini Centenario? No. Ferrari Portofino? No. See the edit pattern. He came on these pages just to undo my edits. Who bought him there? I can't see any other way than my contribs. He hasn't been on any of the pages I mentioned in my post. If you would look at the analyser, you'd find it out yourself Slatersteven.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No I accept he has not, and that is three articles. I can see form his edit history a lot of edits to car articles, I can see from yours articles you have edited he has not (tellingly not in his area of interest). Its hard to see this as anything other then a user interested in cars fetching up at articles about cars.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There are others too, like Aston Martin Virage, Toyota Land Cruiser (J70) and a lot more. He is clearly not fetching up anything in the articles I mentioned other than undoing my edits. What would you call this here Slatersteven? Fetching up information? Editing articles of interest? Also, at Talk:Toyota Land Cruiser (J70), he demands me to apologise to an IP because he think that the IP was right. What is this about?U¹ _quattro TALK 19:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks, pretty obviously, like it's about thinking that the unregistered editor was right and you were wrong. I have no idea who was really right, because I have no interest in getting involved with content disputes about cars, but I do know that the fact that you have registered and the other editor has not doesn't make you automaticaly right. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger the unregistered editor added content without source, I reverted him. Then this user chimed in out of no where claiming that the edit was correct because it was factual without even adding a source. It was only at the talk page where a source was found and then the edit was restored. I don't think this makes the IP right either.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is some lesson that can be drawn from the fact that no one is jumping in to agree with you? --JBL (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no lesson to be learnt. I'm here to report a user who is violating a policy and unwilling to discuss his actions. Which is the purpose of the ANI in the first place.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is going the same way every other damn ANI involving U1Quattro has gone. An utter refusal to listen and just not dropping the stick after they have been told nothing to see. Can we close this rather then go down another "I am right and everyone else is wrong" hole?Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you have a concern with ANI's made by Quattro then do you want to consider proposing TBAN on him regarding this? I have User456541 in my mind as a precedent. SMB​99​thx Email! 09:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What warrants a TBAN? I've been saying that the other user is in the wrong, not that I'm right. There has been an utter refusal to listen that he is in the wrong. If a user is violating a policy at wiki and not bothering to participate in a talk page discussion, which forum should I go to? This is extreme one sidedness towards the other user because he is being perceived like he has done nothing wrong.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hold on...Yes you are saying you are right, you are saying he did wrong and that you are right about that and we are all wrong. I think I said the last time you were here an ban would be need to stop this kind of time wasting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATism. So yes, a result of some of the cheesiest wiklawyering I have yet seen, I think its now time for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not said any of you were wrong. However, you were wrong in saying that I should coexist with some user who refuses to provide an explanation about his editing behaviour. I don't think such advice applies here.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And if a TBAN is all you've got as an answer to this situation, then I'd leave this site. Because I don't think this one sided ban is the right suggestion or treatment. I reported an incident which was causing me distress according to WP:HOUNDING and the other user still comes off clean like he has done nothing wrong?U¹ _quattro TALK 09:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And you were told (by more than one user) it was not hounding, and you refuse to accept that "verdict". That is what my issue is, wp:dropthestick.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way this [[87]] is what brought me here, and more users are telling you your behaviour leaves a lot to be desired.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said my behaviour was perfect, I'm pointing towards the other user's refusal to discuss things on his talk page about what he is doing when I'm being told to do that by the other users here. His edit at Lamborghini Aventador proved that he was wrong, yet he cited WP:BRD in his reference.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The only place you are supposed to discus article improvements is the articles talk page. He is not requited to discus anything at all on his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

He is required to explain why is he following me on pages he has never been on and why is he leaving sympathy related notices on the IP talk pages or the user talk pages whose edits I revert because they are not constructive while bad mouthing about me in the process.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No he is not, as you have been told he is not following you. I am bowing out now, I think it is clear from this (and other ANI's) that you have a far too think a skin, and that you take everything far to personally. I think we will keep on having these disputes raised here regularly as you are not always going to get your way. You have a wp:battleground mentality that see's even minor content disputes as personal affronts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm suggesting that both U1Quattro and 1292simon should be interaction banned.

• Support. I came to this conclusion based on Quattro's (recent) ANI history are mostly about 1292simon. Most of Quattro's grievances are towards this person. I sympathize with the fact that Quattro is bothered, may quit Wikipedia if we TBAN Quattro and feels that we are at the one side all against Quattro. For that reason, i think IBAN will be for the good of U1Quattro. This will be the second time i made a proposal on ANI, and on the same day. SMB​99​thx Email! 10:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @SMB99thx: The user is called 1292simon. --JBL (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thank you! SMB​99​thx Email! 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support but it will be another IBAn for him. Nor do I agree his main anti issues have been with 1292simon, well until recently, after he was IBANed with another user.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support but also the behavior by U1Quattro is long-term and has involved multiple other editors, so I support additional sanctions as well to stop the disruption (see my comments in the next subsection for details). --JBL (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the continued issues with these two an IBAN should be implemented, It would stop the reverts, stop the hounding (if there is or was any) and it would most certainly stop these back and fourth threads. –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from 1292simon - Sorry I’m late to this party, I didn’t realise there was another report here.
  I realise that I’m partly to blame here and apologise that sometimes my frustrations led me to cross the line into edit warring territory. If people can suggest another approaches for content disagreements involving U1Quattro, I am keen to follow Wiki policy.
  It is very frustrating to see my changes insta-reverted, as if U1Quattro is somehow the gatekeeper for all these articles. However I realise this is no excuse for my part in the edit warring and will be careful to avoid this in future. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from YBSOne - why do You people bother with another IBAN if this user and administration cannot even uphold one of them? Yes another IBAN violation by U1Quattro less than a month ago. You are all dancing around a burning turd and slowly the stink is making You blind. Peace out. 159.205.132.27 (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional/alternative proposal

In light of the above, and this at RSN, and basically every other time U1Quattro has come to a noticeboard: U1Quattro is admonished for their combative approach to editing, and is banned from making any* noticeboard reports for a period of 3 months. (*: I am open to amendments for reasonable narrow exceptions if there's some reason a blanket ban is problematic.)

• Support because really. --JBL (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support As the forum shopping and general taking it personally is getting tiresome.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - U1 could have a valid concern (inregards to sock, legal threat, vandal etc etc) so on that basis I have to oppose, If after the IBAN U1 returns with reporting someone else for a bullshit reason then sure next step would be banning them from here but for the time being I see it as a premature action. –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: U1quattro has had i-bans with at least two other editors (1, 2), has now moved on to feuding with a third (in addition to the two I've linked above there's 1, 2, 3) and also has plenty of other garbage noticeboard reports (e.g. this). If you want to suggest a friendly amendment, please go ahead, but this is way past "premature". --JBL (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Actually it was a single editor and not two editors as you'd like to mention. Now if this IBAN goes to place it would be two and I have no problem with it. Atleast it would get the other user off my tail.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And was blocked at least once for violation of one of those.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well hopefully he's finally learnt his lesson here and hopefully he won't make further ANI reports on people (unless it's vandalism, legal threats). Hopefully he understands his reports are getting him nowhere and that he'd be better off not filing reports here and instead going to WP:30 or WP:DRN if issues arise. Hopefully he'll prove everyone wrong, A lot of hoping here but people can and do change. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Their continuing comments on this thread are QED as far as I am concerned; actually I am beginning to think a long block would be more appropriate. --JBL (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair he was pointin out you made an error (you did).Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I'm beginning to think leaving would be more appropriate since you have done nothing but use peculiar language about me Joel B. Lewis and suggesting longer blocks for no reason.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been given a chance, but that chance requires you to shut up now and stop fighting your corner. You are making Joel_B._Lewis's point for him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Short block for edit warring

Applied to both users as they both appear to be engaged in slow edit wars reverting each other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - If they're both edit warring then the correct venue would be WP:AN3. –Davey2010^Talk 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

True, but generally we do not have both ANI's and AN3's rather all behaviour is taken into account.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I see it as being pointless !voting on something that is never tolerated full stop if that makes sense, I ofcourse support blocking either for edit warring but just feel it'd be better off handled at AN3 than here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ever see The Defiant Ones with Tony Curtiss and Sidney Poitier? Maybe partial block them both till they reach an accommodation on the talk page. (though I doubt Curtiss or Poitier really looked like that poster) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User 梦出一切

梦出一切 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On List of Internet phenomena in China (example edit, the user listed above (who I will refer to as "Dream" after the first hanzi in their name,) has made a series of edits that, based on the number of dead parameters in the references, the amount of unreadably broken English, and the fact that nearly 100,000 bytes of text have been added to the article by Dream in the span of four and a half hours. This leads me to believe that Dream is turning the article into a direct machine translation of the corresponding Chinese-language article without proper copyediting or attribution that it is a cross-Wiki translation, which would be in blatant violation of WP:MACHINETRANSLATION.

If this isn't a violation I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Klohinx^talk 08:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE: After being blocked on zh for creating various meaningless pages, this user continued created scarcely used user boxes and those machine translated content here. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That user should be indeffed by this point. I won't give any excuses (e.g. Bedriczwaleta attacks on me as "Retarded Indonesian" - it's okay because he may have a mental problem to deal with) for that. SMB​99​thx Email! 02:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst you're about it, they've created a bunch of "political" userboxes creating WP:REDNOT categories like Category:Thinking that patriotism does not mean loving the party’s Wiki that could do with nuking. Le Deluge (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated off-site canvassing by Moamem

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

---

On Space Launch System, I and Moamem were engaged in a content dispute last month. A compromise was eventually proposed by Eggsaladsandwich, and while both of us resisted it at first, both of us eventually accepted it. Slightly prior to this, I'd noticed Moamem had engaged in off-site canvassing (Redacted), and made an entry on the talk page. Moamem was warned by PhilipTerryGraham in this edit against doing so again.

When Moamem expressed discontent with the existing compromise earlier this month, I opened an RfC to try and build a consensus that would settle the issue for good, knowing that my hands were not entirely clean during the last dispute and hoping that a wider selection of editors would result in a more productive discussion. Things seemed promising, and while the RfC is still far from finished, a consensus seemed to be emerging for a slightly-altered version of the compromise. Earlier today, however, Moamem posted six posts to subforums of (Redacted). Each post was identical in content, presenting his argument and a warped interpretation of my own, then calling for users to join the discussion on the talk page. He did not consult with anyone at Talk:Space Launch System before doing this.

Some of these posts may have been removed by site moderators since then, but here's the list as it was:

• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)

Here are two screenshots (Redacted) showing the content of one of the posts, in case they're taken down.

His allegation that I am a moderator of (Redacted) is true, but it's an unpaid volunteer position. I have an interest in the program, not a conflict of interest. My opinions are mine, and mine alone. Either way, I don't think it's relevant to his repeated disregard of Wikipedia:Canvassing.

I personally believe his actions violate all the criterion for inappropriate notification. The scale is mass, the message is biased, it's been posted at least in part to partisan audiences, and it's non-transparent as it takes place off-site and existing discussion participants weren't notified. As he has already been warned against his behavior, I find it hard to believe it was done in good faith, either. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's (Redacted) further evidence of canvassing. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: I'd suggest you're skirting a violation of WP:OUTING with what you've linked here - an email to Arbcom is probably a better course of action here. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alfie: Apologies, didn't realize. Thank you to the admin who took care of that. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

1. PhilipTerryGraham never warned or said anything about asking for input outside Wikipedia! He warned me about being balanced in my request as I said in a comment I deleted since : "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!". A wording he deemed reprehensible(assessment I totally agree with and subsequently deleted my comment). I also asked him specifically about asking about offsite input saying : "I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase?". his answer was : "It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you."
2. I had reservation about the "compromise" right away. I only reluctantly accepted it because we were the only 2 participating in the conversation currently and it was my opinion against yours (even tho 6 different people disagreed with you in the past 6 months). But once a 7th person expressed it's disagreement with you it was time to open this issue. And rightfully so 4 more people showed up with the exact same point of view. That seems like a consensus to me!
3. I published a very balanced post on 6 of the biggest Space communities on reddit because of the lack of interest of Wikipedia contributors. I didn't post on r/SpaceLaunchSystem the most appropriate subreddit because you banned/cesored me from it for no reason other than not liking my opinions and despite backlash from your own community (one of them even showed up here). I made sure to include your name so you'll be notified right away, so I was trying to be as transparent as possible and invited you to give your opinion on the posts.
4. While I tried to be as balanced as possible. We all have our biases. Therefore I told you multiple times that I am open to edit my post to accommodate any issue you have with them. But you failed to give me any issue you have with my posts.
5. I still don't know the exact issue you have with my reddit post besides you not wanting people to participate in the discussion because you're the only one with that opinion!
6. Now that people are starting to show up and your position is becoming untenable you're trying to play the referee
7. @Alfie: I never published any personal info of his (I don't have any anyways). Moamem (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEATPUPPET. Asking for help off-site is prohibited, as we build consensus based on our policies and guidelines, not voting. At this point, the best thing you could do is to delete your off-site requests or ask them not to interfere with that process. Woodroar (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Prior mod interactions

-EEng

@Woodroar:Hi, thanks for your input. From prior mod interactions and the link you're giving me, this seems to be directed to those trying to skew the debate in a single direction (by contacting family, friends, or like-minded people). I did no such a thing. I went to important space communities that are totally neutral ( or even skewed toward supporting SLS like r/nasa) to get their input after we reached an dead end with Jadebenn and the rest of the Wikipedia didn't seem interested in participating in the conversation. It just happen that Jadebenn realizing that his untenable position is falling apart is now trying to play the referee! I don't know what I was supposed to do in that situation? - Moamem (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not only about canvassing for like-minded input. It's about requesting people from off-site—people who don't understand our policies or guidelines or behavioral expectations—to influence a decision on-wiki. Because here's the thing: it doesn't matter if a hundred people show up and vote your way, the better policy-based argument wins even if it's brought up by a single editor on the other side. Literally a single editor. But meanwhile, the people responsible for mediating the dispute need to sift through all the junk arguments. Those people are all volunteers, too. They're not getting paid to do any of this, just like I'm not getting paid to explain this to you. Meatpuppetry is a lousy thing to do on any site, but it's extra lousy here because it doesn't do anything but waste time. And possibly get all those new people and you sanctioned for it. So the best thing you can do right now is make a good-faith effort to ask them to stop. Woodroar (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well from the link you gave me, the reading I did and my interaction with PhilipTerryGraham who if I understand correctly is an admin, clearly stated that requesting offsite input is ok as long as the request is neutral, see our conversation here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_Launch_System#Mass_Off-Site_Canvassing

We got more input in 24h than we had in the last 9 months. This input was extremely positive, respectful ans insightful at the exception of one IP user that engaged in Edit Warring with Jadebenn who has himself committed a 3RR violation subsequently! Leijurv present is this conversation is a testament to the quality on the content we got!

Since it seems that off site input is not forbidden but only needs to be balanced. And that I did my best to be as neutral as possible while offering correct any bias Jadebenn could find (while never getting any feedback from him except this complaint). I am still not sure what his issue is beside trying to silence me? - Moamem (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: I am not an admin. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: I did not discover this from anything off-site, I actually discovered it from this very complaint about what happened off-site (I read ANI from time to time). Leijurv (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Arbcom as Alfie suggested, but haven't received any kind of response, and it's been almost 24 hours. Is that a normal response time? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It is my experience that the Committee does respond in a timely fashion to emergencies (though WP:EMERGENCY should be the first point of contact there), which this isn't. I'm sure they'll get back to you soon. El_C 15:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sooner than I thought! Just got a receipt from them. Guess I should've waited a while longer before getting nervous. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Guys, the disruption is escalating on the article and talk page with random IPs edit warring and the 2 main protagonists adding and deleting questionable sections on the talk page. Could an admin protect the page and warm/block whoever needs to be. Thanks --McSly (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@McSly: Apologies for the talk page disruption. Regardless of whether or not that content should've stayed up, I really shouldn't have poked the bear by being the one to delete it. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@McSly: Even though technically Jadebenn did 3RR on the mainspace SLS page I think it was completely justified in maintaining consensus that was being discussed at that moment on the talk page in a long term RfC, on top of which the IP editors were using misleading edit summaries such as "Unsourced" while removing information with quite a few sources. I don't know enough to say about the talk page. Leijurv (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware I was on my fourth revert. I thought I was on my third. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment by a non-involved user: I'm sorry, but seeing you two are having conflict, especially what have Moamem done towards you i'm compelled to propose a interaction ban between you and Moamem. SMB​99​thx Email! 07:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If I understand the nature of an IBAN correctly, than I don't think I oppose it. I have no reason to seek out Moamem absent his continued provocation toward me.

Each time I attempted to step away and let other users handle the content dispute, Moamem would escalate things. For example, when the initial compromise was reached last month, I moved onto different articles, until about two weeks ago when Moamem expressed his intention to change the figure because someone on the talk page said something vaguely supportive of his position. So I started an RfC and was perfectly happy to let it go on with minimal involvement until the mass canvassing happened. So I brought it to the attention of ANI and Arbcom. Then I was satisfied with stepping back and letting the RfC go on without me again, until Moamem declared he'd "won" it and would implement the changes in 24 hours. So I removed the misleading material, thought better of it, and put it back (though labeling it as such). Then I was satisfied with just writing-off the whole RfC while I waited for ANI and Arbcom to move forwards, but then Moamem came here and reported me for alleged edit warring and for deleting his RfC "closure."

Believe me, I have no reason to want to clash against him absent such extenuating circumstances. It is exhausting. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 09:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't oppose an IBAN (meaning interaction ban right?) Between me and Jadebenn. I already tried to keep them at a minimum.

Regarding "what I did" to him, I am not sure what you mean exactly. But if you meant asking for "off site contributions". I explained multiple times. This conversation has been going on for more than 3 months and only 2 or 3 people showed up the whole time to give one or 2 phrases each. So it was basically just me and Jadebenn rehashing the same stuff over and over again. His RfC hasn't changed anything. It just seemed that Wikipedia editor are not interested in this debate. After doing research and getting advice from a more experienced Editor PhilipTerryGraham (who is in this conversation and can attest to this fact and who I thought for some reason was an admin) I was told that Going off site is ok as long as the request is balanced and neutral. So given the lack of progress I resorted to ask for input from prominent Reddit space communities that I knew would be interested in the discussion. I tried to be as neutral as possible and invited Jadebenn's (who I notified right away) input if I wasn't. I honestly don't know what I was supposed to do after a tiring 3 months arguing technicalities and Wikipedia legal jargon instead of the subject at hand. A number of people showed up to the conversation and gave various and insightful comments at the exception of A SINGLE Ip user who engaged in vandalism.

If you deem my actions worth a ban it's fine. I just wanted to point out that everything I done was in good faith and my goal has always been to have the most accurate and exhaustive information on Wikipedia. Thanks. - Moamem (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban between Jadebenn and Moamem

Given the intense conflict between Jadebenn and Moamem, especially Moamem's aggressive behavior towards Jadebenn, i have no choice but i have to involve myself and propose IBAN between the two.

Poll (interaction ban)

• Support. Please, stop it! I know this is too early (premature) to propose something like this, but with the escalation of this conflict i had to do so. SMB​99​thx Email! 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Didn't even see this before, I'd also like to propose a partial block on all NASA-related articles for at least a month for both (but Moamem in particular.) Klohinx^talk 07:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support – I kinda enjoyed some of the discussion that took place between these two, but even I have to admit that after getting pinged over a dozen times by both of these editors into the discussion, it does get tiring. There is absolutely nothing more to gain from this discussion anymore; both Jadebenn and Moamem have exhausted their arguments and now it's just a cycle of repeating arguments and personal conflict. If they cannot agree to disagree, then so be it, we'll just have to separate them. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'd support an interaction ban but blocking Moamem is the better option. Moamem has consistently ignored the RfC process and they're still arguing that off-site canvassing is totally acceptable. Woodroar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll consider Moamem getting blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Moamem's aggressive behavior really strikes me out as similar to the people who is blocked because they are clearly not here to build the encyclopedia. This should complement the what i would like: full and indefinite interaction ban between Jadebenn and Moamem (I say that ban should be indefinite, especially because of Moamem.) That full indef IBAN should be enough to make Moamem stop the vendetta against Jadebenn, in any means on wiki or off wiki. SMB​99​thx Email! 12:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  I just seen Moamem's IBAN comment - i don't think a block on Moamem is going to be appropriate to end this dispute (and honestly when i proposed an IBAN i do not think about Moamem getting blocked. I just want them to have peace). I think IBAN is still the best way to solve this problem. SMB​99​thx Email! 22:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  I had the opposite reaction. So Moamem has an excuse for believing that off-site canvassing was acceptable, that's fine. But they've been told repeatedly that it's not, yet they refuse to fix the problem and continue to insist that it was for the best. Ultimately, they're ignoring what other editors say and doing whatever is necessary to "win", both of which are antithetical to our values on Wikipedia. This is exactly the type of behavior that drives editors from the project. Woodroar (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure. Moamem is saying in his defense that he was advised in this manner by a user that he thought was an admin. See: I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase? - Moamem (talk) 12:42 pm, 1 June 2020, Monday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−7) @Moamem: It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you. I cannot link to a diff due to the massive revdel in the history, but it is currently up at Talk:Space Launch System. Moamem said on here After doing research and getting advice from a more experienced Editor PhilipTerryGraham (who is in this conversation and can attest to this fact and who I thought for some reason was an admin) I was told that Going off site is ok as long as the request is balanced and neutral. which lines up with this. I'm not saying it was truly okay, but I don't think it's fair to say that this is ignoring a correction. Moamem has since realized that that editor is not actually an admin, and while he hasn't said this, it's very implied that he was just defending past behavior and recognizes this correction. Leijurv (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Leijurv: As it's been redacted, I can no longer show you the info, but the message was slanted against my POV and explicitly called for users to make Wikipedia accounts to influence the debate, even though PhilipTerryGraham previously told him that behavior wasn't acceptable. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Jadebenn: :

• The post is still up and wasn't a "slander" against anyone. You have never said that it was so and would have provided a quote of my "slander" if such a thing existed, I am sure. I offered multiple times to make edits if necessary.
• The unique phrase that was deemed reprehensible was "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!". That I said in a subsequent message during the conversation (not on the initial post). I agreed that was very poor wording and deleted this comment altogether.
• The conversation with PhilipTerryGraham happened after the post NOT BEFORE!
• I want to add that before posting the message I tried to get Wikipedia Editor's input and went personally to a dozen wikipedia editors very active in space articles. And asked them on their Talk page to join the conversation. To no avail...
• I had decided not to interact with Jadebenn anymore but since he's still making accusation I had to provide precision. I'll try to refrain from further interactions. - Moamem (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham talked with you on June 1st, after a previous incident of off-site canvassing. Then you did it a few days ago in July. You very much had seen his comment, as you replied to him on the talk page on June 2nd. You cannot claim you were mislead, as you didn't follow his advice (even if you believed off-site canvassing was acceptable, you ignored what he told you wasn't), and you cannot claim ignorance. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the conversation (I can't link to the diff since it was revdel, but anyone can check with the time stamp) : I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase? - Moamem (talk) 12:42 pm, 1 June 2020, Monday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−7) @Moamem: It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you.. PhilipTerryGraham is specifically saying that off site input is ok and even giving me advice on how to proceed. I don't know what you're claiming I had knowledge of or what you think I'm claiming I didn't have knowlege of? - Moamem (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Leijurv, I understand that Moamem was given incorrect or incomplete advice. Althought I maintain that they would have known this if they'd read the policies/guidelines linked to them, and they should have written neutral messages in any case. But that can't be undone, at least until someone invents time travel. The issue is that Moamem refuses to make any good faith efforts to repair the damage right now, and they're doubling down by insisting that the canvassing inspired some insightful comments and only a little vandalism. An editor who doesn't read, won't fix their mistakes, and generally refuses to adhere to community norms is a net negative to the project. If Moamem wants to keep editing at Wikipedia, they'll need to recognize this and change. Woodroar (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See his reply above. He confirms he has not taken down his requests. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Blocking Moamem. I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise, and then Moamem decided to re-litigate the entire issue again after getting a single semi-supportive comment from a third party. Moamem doesn't add new information to their arguments, but just repeats the same points over and over. Jadebenn was at least willing to compromise. At this point I regret getting involved. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Eggsaladsandwich: If nothing else, I appreciated the break from the drama during the little less than a month where it looked like your compromise was going to hold. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Moamem's report downpage leads me to believe these two are not going to get on at any time in the near future. It seems to be the best thing for all the other editors who co-exist happily on the pages where Moamem and Jadebenn intersect is to stop these arguments from polluting those spaces. I would not be opposed to sanctions againts Moamem for the particularly egregious attempt to use off-site means to influence on-site discussion. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Indef block for Moamem, short or partial block for Jadebenn

Indefinite* block Moamem for being not here to build an encyclopedia, and short or partial block for Jadebenn.* (*I'm open for a longer block for Jadebenn, and months/partial block for Moamem.)

Poll (block)

• Oppose. This is way too far for me even as a proposer. SMB​99​thx Email! 23:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this one is a bit silly. Leijurv (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  This. I have decided to put this proposal in because there are chorus of users suggesting that Moamem should be blocked (and Moamem's suggestions that Jadebenn is in the wrong side - i decided to give a weight on it - also i got an idea of a partial block from Klohinx). I don't like it at all, this is the wrong way to end the conflict between the two. SMB​99​thx Email! 23:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I already !voted for blocking Moamem in the section above, before this one was created. I won't move my comments here because I think they make more sense in context above. Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting my comments on the Space Launch System Talk page by Jadebenn

Reason for report

Editing others' comments

Page

Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jadebenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [01:59, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=967572895&oldid=967572433&title=Talk:Space_Launch_System
• [02:36, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&diff=967576881&oldid=967576459

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [03:11, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&diff=967580777&oldid=967580645
• [03:25, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&diff=967582492&oldid=967581907

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page

[02:29, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jadebenn&diff=967576934&oldid=967576165

Requested remedy

Topic ban on article

Comments:

After months of debating SLS launch cost, a clear consensus has emerged. After trying every possible way to stop the process Jadebenn the only holdout (with another contributor being a partial holdout) deleted multiple times my comment section asking for a final tally before impacting the CLEAR consensus. This was done despite me telling him that is was a clear violation of Editing others' comments and if he had any issues to discuss it with me and that I'm open to doing the relevant modification myself. This is an outrageous violation and ask you to ban Jadebenn from editing Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Thank you - Moamem (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's relevant to note that this user is the focus of another ANI report, and has, in my view, engaged in repeatedly uncivil behaviors. Nevertheless, I probably shouldn't have removed that material. I did restore it shortly thereafter, though within a collapsible. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your frivolous complaint has nothing to do with this issue. You admitted yourself to the rule braking saying and I quote "I probably shouldn't have removed that material.". As for the 3RR violation it's evident to anyone that can count to 4 and you admitted to it on your own talk page when another user brought it up saying and I quote : "Would rather not get slapped down for incivility or an (unintentional) 3RR vio. Hopefully I didn't just shoot myself in the foot." see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967558763&oldid=967529648 - Moamem (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Jadebenn has simultaneously to this violation committed a 3RR Violation reverting edits by another user (not me) on the same SLS page 4 times in less than 2 hours! this has been reported to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jadebenn_reported_by_User:Moamem

Due to the multiple and simultaneous violations I ask you that the editor Jadebenn be banned from the platform or at least banned from editing the Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its Talk page. Thank you- Moamem (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you start a new section for this? You and Jadebenn are already having a spat in an already open investigation (against you, I might add.) Not sure if there's a policy against counter-reporting during an open report, but WP:PASSIVE probably fits. Klohinx^talk 06:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Klohinx: The two incidents are unrelated. Was I not suppose to report him if hi commits an infraction while an investigation involving us is underway? Seems odd. - Moamem (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This goes deeper than I thought. From what I can see, you (allegedly) posted on various forums to try and get support for an RfC discussion in (alleged) violation of WP:MEAT because someone who you thought was an admin (but wasn't, and even said he wasn't) said it was okay, treated it as if it were an end-all poll] WP:PNSD and said you would make the changes to the article yourself because you crowned yourself the winner. You blast Jadebenn for making more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, when you've basically done it yourself [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]. I'm sorry, but from the looks of it all, if anyone's gonna get the ban, it's probably going to be you first. Klohinx^talk 07:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Klohinx: I cant respond to all your points, but as of 3RR violation I certainly did not commit any :

• [93] : This is Jadebenn's edits I'm not even in this edits
• [94] : This is me just commenting on the talk page lake I did a dozen times yesterday
• [95] : Again me commenting on the talk page no reverts!

I don't know why you say I did a 3RR violation? - Moamem (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Bregegg at Khazars

• Bregegg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khazars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This chap, (Bregegg) with only several edits to their credit, has introduced just one word change 'sometimes' to 'often' 6 times in 24 hours at Khazars. No talk page discussion; three editors have reverted it for the simple reason that the editor hasn't read the text (A source specifically states that the association of Khazars with Jews is not frequent, but a fringe phenomenon, and is not in itself 'antisemitic' since the theory is grounded in a long tradition of Jewish speculation). Broken every rule, and I regard the persistence at this point as vandalistic. Needs to be blocked, permanently, since this has the appearance of a throwaway inscription to Wikipedia, and just a nuisance.Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

On receiving my notification of my report here, the editor expunged it, and went ahead for the 7th time to challenge the stable wording. I have the editor that they have broken our 3R rule, with 9 reverts in two days. This too was immediately expunged. Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems cut and dried. I'm only awaiting some authority to tell me I can proceed to restore the stable text.Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Many of Bregegg's edit summaries were "fixed typo", which is obviously not a correct summary. Zero^talk 07:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

They may well need indeffing, but it's a bit early to tell. To be going on with, I've blocked them for 31 hours for violating the 3RR rule. (Nishidani warned them about the rule and then they reverted again.) Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

I spend much of my time in Wikipedia simply reverting vandalism and POV additions. Most of the vandals simply add "fixed typo" as an edit summary, even when they have done nothing of the sort. Are you certain we are not simply dealing with another vandal? Dimadick (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, because there's also this edit summary; I think it's a tendentious editor. They haven't edited since my block, now long expired, so I suspect the account may already be abandoned. Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Edit-war

Balolay, Joelaroche and some IP editor are editing Diriliş: Ertuğrul. Balolay has made over 10 reverts within just few hours. Same as Joelaroche and IPs are removing a lot of content from article. It is still continue. I request that this page should be only editable by extended confirmed users to avoid further problems. As there are lot of edits therefore, I can't provide diffs but see the edit history. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 12:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The incidents and disruptive editing by Joelaroche have already been reported here. I was only trying to restore the massive amounts of sourced info being removed as no one else was paying attention. Regards Balolay (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I saw, the last 50 edits on that article was all the edits in that edit war. User3749 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:3RR isn't obeyed by Balolay. They made 10+ reverts in a small and short time. Empire AS ^Talk! 13:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I admit that I did wrong by not following WP:3RR, but despite reporting the user no action was taken and no one was taking any interest in the matter. I was left with no choice but to restore lost info on my own otherwise the OP would have kept changing the article according to his/her own POV without consensus. Regards Balolay (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Kindly look at [96]. The OP is still doing reverts and POV pushing but I am exhausted now. Balolay (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop playing the victim here. I am not pushing a POV. I gave clear explanations for my edits which you did not properly respond to. You were adding irrelevant and unsourced content (content was not mentioned in the sources you gave). This content did not have a NPOV, was borderline prejudiced and needed to be removed immediately. I told you to take up your issue in the talk page but instead you reported me for edit warring. Joelaroche (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Man, this is being reported EVERYWHERE! Forum shop much? 0;-D In response to a request at WP:RFPP I have EC protected the article for two weeks. The EC protection will have the effect of preventing either of the warring editors from editing the article, and hopefully will lead them to the article's talk page - where the issue belonged all along. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Reminder, Joelaroche and Balolay: When you get to the talk page, discuss the article content, not the other editor. Focus on what should be in the article. And PROVE your contentions by citing sources. For example, one of you says the removed content is not in the sources; the other says it is; one of you is probably right. Prove it at the talk page. Not here or at any other reporting venue; this is not the place to discuss content. Take it to the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: the protection hasn't prevented Balolay from continuing to revert at Diriliş: Ertuğrul.VR _talk 15:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Balolay is also edit warring at Rape in Islamic law and Hagia Sophia.VR _talk 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Vice Regent. I see that I miscalculated in thinking that EC protection would block Balolay from editing. I will warn them at the article talk page, because I see that they re-added the material under false pretenses (claiming it was longstanding when it was not). If they re edit warring elsewhere too it may be that they need to be looked at. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN keep in mind that Balolay has been previously blocked twice due to edit-warring: this and this (one of those blocks also involved sock-puppetry). After twice violating 3RR in the past, for someone to make a whopping 7+ reverts in 24 hours shows they have not learnt anything from the past blocks.VR _talk 16:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is an ANI discussion on that very subject. If you have a proposal to make, go ahead and make it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive reversion of talk pages

Full disclaimer: I've had problems with those users before on other occasions. I am not involved in this dispute but noticed this in my watch list and it is just unacceptable.

The usual three users:

• ජපස
• Roxy the dog
• LuckyLouie

are at it again with their uncivil and toxic behaviour and are ganging up on another user as they so often do.

I would invite admins to have a look. Especially this egregious deletion of talk page discussion by ජපස. The other user asked him not to do it on his talk page and he reverted the whole page saying "Bite me".

This is out of control. They must not be allowed to continue turning Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Much of the discussion that was removed didn't seem particularly relevant to improving the article, and so it was probably right to remove it - the edit summary for doing so was unhelpful however.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which part of the removed discussion to you think was a constructive contribution that could have resulted in improvements to the article? --JBL (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I Can't even follow the discussion anymore with all those reverts and edits... clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE editing to me. But I admit I am certainly biased against those users having been on the receiving end of their WP:GANG -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Per discussion with an admin, I have elected to bow out of that discussion. If a user other than Gtoffoletto would like to engage with me, please do so. I have an ongoing dispute with him and have asked him to no longer talk to me, and as he is topic banned from UFOs, a topic with Dean Radin has contributed material on, I don't want him to fall into any topic ban violations. jps (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel we have an "ongoing dispute". I don't feel that way. And I don't even know who this Dean Radin is... this is about your WP:NINJA approach to Wiki not anything content related. Who is the admin in question? Maybe they can clear what is going on here? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Since it would violate your topic ban to get involved in discussions about Dean Radin (e.g. [97]), I recommend you let others talk to me on your behalf. jps (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Ditto my previous message. Unfortunately, this is about your behaviour, not about content. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: I don't see Gtoffoletto's topic ban listed at WP:EDR. Can you provide a link to the discussion? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It is an AE ban, so probably in the respective log. Outlined at User_talk:Gtoffoletto#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction. El_C 15:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Here. You might also note that in spite of this topic ban, just yesterday he posted extensively about UFOs on his talkpage. jps (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

They're probably allowed an appeal (such as it is) every few months. Bishonen is probably most qualified to evaluate this latest. El_C 15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, G's post on July 12 wasn't couched as an appeal, but as a reply to me. I didn't see it till now (it looks like he did ping me, but it didn't work). It's a bit unexpected that he should reply to me seven weeks after I last edited his page, but I don't think it's a big deal. It involves UFOs, yes, but meh, it's not worth getting het up about. I wouldn't take it as a T-ban violation. Bishonen | tålk 15:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I thought the AE log was supposed to be transcluded onto EDR but I guess those are restrictions directly imposed by Arbcom, not restrictions imposed by admins as discretionary sanctions. Seems odd to me to have those in different places. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's probably too massive for that to be practical, hence, Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Arbitration_enforcement_log. El_C 15:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh I agree, really I was thinking that all arbitration-related restrictions ought to be in one place, not that the AE logs should be transcluded to EDR, that would be a nightmare. Topic for a different discussion, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Could somebody please explain what is wrong with having a joke with my second favourite Nobel Laureate? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, for starters, it seems that the Nobel Laureate in question is trafficking in conspiracy theories about Wikipedia as it relates to the GSoW. jps (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• It was right for the discussion to have been removed as the only reason for it, originally, was to attack other editors. It started with this edit Calling other editors Gorilla Skeptics is not really Civil and does not add to the discussion.VViking_TalkEdits 14:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Guerilla Skeptics [98] first time I've heard of it but apparently an actual movement to tag team on Wikipedia? No mention of specific users in the original comment and it was edited (not sure why) later. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right. I'd decided to edit out 'Guerilla Skeptics' as they claim they don't do this kind of thing on WP, and replaced it by 'Hostile sceptics have taken over this page en masse, as so often happens here.' This is how the page was before what's his name did his second revert. Even if he objected to light-hearted comment there is no reason for removing the rest of it and, as has been pointed out, on a talk page that is not the way to do it anyway. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• What toxic behavior? My only connection to this kerfluffle is the single edit [99] I made on WP:FTN suggesting review of recent edits to the article [100], many of which appeared to flaunt WP:FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Gtoffoletto, please don't talk like that, it's very rude. You seem to be discussing the (apparently irredeemably bad) character of the three users you enumerate, when you call them the usual three users who are at it again and are ganging up on another user as they so often do. You should either stick to the specific behavior you're complaining about at this moment, or else support your generalities about "again" and "often" with specifics. You know, diffs. The worst part IMO is linking to WP:GANG with reference to three named users, again without a scintilla of evidence. Please write "Comment on content, not on the contributor" on the blackboard a hundred times, or until you have internalised it. Bishonen | tålk 15:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Hey Bishonen, I don't want to be rude. I have a clear opinion on those users as you know. I think they are a WP:GANG and WP:NINJAs. I know you like what they do and we disagree on this. I've been dealing with them for months unfortunately (as you know as last time you are the one that blocked and topic banned me and dint' block them) and they always operate together and in the same way (my page is full of diffs I have sent you thousands of times). Incidentally, are you the admin who has been advising JPS on this matter? How is he communicating with admins and why isn't it "in the clear"? There is a worrisome lack of transparency every time JPS is involved. Maybe you admins have a tool to investigates meatpuppets or something similar? I wonder what is the percentage of edits in which those three editors are together compared to their total contributions... Or maybe they just like the same topics and coordinate themselves unconsciously with the fringe theories noticeboard. In any case: this report is about a clear incident. It's up to you admins to sort it out, don't shoot the messenger. If you think it's all right to behave that way... then just say so and we can move on. I think it is uncivil, toxic and disruptive. I'm out of this discussion so as not to WP:BLUDGEON (as per your advice in the past :-)). I'll be interested in the results. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh god, I don't care. I'll just answer your question: Yes, I'm the admin jps is referring to. I notice you're jumping to the conclusion that he contacted "admins" stealthily. "There is a worrisome lack of transparency every time JPS is involved", really? That's a worrisome assumption of bad faith. He didn't contact me, I contacted him because I'd happened to notice his revert on Talk:Dean Radin. I e-mailed him, because I wanted to make some frank remarks about the removed discussion, which would have hurt an editor's feelings if the remarks had been "in the clear". The substance of my message was that I thought it was a bad idea for him to remove the discussion because it wasn't doing any harm and merely threw a bad light on Brian Josephson. Jps replied that he'd "bow out". That was all. Jps' description of my message and his reply as "discussion with an admin" perhaps made our exchange sound more ample and profound than it was. Let me say that if I'd had any idea that you would involve yourself in the matter, Gtoffoletto, I'd most likely have just ignored it. And here I go wasting my time and other people's time again. Have you written it on the blackboard yet? Clearly not, as you just keep on with the aspersions. See El C's warning below. Bishonen | tålk 16:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

Gtoffoletto, I am warning you against casting aspersions (i.e. without evidence in a proper report) on editors who are otherwise in good standing. El_C 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C sorry I'm breaking my promise to step out of this. But my report is above in the original post so you think I didn't provide evidence... maybe it isn't clear enough. Please ask me directly for replies after this clarification by pinging me or I will restrain myself from participating here (I'm addicted to bludgeon).

• LuckyLouie posts on FTN without engaging on discussion on the page first. Isn't this WP:CANVAS and WP:GANG?
• the other two users intervene
• the culmination of this 3vs1 tag team are the reverts I linked above. Which are clear WP:NINJA to me...

How can an opposing POV survive when such aligned users are allowed to treat others with such contempt and disrespect in a coordinated way? This isn't collegial editing in my mind. Maybe I'm just too sensitive. Over and out unless pinged -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto I won't warn you again about aspersions. FTN is listed on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Noticeboards — it is absolutely legitimate to post notices there. El_C 16:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C FTN is ok for dispute notices... but was there an ongoing dispute when LuckyLouie posted on FTN? Why not discuss on the talk page? I'm not aware of a dispute or prior discussion. That is why I think this was tag teaming. They coordinate in advance which is not appropriate in my mind. Am I wrong (was there a dispute)? Or is it normal to do this (isn't this CANVASS?)? If yes I will retract my GANG accusation and apologise. Regarding WP:NINJA and the general uncivility I think the evidence is clear? Once again (I suck at this): I'm out unless tagged for a reply. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, it is an appropriate noticeboard notice. It is not canvassing, because no one user was notified. El_C 17:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C I see what you mean. I re-read WP:CANVASS and I think this is specifically Campaigning: "attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. as the notice clearly states the poster's opinion and guides the reader towards a position even before a dispute to "rally the troops" Recent changes pushing a WP:GEVAL view for the existence of psychic powers need review.. The whole noticeboard is full of this by those users and others "WP:SPA and sock edit-warring to remove mention of pseudoscience and criticism from the article. Claiming "defamation" and "Is "denier" an acceptable term or a meanie bully word for suppressing those poor dissenters?" and "I strongly doubt that notability has been established here, for starters.". Aren't those clear examples of campaigning? And this is just scrolling up the noticeboard a little bit. I normally see even more egregious cases on that noticeboard. I think that noticeboard just has a systemic "cultural" problem. Like I stated above I don't think those users are directly or even knowingly coordinating (I have no proof of that). They probably just have very similar view points and through that noticeboard they notify each other whenever they have an opposer and tag team stifling all discussion and consensus building. Unfortunately the result is the same: the same users WP:TAGTEAMing up on other users. See specifically the section Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics which is an exact description of what is going on here in my opinion. Those three users may just stand out to me because they are more active than the others in areas I follow, and their approach is very terse and uncompromising. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, that's a matter that is better suited to WT:FTN, but due to Wikipedia's general approach to WP:FRINGE, I have doubts whether that will end up being a productive engagement. El_C 20:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C if you agree those posts are problematic shouldn't an admin intervene? Is there a precedent for fixing widespread problems like these? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, I don't see where El_C is saying that they agree that the posts were problematic. Posting concerns about editing to FTN is legitimate, and LuckyLouie's post there was neutrally worded. I think that what El_C is saying is that if you have a problem with the general culture at that noticeboard, this thread about specific editors is not the place to discuss it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a correct summary of my view on the matter. El_C 14:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm standing on the naughty step, if anybody wants me. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

it's really cold out here. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You should move to Florida. It is not cold --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yebbut, they arm bears out there. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I would recommend both Brian Josephson and jps to project good faith and civility, respectively. I have covered the page under the WP:ARBPS discretionary sanctions, let's see if that helps. El_C 15:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Message received. jps (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Message received but I've no idea what you are fussed about.--Brian Josephson (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Admin Bearcat protection review

• Bearcat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nurse.Fighter.Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per a request at WP:RFPP, I reviewed the protection set on this article. Approximately two weeks ago, a new account appeared on this film's article and removed all negative reviews, in a way which suggests a connection to the film's studio. Bearcat, who is also the article's creator and primary contributor, reverted with fairly neutral advice on balance. A couple days later the editor returned and made the same edits, and in response Bearcat fully protected the page indefinitely (that was 29 June). A few other editors tried to reason with Bearcat on the film's talk page but were getting nowhere, and that discussion died off on 2 July. After the RFPP request today I reset the protection, noting in the protection log that it was "grossly inappropriate", the most civil words that came to mind in that instant.

In the talk page discussion, they made this comment, which I have some issues with. For one: "the autoconfirmed level of protection is [...] virtually useless when attempting to stop a registered username — it takes a registered username less than one minute to perform the number of edits needed to defeat autoconfirmed protection even if they're starting from zero, so autoconfirmed simply isn't effective in actual practice if you're actually dealing with a named account." - Uh, wrong. It's 10 edits and 4 days for autoconfirmed. Even if what they wrote was accurate, it does not warrant dropping indefinite full protection as a first resort. Per other comments in that discussion they also seem to think that full protection is preferable to extended-confirmed, which is just baffling.

That's just a sidebar, though. What I really want to talk about here is this: "because the system does not have any very convenient or easy way for administrators to keep any special track of pages they've placed any level of protection on, pages can very easily slip through the cracks and get forgotten about. I don't have a responsibility to work my way through 15 years worth of protection logs to see whether every page I've ever protected is still in a state of protection or not." This was in response to being informed about KHMP-LD, a page Bearcat semiprotected in 2011 in response to one instance of really very minor disruption by an IP, and left it until this month. Indefinite semi is not such a big deal, even though this does look like another overreaction. What I believe needs admin attention is Bearcat's apparent record of really quite overzealous protection actions they have no intent of following up on, and if they have left a trail of fully or just inappropriately protected pages, then is it possible to tabulate their block log and/or pull a database report to check for any blocks which should be reviewed? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Without any chance to look at the situation (I am going to bed right now) let me remark that a few weeks ago I checked how many pages in the article namespace are fully protected indefinitely. The answer I came up with was zero. Currently this one is probably the only one.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question already had four days — so the fact that I didn't specifically mention "four days" in my comment doesn't mean that what I said was wrong, because the editor had already passed that.

As to the substance of the matter, firstly, administrators are not prevented from acting to shut down clearly disruptive editing, such as vandalism or other unequivocal violations of policy just because they've edited the article before. The edits in question were a clear attempt to turn the article into a promotional advertisement for the film in defiance of our WP:NOTADVERT rules by removing properly sourced content that didn't fit their clearly promotional agenda, which even crossed the line into introducing a verifiably false claim that it had set the all-time record for Genie Award nominations when in reality it wasn't even the most-nominated film in its own year, and an administrator does not lose the right to shut that kind of clearly unacceptable editing down just because they had prior "involvement" in the article. There is a big difference between legitimate differences of opinion and unequivocally clear violations of our rules, and administrators do not lose the right to act on the latter just because they've edited the article before. And I'll note that even the people who attacked me for editprotecting the page agreed with me that the edits in question were problematic — literally nobody thought they were perfectly reasonable and neutral edits that should have been left to stand, so it clearly wasn't just a personal difference of opinion to which the "involved" rule would apply.

Secondly, the behaviour in question did not rise to the level of meriting a full editblock on Sahil — they had other unproblematic edits to other articles under their belt, so they could not have been blocked as a "vandalism-only account", but there are no other blocking criteria under which a block would have been possible at all. So that wasn't available as a solution, and page protection options were the only choice left. Editblocking him for this would have been a much more problematic response for which I would have deserved to be called on the carpet.

Thirdly, the "autoconfirmed" level of page protection is literally useless at blocking edits by a registered username, because it's incredibly easy to surpass. Autoconfirmed is literally only effective at stopping IP disruption, and is completely useless at stopping virtually anything by a registered user. But 500-edit "extended confirmed" is not the second step — it's the last resort step, permitted for use only if and when all other attempts to contain disruption have already failed. So as soon as 10-edit autoconfirmed isn't an option, the only immediate option left is "full protection until I'm satisfied that the issue has been resolved", not anything short of that — if the problem still recurs after a period in full protection has already been applied, that's when the 500-edit level of autoconfirmed protection is allowed to kick in.

And finally, it's not my responsibility to just meekly obey the orders of any Karen who comes screaming at me for any of it. I explained what my reasons were for acting as I did, and why they were in proper accordance with standard rules and procedures — and then people even brought in other examples that completely misrepresented my actions in unrelated cases, such as falsely characterizing unequivocal examples of vandalism as something other than what they were. If I'm being approached in that kind of tone, then I don't have any responsibility to meekly acquiesce to it and put on a hairshirt — I'm entitled to stand my ground, and not take any action at all until I'm approached in a respectful manner about it. That is, I'm entitled to hold out for "I get it, it's fine, and I'll have your back if the problem returns" before I take any action at all, and to refuse to comply with anybody who's throwing undeserved shade at me. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Bearcat, you should not have protected at all for a single disruptive user, you should have blocked. And I apply ECP all the time as the first option when there's already disruption by confirmed accounts. Don't follow the letter of the law, follow its spirit. El_C 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't editblock a person for just one instance of disruption, if they have other non-disruptive edits in their history. Disruption has to rise to a much higher level than anything Sahil did before editblocking the user is an appropriate response. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You can block them from that specific page if they are edit warring and not responding to requests to discuss the issue. I think the real issue here is that their user talk page is still red: there has been no attempt at discussion with the editor specifically. Woody (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a way to block one editor from editing one specific page without using either editblocking or some level of page protection? News to me. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bearcat, yes, see WP:PB. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean, both protection and blocks are used to curtail acute disruption, otherwise there's discussion and warnings. Protection is usually used when there's disruption from multiple users. I must be missing something here. El_C 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Bearcat: you also, despite two requests, failed to ever discuss this issue with me, despite raising it on your talk page. Over-protectioning is a concern but less so than the egregious INVOLVED issue, coupled with a non-communication issue. I assume you don't consider my queries to be particularly "disrespectful"? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Acting to shut down clearly disruptive editing does not fall under "involved". As I said both above and in the talk page discussion, administrators are not banned from acting to shut down vandalism, or persistent attemots to convert our article into an advertorialized PR page in defiance of our WP:NPOV rules, or the introduction of verifiably false claims, just because they've edited the article before — "involved" does not apply if the "dispute" is between one version that's clearly compliant with our rules and one version that clearly isn't. An administrator does not lose the right to act on problematic edits that are very clearly improper and non-compliant with policy just because it isn't their first time ever touching the article, and the edits were not simply a "valid difference of opinion".

And since I clearly did communicate about the issue on the talk page, there isn't a "non-communication" issue here either. I'm allowed to have a life outside of Wikipedia, and not be on here 24/7 — so the fact that I wasn't at your beck and call to immediately respond to every post you made doesn't constitute a non-communication issue if I obviously communicated. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would never say anyone is obligated to response at "beck and call". However, as that was 11 days ago with well over 500 edits by you since then, communication, including specific individual response to a query is desirable. I also dispute that full long-term protection without passing to another, or seeking review, based off the fairly limited actions, was an appropriate action. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is very strange. Yes, preferring full protection to extended-confirmed in such an instance is baffling, as Ivanvector says. Nor can I understand what Bearcat means when they say above that Sahil had other unproblematic edits to other articles under their belt, so they could not have been blocked as a "vandalism-only account", but there are no other blocking criteria under which a block would have been possible at all. So that wasn't available as a solution, and page protection options were the only choice left. No, not at all. If Sahil needed to be prevented from editing Nurse.Fighter.Boy but should be left able to edit the rest of the encyclopedia, the obvious choice is a partial block from just that article — very much preferable to indefinite full protection. I realise now, looking above, that partial blocks are news to Bearcat. That's a pity, as this is the kind of problem partial blocks were designed to deal with — but, like protection and all admin actions, they should preferably be placed by an uninvolved admin. I'm also concerned by the tone of the last paragraph of your long post above, Bearcat. I honestly don't see any "Karen who comes screaming at [you]" on the article talkpage. It seems to be Tbhotch that you're referring to in that way. There, now I've pinged him, which is surely the fair thing to do when you're talking about somebody like that. I don't know how to say this without sounding condescending, Bearcat, but perhaps you want to take some deep breaths/a few hours' break before you continue discussing this? Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

  PS: Or, going by your post here, where you say "I wasn't at your beck and call to immediately respond to every post you made" — referring to posts on your page on 2 July, bumped on 8 July, and never answered — maybe it was Nosebagbear who was the screaming Karen in your opinion? Nm, I still think it was a good idea to ping Tbhotch. And whoever you meant, one person or several, you shouldn't talk about any fellow editors like that. To be frank, it's disgraceful. Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

"Partial block" is a brand new thing which was brought in only within the past six months, which I did not already know about — and considering that it wasn't all that well-advertised, and even at the PB page it still isn't particularly well-documented as to how to actually use it, my failure to already know about it isn't evidence that I'm being negligent. I'll consider learning about and using it in the future, obviously, but not already knowing about a brand new thing that's only existed for a few months doesn't make me a bad editor. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious question - what would it have taken to be well advertised? No shame for having missed it but it was mentioned in the Administrators newsletter twice (RfC & after passing), the RfC was posted at CENT, and at AN four times (1, 2, 3, 4). The Signpost only gave it a minor passing so that piece could have been better. But other than that what would have qualified for you as being well advertised? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whether intentional or not, Bearcat has been misusing the protection button for years now with dozens of involved or otherwise questionable protections. I was wondering when he'd end up here. He also overreacts to spam and vandalism to the point of ridiculousness; often he'll fully protect an article after only one or two instances of vandalism, not lifting the protection until sometimes months later. Just look at his protection logs. Take the page history of Doug Robb, for example, where Bearcat elects to indef fully protect the page to his preferred version (a redirect) instead of taking it to AFD. Or take the history of Pierre Kwenders, an article he created, making him clearly involved, where he reverted the page back to his preferred version before fully protecting it for two months. My favorite example is this one, where he fully protects a page after participating in the revert war! My point is, even if he doesn't have bad intentions (more likely he's just clueless), this admin is still abusing his tools, and unfortunately, there are plenty more admins like him. I want to emphasize that not all, but it sure seems like a lot of the "legacy" admins who got their tools 15+ years ago are not up to date on current policy, which is okay if you aren't going to be pressing block, delete, or protect, but some of them still are. Sro23 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, administrators do not lose the right to shut down disruptive edits that are in very clear violation of Wikipedia's rules, such as clear vandalism or clear attempts to convert an existing article into an advertorialized PR profile, just because they've had some involvement in the article before. I had and still have no "preferred" version of Pierre Kwenders at all — I was and still am perfectly happy to see other people improve the article with properly sourced and neutral content that complies with our rules. But that's not what the edits in question were: they were almost completely unsourced and highly advertorialized, and unequivocally violated our WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT rules (as well as WP:COI, because the advertorial version was coming from Kwenders' own manager.) So that wasn't a difference of opinion between two potentially valid versions where I needed to solicit outside action: it was a very clear violation of our rules, which our rules explicitly allow me to act on by myself regardless of whether I had ever touched the article before or not.

CUDA was not an "involved" matter either: one user, who would simply keep coming back under a new username every time he was editblocked (and thus wasn't being stopped by the editblocks), and was refusing to engage any discussion about the issue, was repeatedly trying to convert it into a personal opinion essay about how stupid people are for thinking that the verifiably documented meaning of "CUDA" was the real meaning of "CUDA". I had never even heard of CUDA before that editwar started, and had no "preferred" version of that article at all, and acted in no capacity to enforce anything other than our rules — and as the talk page history very clearly documents, I then dropped the protection back down to pending changes the very next day, as soon as the editor in question was editblocked by somebody else. Again, administrators do not lose the right to shut down unequivocal vandalism just because they had previously been one of the several reverters of it. It had nothing to do with "my" preferred version of the article at all: there was a reversion war being engaged in by other people, in which I had no personal interest above and beyond Wikipedia's rules.

Doug Robb, I have no recollection of at all, and will need to review it to see what did or didn't happen. But I won't brook being accused of acting improperly in the case of either Kwenders, where the other version was clearly a violation of our NOTADVERT rules rather than a legitimate version that I simply "didn't like" for some reason, or CUDA, where the other version was clear and unequivocal vandalism. Reverting vandalism does not take away an administrator's right to shut down the vandalism if it recurs, reverting NPOV-violating advertorialism does not take away an administrator's right to shut down the advertorialism if it recurs, and on and so forth — reverting improper edits that are clearly in violation of our rules does not make an administrator "involved" for the purposes of the INVOLVED rule limiting their range of future action. I approach ANI or other noticeboards all the time in cases that aren't as clearly violating our rules as the Kwenders or CUDA situations. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

And after having reviewed Doug Robb, I can now confirm that there had previously been a reversion war, between several different editors who were never previously me, over whether he warranted a redirect or a poorly sourced article that failed to demonstrate that he passed our WP:NMUSIC rules for the standalone notability of band members. So, again, nothing to do with my personal preferences: I was simply shutting down an edit war, and was not personally "involved" in any way that would limit my right to shut down an edit war. But regardless, I've now removed that protection anyway. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you want to keep articles free from vandalism and advertising, then why not just block the user for vandalism/advertising? Why instead protect the articles from anyone else editing if in each case it was only ONE person who was causing the problem? Have you looked at the protection policy recently? Sro23 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the bar to justifying an editblock is a lot higher than that. There has to be a sustained pattern of repeatedly violating our rules across numerous articles, not just a temporary issue on one article, before editblocking the user is appropriate or justifiable. I'd have been called on the carpet a lot sooner than this if I had used editblocking in any of the named situations, because none of them rose to the level necessary to justify editblocking a user. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works nowadays. Accounts that have only edited one page are blocked all the time. But either way, if you come across a singular editor who is inserting vandalism/spam that for some reason you cannot block them for it, wouldn't the common sense, appropriate thing to do be revert the disruptive edit, start a discussion with the user, and if that goes nowhere, create a thread here or elsewhere, rather than immediately indef fully protecting the article? Sro23 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, Sro23--you're talking about "nowadays" but CUDA is five years ago. In that case, I do believe Bearcat should have done something different: they should have been less nice and just blocked Pateljay43 after their first week, rather than simply reverting and protecting (for one day!) two weeks after Pateljay started, by which time Pateljay was just totally vandalizing and yelling at people. In other words, Bearcat was really being too friendly for my taste, but there is no abuse of protection powers, and Bearcat in no way made an INVOLVED edit there. I wonder if you checked the protection log? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that Bearcat seems to be suffering from the misapprehension that sitewide blocks require a greater threshold then protections. Which is not the case. But now that they know about partial blocks, hopefully, this unusual proclivity toward premature protections, especially full-protections, will be a thing of the past. El_C 01:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine, then maybe that's not such a good example, so I picked another one of his protections at random, this one more recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tina_Keeper&action=history. Indef fully protecting an article for half a year because ONE COI editor made a COI edit? If that isn't abuse of the tool, it's wildly inappropriate and highly questionable. Sro23 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Because one COI editor repeatedly made the same COI edits numerous times over the space of at least three years, with several reverters before I ever came along? Not the same thing as how you characterized it. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So then block them for undisclosed COI, or report them to the COI noticeboard and let another admin deal with it! Which would cause less disruption to Wikipedia, blocking the offending account, or protecting the article so that no one can edit it because one person was being disruptive? Sro23 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I approach ECP with reluctance and trepidation. Because it generates a report at AN, it feels like being sent to the principal's office. Having said that, partial blocking is a wonderful new tool that reduces disruption with minimal impact. In situations where it is warranted, I heartily recommend it. Bearcat should have neither protected nor blocked as they are involved. Their best options were to request protection at RfPP with a note stating their involvement or raising their concerns about the other editor on one of our many boards. Adding full protection in these circumstances feels like the ultimate WP:OWN behavior. When one is het up, it's easy to lose perspective and misuse the tools. When we do, we need to acknowledge it and take steps to avoid it. Bearcat needs to reflect on all of this and reassure the community that they have adequate understanding of protection tools, blocking tools, and WP:INVOLVED. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  I would also add from personal experience that if one has had a fever, cough, or other COVID-19 symptoms, and may be noticing some changes in their critical thinking, they should probably see their physician. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Is that the case here? If so, yes, probably immediately. Personally, I have no qualms about applying ECP, when it's needed. The need for explaining that well in the protection log has been made in the last year, which I've attempted my best to address. But when there are multiple confirmed accounts involved in the disruption, then going straight to ECP is fine. If the policy does not account for that it probably should. El_C 23:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• An SQL query for Bearcat's recentish full-protections (post-2018) is here. Three highlights (which may have been mentioned above?) are Canadian Film Centre (sysop-protecting an article that Bearcat was a significant contributor to and !voted at AfD to keep), Tina Keeper (sysop-protecting an article after their own edits were (likely erroneously) reverted by a non-extended-confirmed editor), and Johnny Ma (sysop-protecting an article that Bearcat created and was the primary contributor to due to a content dispute). Thoughts? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who requested the unprotection over at WP:RFPP at the very least Bearcat should have probably consulted with another admin or referred to the appropriate venues (AIV or RFPP) given their involvement in the articles. Protecting your own articles isn't really a good look in most instances, especially if it was due to something content related. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, thank you for those cases. Turns out that I nominated that Canadian Film Centre for deletion, and yes, Bearcat saved it. There is an awful lot of COI editing, under a number of different accounts, in that history, and Bearcat's very positive contribution consists primarily of countering those edits (and the very fluffy language that was added a number of times). Yes, they helped rescue it from deletion, but much of their work was restoration rather recreation. In other words, I don't want to overplay the INVOLVED part here. I agree that they should not have applied indef-protection--but as with the other example I analyzed earlier tonight, Bearcat revoked that after a week or so and replaced it with PC. So again we have what I think we all consider not a great move, to put it mildly, but they undid it themselves. So as with the other example, I just don't want to throw the book at them for it. At least not the folio volume, with the metal clasps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment as I was pinged and I find funny to be described as a Karen—I will assume it was me because he might have believed I was giving orders, but it was the opposite, I was trying to warn him about this "because at some point in the future someone will consider you are abusing the protection tools to win discussions rather than to avoid disruption". This discussion came sooner than I expected, I must admit. I also have to admit that being considered a Karen came out of the blue, at least in my old concept of what a Karen is—those middle-aged women that require to speak to the manager when their expired Burger King coupon is rejected at McDonald's—I didn't request a third-party review, I directly spoke with him; I didn't go ranting and demanding an unprotection, as a matter of fact I never said the word unprotect, I merely pointed out how inappropriate the situation was handled from an uninvolved point of view. I stopped watching Talk:Nurse.Fighter.Boy after my last comment because I knew Bearcat would leave it indefinitely protected and there was no use in continue trying to dialogue. Personally, I didn't want this to escalate to an ANI discussion, that's why I didn't go Karening elsewhere, as Bearcat wants to suggest.

First of all, and sorry for the upcoming looong comment on this, I don't think there's a competence issue here. Bearcat has been an admin since only he knows when (his user logs don't say when he became an admin). I think the problem is that as he has been an admin for so long, he's so used to being one and he has forgotten that being an admin is a privilege and that admins need to be kept updated about their tools. As I said here it was common to see admins indefinitely protecting pages to later unprotect them weeks later, but since I joined in 2009 not a single admin does that, that's why there's the option to put expiry dates.

Some of you might have seen my name, I am generally the one that adds {{pp}} templates where admins forget to add them and when the bot that adds them is not working. I used to do that back in 2010-2013, then I stopped editing and now I am at it at that (well, not now because the bot is working). I know some admins that will never add those templates as it is not mandatory, Bearcat is one of those, and every time I saw his name I knew that a) the page lacked a pp, b) the page was most likely indef protected, and c) the page was most likely overprotected, KHMP-LD is one of those examples. I randomly choose KHMP, I merely wrote a random date and that was the first page that appeared. Anyone can do this and will find the same I just did: Kincardine, Ontario, protected against a single user that eventually became autoconfirmed and continued editing the page a weeks later; Gwen Benaway, indef full-protected to avoid the removal of information that has since been removed by consensus; Moncton City Council, protected against one IP user that was not vandalizing, but lacked of competence; The Pursuit, protected because one account spammed; R v Martineau, protected because of one IP user; Guðmundur frá Miðdal, protected because of one IP, etc. And the problem I am seeing, and that's why I objected to the indef protection of non-popular pages like Kiki and Nurse.Fighter.Boy, is that all these pages—as well as others that I didn't mention because protection was justified like in Salcedo, Ecuador or La Paz, Honduras—is that they are either stubs or they are outdated, mainly because of their indef protection. And I'm just citing non-BLP pages, but I'm sure this applies to those as well.

I personally think the worst part was that a) Bearcat has never denied being involved at Nurse.Fighter.Boy for both, the article being created and updated by him and being in the middle of a dispute in that article. He justified it, yes, but it does not fall within those valid reasons to act as an admin; and b) that he never said why he never attempted a dispute resolution, he merely protected the page, left a message at the talk page and that was it. Personally I think that if Bearcat doesn't want to "have a responsibility to work [his] way through 15 years worth of protection logs to see whether every page [he's] ever protected is still in a state of protection or not", other admins should feel free to do it because these protections aren't helping the project and are merely are blocking articles from being updated. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 01:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Tbhotch, for the comprehensive (if lengthy) account. Bearcat, it doesn't look like you are living up to administrative norms, especially with regards to protections and involvement. Please update and correct. El_C 01:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've said before, an administrator does not lose the right to shut down edits that are in very clear violation of our content policies just because they happen to have edited the article before. A content dispute between two potentially valid versions of an article would obviously be an inappropriate time for an administrator to use page protection or edit blocking tools — but if one version of the article unequivocally violates content policies such as WP:NOTADVERT or WP:VANDALISM or WP:NPOV, while the other is neutral and properly referenced and entirely unproblematic, then an administrator is not barred from taking steps to deal with the problem just because they had edited the article before.

An administrator is not barred from acting to shut down attempts to convert an encyclopedia article about a person into an improperly formatted résumé, just because they happened to have been "involved" in reverting the improper content. When it comes to Tina Keeper, for example, I had never once edited any of the article's substantive body content at all until the edit war came to my attention, and had instead been "involved" only in maintenance editing around adding or refining categories, minor grammar or spelling corrections and adding references to unreferenced statements which had been added by other people. I then added a lot of sources and formatting to get the article up to our actual standards, but did not fundamentally change any of its content from what was already there before, and then Kitchikeesik came back again and re-reverted, for about the fifth or sixth time in three years, back to the advertorialized version again. It was not a one-time thing, but a thing that had been happening for several years, by an editor who was already well past autoconfirmed status by the time I was ever aware of the issue at all. And while Kitchikeesik claimed in their edit summary that "the information was not accurate", none of the facts actually changed between her version and the existing one — her edit was entirely a question of the tone in which the same facts were presented, namely advertorially and résumé-like instead of neutral and encyclopedic. So that's not a "content dispute" where there are two equally valid versions, because the actual facts weren't in dispute at all — it's simply disruption, because the only difference between the two versions was the advertorialism. Again, I had and have no "preferred" version of the article — as long as it's neutral, properly referenced and properly formatted (Kitchikeesik was also actively breaking formatting and removing references), I really don't care what else people want to add — my only interest in the article was that it has to follow our rules, and I do not lose the right to act to stop disruption just because I happened to be one of several prior reverters of said disruption.

An administrator is not barred from acting to shut down attempts to convert an encyclopedia article about a film into an advertorial that reads like it was written by the film's own public relations agent, as at Nurse.Fighter.Boy. An administrator is not barred from acting to stop a film's article from being rewritten in a tendentious way that isn't in line with what the sources actually say about it, as at Kiki.

An administrator is not barred from acting to stop a person's article from being smeared with unsourced WP:BLP violations just because they happen to have touched the article before — regardless of whether it's true or not, any claim that Gwen Benaway was or is misrepresenting her indigenous identity had and still has exactly no business being anywhere near our article about her without proper reliable sourcing for it. I don't have any "preferred" version of her article at all — except for the fact that she won notable literary awards that got her over WP:AUTHOR, I literally don't know a damn thing else about her and have no vested interest in the article content (virtually none of which was remotely "my" work anymore) except for the fact that a claim like that is an extreme BLP violation, of the type that our BLP policies require us to remove immediately, if it isn't properly sourced. The fact that I happened to revert the BLP violation does not make me "involved" in the sense that would take away my right to deal with the BLP violation if it comes back again.

Moncton City Council? That actually was vandalism: it wasn't the real website of the real city council, but a non-NPOV blog attacking the city council at a spoofed domain name, which had already been reverted and unreverted by several other people before I ever came along. And once again, I do not lose the right to escalate a vandalism issue just because I happened to be one of the reverters of the vandalism.

Guðmundur frá Miðdal? Again, advertorialism, already reverted and unreverted several times by other editors before I ever came along. R v Martineau, unsourced NPOV violations already reverted and unreverted several times by other editors before I ever came along. And on, and so forth.

Administrators do not lose the right to take steps to shut down vandalism just because they happen to have been one of the reverters of the vandalism. Administrators do not lose the right to take steps to stop NOTADVERT violations, or BLP violations, just because they happen to have been one of the reverters of the violation, or just because they happen to also have edited a category declaration five years earlier. Vandalism and NOTADVERT and BLP violations are not the same thing as legitimate content disputes, and an administrator is not "involved" in the sense that would eliminate their right to act on the violation just because they happen to have been one of the reverters of the violation. It is not the least bit difficult to find cases where I have brought something to ANI, or to a Wikiproject noticeboard, for outside attention because it fell short of being clearcut vandalism, or because I was much more clearly "involved" in the content — but simply having reverted content that was in clear violation of one or more of Wikipedia's content policies does not take away an administrator's right to escalate to higher steps if the policy violations come back again repeatedly. In exactly zero of the cases you've named was I "enforcing" or "protecting" my own position in a legitimate content dispute with two valid sides — every single one of them involved an actual, unequivocal policy violation of some kind, such as BLP or NOTADVERT or vandalism, that had almost always recurred more than just once and had already been addressed by other editors before me too. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

An editor asks, Bearcat, why did you enact full protection on a BLP you created and have been actively editing, rather than asking an uninvolved admin to do it? ... Bearcat responds, Firstly, I'm going to note the fact that I had to peruse your edit history to figure out what article you were talking about, since you didn't see fit to tell me ... If you've full-protected so many of your own creations that you didn't know which one was being referred to, then you're full-protecting too many of your own creations. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Perhaps you should log out for a while and clear your mind a little bit, because all of your answers have been defensive and diverge from the main issues here:

a) the lack of communication between you and the people you consider are "disrupting";

b) the unnecessarily long protections on things that could have been solved by a simple discussion, report to a forum or even a block because those were merely 1 person with no evidence of upcoming sockpuppetry;

c) that you seem to continue skipping to click WP:INVOLVED to learn when it is not valid to use your admin tools. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 14:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bearcat, All that is true, but I think you're missing the point. This is non-trivial editorial involvement on the article, and while we're not a bureaucracy, an admin action to stop an emergency on an article where you're involved should be accompanied by a post for review at WP:AN or similar. Guy (help!) 10:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Indefinite full protection is very rarely the correct protection level to apply and should pretty much always be downgraded or removed if challenged. I see that that has been done in some cases, but not all. I also note that from a look at Category:Wikipedia fully protected pages, almost none are live articles. There are a lot of redirects on the list (as far as I can tell, them being fully-protected is basically the equivalent of salting the titles where there's an appropriate redirect), but I did not see any indef FPs for actual articles.
• Bearcat's actions in protecting articles that they significantly contributed to, while technically okay per WP:INVOLVED (one could argue that protecting the articles is something any administrator would have done, let's set aside the FP issue for the moment), aren't great. I note that INVOLVED says Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. I doubt that these issues were so pressing that Bearcat couldn't have posted at RfPP or COIN for a second opinion.
• I would be satisfied with Bearcat acknowledging these issues and saying that they are willing to look at other options than indef-full and to bring INVOLVED protections to RfPP.

As a complete aside: WP:PP needs some work to match consensus. It suggests that the normal options are "semi" and "full" (ECP is authorized for use between the two, as we've discussed here) and bizarrely puts "content disputes" and "vandalism" under the FP section (imply that FP should be used for those). GeneralNotability (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, also: the fact that seven-ish administrators have expressed concern over this to varying degrees is a pretty clear sign to me that something needs to change. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bearcat says he was unaware of (the new) partial block being available. I had reason to use it recently, but had to ask at WP:AN how to do so. Maybe it is time to add in some admin instructions on how to actually set a partial block at WP:PB? Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I find Bearcat to be one of the most competent editors/administrators. The fact that Bearcat did not block the editor for one occurance...I say Yes! blocks are overused by admins and they give editors a big scarlet letter. Bearcat protected the article. I see the problem as stated by Ivanvector as well. I trust Bearcat, even though I am often on the other side of their positions at AfDs. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• WP:INVOLVED states that obvious admin actions against disruption are permissible, even when involvement exists. That is what Bearcat says in his defense, and the statement is not wrong. However, Bearcat did not take an obvious admin action. We do not semi protect articles in response to a single user's disruption. Being aware or unaware of partial blocking does not, has never, and will never have any relevance. Even a semiprotection would not have been an appropriate, much less obvious, admin action. People are talking about ECP, but not even ECP is indicated here. WP:ECP dictates that ECP is indicated when semi-protection is or would be ineffective. The user was not (and STILL is not) even autoconfirmed by right of having made a measly 10 damn edits. Indef full protection is obviously not remotely indicated by a single non-confirmed user's disruptive editing. Much less on an article one is involved in. Much less on an article on is involved in, full protects indefinitely, and then continues to make involved content edits through one's own full protection. Protection policy states "the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes". This is about as obvious as admin abuse can possibly get. To most of us, this type of behavior in one incident would never be undertaken, as it would likely be met with a desysop. If there are any other instances of arbitrary, abusive use of the tools like this, a report should be forwarded along to arbcom for an uncontentious desysop. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Swarm: - "Protection should be set at the lowest restriction possible". Should be, not must be. Bearcat made an error. That's OK, because we all make mistakes (even you). There was no malicious intent involved or misuse of the tools. ARBCOM do not need to be bothered re this matter. They have more than enough to do as it is. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes we all make mistakes, but an admin believing that preventing every user on the project from editing a page is preferable to blocking a single user, under the mistaken impression that there has to be a sustained pattern of repeatedly violating our rules across numerous articles, not just a temporary issue on one article, before editblocking the user is appropriate or justifiable is a serious issue. That and admins are supposed to be up-to-date with current policy - that Bearcat had never even heard of partial blocks until this thread is extraordinary.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If this goes before the Arbitration Committee, I predict at the very least an admonishment, if not an outright desysop. But if Bearcat is able to recognize the problem and commit to correction, perhaps that can be avoided. Such an commitment ought to be brief in nature and should happen soon. El_C 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you block one new account that is censoring an article of negative things to try to promote it, then they'll just create another new one and keep at it. Best to just block all new and unregistered users. He did the right thing. Single purpose accounts that are obviously there because they have a financial reason to edit something they are connected to, must be kept from doing so. Dream Focus 16:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I can't tell if you're being serious or not, so I'm going to assume you are. That would be contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. We do not preemptively protect pages. If you look at WP:RFPP, requests like that are declined routinely. Also, it's not just new/unregistered users that are being prevented, it's autoconfirmed and even extended confirmed users like you that are being prevented from editing the articles he fully protects. Sro23 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whoops! He should've only blocked new and unregistered users. It was wrong of him to block everyone. Did he click the wrong button by accident? Dream Focus 17:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus Have you read the discussion that you're commenting on? That would probably be a good place to start given Bearcat's extensive comments here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, read it. What I suggested doesn't work, so they need another option. Warning the person not to vandalize the page by removing content like that, would've been the best solution. Mistakes were made. No sense blowing this out of proportion. He didn't see any other way to stop the person at the time, didn't think of this other option. Dream Focus 17:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Even granting your premise that protection is better than blocking I do not think Bearcat did the right thing in choosing indefinite full protection. Arguably the facts on display here suggest neither indefinite protection nor full protection let alone both. And that's before considering whether they were INVOLVED owing to their content contributions. I agree with El C that an acknowledgement from Bearcat about these issues and a pledge to act differently in the future is all that is necessary here and hope it will be forthcoming soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bearcat protected the content. The protection was removed by another admin. The job of an administrator is to protect creators and content. It is hyperbole to suggest this rises to the level of being desysopped. Bearcat used a level of protection that is too high. This is not particularly egregious and simply does not rise to that level IMO. Lightburst (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply to me or were you talking about taking him to ArbCom? Because I think Bearcat did not protect content or editors - this action prevented content from being added and prevented editors from doing work. I do think it rises to the level of Bearcat acknowledging mistakes were made and pledging to act differently in the future. This, in my estimation, is a pretty low level. If that happens I would see absolutely no reason for an ArbCom case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I did mean to reply to you Barkeep49. And no I would never take the editor to Arbcom. There are 6,122,617 article on WP and Bearcat prevented content from just one article. An article with not many eyes on it-until now: and an article I never would have visited without this ani. The protection was in place for 14 days. Was the editor involved? Yes, so probably should not have protected the article with such a restrictive level of protection. Ivanvector removed protection with a detailed edit summary Grossly inappropriate action by involved admin. Ivanvector then could have discussed with Bearcat on their talk page and we could have avoided ANI. Not sure why this rises to the levels of hysteria and apology demands articulated above. Maybe if I this was an article that I intended to edit I would feel different...but I would just approach an admin and have the protection changed, which is what seems to have happened here. I know Ivanvector to be an excellent administrator and I see that the right thing has happened in removing protection. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User_talk:Bearcat#Nurse.Fighter.Boy_again is exactly what you're asking for except it was Nosebagbear and not Ivan who posted it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me actually respond at a bit more length. Overprotecting an article by either raising the protection level too high or making the length of protection too long is something that I think all sysops have done at times. This on its own isn't an issue. Raising the protection level to the highest degree and having the length of protection being indefinite is an issue. So that's issue one. Issue two is doing this at an article they're INVOLVED with. That's issue two. I think that INVOLVEMENT is what led to what I presume, based on the good work I know Bearcat has done, to be a lapse of judgement. I don't think, after a quiet word failed, this is making the level too much. I will also note that there are people, sysops even, throwing around ideas like "likely desysop". My original post was in response to Dreamy - who later admitted to not having read this carefully - and to that general sentiment which I think is too extreme a reaction here. Best,Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification about Nosebagbear's talk page message on Bearcat's talk page, I did not see it. WP:INVOLVED is indeed maddening and I have come across it from several admins - nobody ramped it up to this level. I am clearly in the minority here in thinking that this should close with no action. We can assume from the double pings by Nosebagbear, and the revert by Ivan, and the subsequent ANI here that Bearcat gets it. If the behavior is repeated we should revisit. JMHO Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fully protecting a page they created themselves after a single editor added what they didn't like is totally wrong and uncalled for from a long time admin who should know better. If Bearcat could easily accept their mistake and promise to be more careful in the future, perhaps this could be settled here without involving or disturbing ArbCom. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what you base that assumption on, Lightburst, it seems to be uninformed guesswork. There's not a jot or pixel from Bearcat in this discussion (or anywhere else that I have seen) to indicate that he does get it. Several admins have asked for it. Bishonen | tålk 00:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Bearcat gets it. And I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. 2 years after Wikipedia was created, October 3, 2003 Bearcat's made their first edit. 17 years ago. I will not ask that editor grovel and beg forgiveness at ANI. We can see if it happens again, and if so there are avenues for you to get justice. I say this should close with no action. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Except, like Bishonen said, he has given no indication he gets it, all he's done is be overly defensive. I'm not looking to drag anyone to arbcom, all I want is some kind of acknowledgment of understanding from Bearcat. You seem to be under the impression this is a one-time, one-article thing, and if it was, then I would agree with you, but it's not. There's a pattern of misuse here. Over the years, Bearcat has made dozens and dozens of inappropriate or questionable protections. He made up some excuses and people came to his defense. This thread might languish for a few more days before being closed with no action and nothing productive will have come out of it. Well, I object to this thread being closed with no action, but that's why I generally stay off ANI. Sro23 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a place to drive routine admin course corrections. Phrasing it as a dicotomy between big smackdown or arbcom case and no action at all is not good. Somebody should draft some findings and advice for BearCat and then close this on that basis. North8000 (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Beacat to say I hear you all. I'll try to do better. And that would be that. A close can be nominal after that. El_C 02:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I greatly prefer this outcome to the proposal below. I would also just accept him saying in response to Lightburst's comment above "I do get it". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Listen. I am taking all of this into consideration, and I am considering how I can improve in the future, and not once in this entire discussion have I ever implied otherwise. But given that literally every single thing I've said up to this point has simply gotten me accused of being defensive, I'm allowed to take some time to collect my thoughts rather than simply responding in the heat of the moment and probably just making things worse. It's not automatically "being defensive" just because I try to explain my reasoning behind an action, for starters: it's standard due process to which anybody accused of anything is always entitled — I'm allowed to explain myself when I feel that my reasons for taking an action are being misunderstood, and simply explaining my side of the story isn't automatically "being defensive".
  I'm more than willing to keep in mind that sometimes I may tend to react more harshly than a situation actually warrants — the only thing that I reject is the idea that I've ever acted "to further my own preferred position in a content dispute", rather than "in defense of standard Wikipedia policies around vandalism, advertorialism and WP:BLP". Did I react with a bigger sledgehammer than other administrators might have felt was warranted? Absolutely, I can accept that I have a tendency to be a little too blunt sometimes, and I can absolutely think about that and make an effort to change it, and I am doing those things. But that doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to explain myself if I'm being misunderstood or misrepresented.
  One thing I'd ask people to keep in mind is that administrator responses to situations have to take multiple factors into account. For example, if vandalism is coming from an unregistered IP, then just editblocking the IP isn't going to work: we're not allowed to permanently editblock IPs, but only to apply short-term blocks for periods of a few hours or days at most. But then the IP can just wait out the hour, or immediately reset their modem if they're on a dynamic IP, or run their VPN to switch IP servers, and then just come right back to keep making the same problematic edit that's been getting reverted — which means editblocking the IP is ineffective, and some level of temporary or longer-term page protection is the only thing that can actually stop an IP. And similarly, if somebody is really determined to vandalize Wikipedia, then partial-blocking them from the article has very high potential to just goad them into sockpuppetry rather than actually stopping the problem. So it can't always just be a one-size-fits-all answer: there has to be some consideration given to the specific nature of what's happening and who's doing it, and some attention paid to the edit history to determine whether the problematic edits were a one-time thing or a longer-term editwar.
  So, to summarize: I am listening, I am hearing what's being said, I am taking it under advisement, and I am considering what I can do to change. I fully admit that sometimes I've reacted more bluntly than I needed to, and I am taking this on board — but I'm not copping to ever having acted the way I did for illegitimate reasons that ever had anything to do with personal bias, that's all. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  I appreciate that Bearcat is willing to reconsider a way of operating that was done with good faith and has had value to the encyclopedia in the past. This acknowledgement of learning different ways of operating is more than sufficient for me and I hope we can close this thread soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm also fine with closing at this time. This response checks enough boxes for me. I am confident that Bearcat will operate closer to administrative norms from now on. El_C 00:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bearcat Thank you for listening. I am very sorry for the stress this whole situation has caused you, but often with the admin bundle comes extra stress. I hope this thread may be closed promptly too. However, there's one more thing I need for you to understand. Administrators may not preemptively protect pages in most cases. If you don't believe me, go read the protection policy again, it's in there. The first line of defense is blocking disruptive users. If the IP or users simply wait out their blocks, then you need to hand out progressively longer blocks in order to limit disruption. I don't know where you're getting the idea that we can't block IP's longer than a few days, some especially static IP's are blocked for years. After blocking, if the users start socking or the vandalism is coming from too many separate editors, then you may protect the page. But we can't protect pages just because there's a possiblity the user may start socking. Sro23 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'd be content with this thread being closed with no further action based on the statement above. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Closing looks okay to me too at this time. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-- Bearcat asked to avoid violating WP:INVOLVED or giving the appearance thereof

Bearcat is asked to please refrain from using admin tools on articles he has contributed to as an editor, even if he does not think he is involved. Bearcat is asked instead to request admin action at approiate notice boards. When questioned concerning an admin action, Bearcat is asked to please patiently explain his rationale. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Proposer support --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support this seems like the most reasonable solution. My preference would have been for Bearcat to acknowledge their, let's say, overzealous use of the tools and to have volunteered this themselves, but as that hasn't happened here we are. Glen 03:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Seems per Bearcat's statement above that this has occurred voluntarily which as stated was my preference. Glen 04:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support but instead of being phrased as a request, I'd prefer that it be phrased as a clear and straightforward warning: "Bearcat is warned that any further INVOLVED PP will involve Arbcom." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Bearcat has already been asked to do those things - take you pick of being asked via our policies and guidelines or in the discussion above. Either he voluntarily comes to this kind of conclusion (my overwhelming preference) or we need to formally warn him as a community against misusing page protection especially when involved. This is the wrong outcome for this thread either way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no easy to "go easy on" Bearcat as is proposed here. Bearcat has given us no reason to. This is a laughably-lenient proposal, not the correct remediation going forward. We need an Arbcom case and a desysop. Not games or excuses. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that this has already happened - Bearcat has been asked to do a number of things, including not protecting pages where they are involved, already. I agree with Barkeep49 that the best outcome would be for Bearcat to say that he understands what people are saying, that he recognises that his ideas about protection are not in-line with the community's interpretation of policy. No need for grovelling, or even an apology - just an indication that he hears the concerns and will act differently in future. I have enormous regard for Bearcat and the work they have done here over many years, and do not want this to go any further, but I don't see how this proposal really moves this forward. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support BearCat may have agreed to stop violating WP:INVOLVED, but there probably needs to be a more formal and binding resolution to enforce that if BearCat ever decides to dismiss the agreement.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Jojhutton, Bearcat hasn't agreed to stop violating INVOLVED; indeed, he hasn't agreed that the actions he took do violate it. When I said that this has already happened, I meant that he has already been asked to stop it. This proposal - that we merely ask him to stop - will not create a more binding resolution, in my view. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Involved or not, if someone is clearly doing something they shouldn't you need to stop them from doing it. This isn't edit warring for a content dispute, this is a single purpose account whitewashing an article of something they are connected to. Dream Focus 17:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  There are lots of ways an admin can stop an SPA from whitewashing an article. The discussion here is about whether unilaterally applying indefinite full protection, to an article that admin has written themselves, is the option they should choose... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have no doubt Bearcat thought something needed doing. The best approach would have been to ask someone else to look and see if they agreed. ANyone can make a mistake at any time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's never the mistakes, it's always the refusal to acknowledge/correct the mistakes that is the problem. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  "Whitewashing" is subjective. What I call whitewashing you might call setting the record straight. It is an edit conflict. ANother opinion would have been a good idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Merely editing an article does not make an admin involved. WP:INVOLVED states "editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved" and editing an article is not per se a dispute. it's time we stopped pillorying admins who act in good faith to revert problematic contributors and then feel obliged to place the article under an appropriate degree of protection. As the number of articles goes up and the number of admins go down, the problems of finding another admin to make an obvious protection action will only increase. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to argue that they did not meet the criteria for involved? PackMecEng (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Read the proposal and see if you can figure it out. --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I was just making sure since it makes no sense and ignores the basic community understanding of what involved is. Also a lot of people above admin and editor seem to disagree as well. To the point that I did not even think it was up for debate, so you can understand my confusion. Thanks for the clarification. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The proposal asks Bearcat not to use admin tools on any article he has edited. Editing in itself does not create involvement, and the purpose of WP:INVOLVED is to prevent admins from having an unfair advantage in an editorial dispute, not to act as a shield for UPEs and vandals. That should be clear to anyone who reads the policy. Had the proposal asked Bearcat to avoid using admin tools in situations where he is involved in a genuine content dispute, it would naturally have had my support. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Whether or not he's INVOLVED (and I admittedly think he is) I think it's also true that full protecting an article indefinitely in these facts isn't great on its own but also isn't a big thing. Frankly none of this should be a big thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think whether he's INVOLVED or not in a particular case is relevant to this proposal, which goes a long way beyond that. Are we really asking Bearcat to never use admin tools on any article he's ever edited? Nobody that I've seen has suggested that indef FP is a good idea in any situation, and I expect that BC now appreciates the value of partial blocking (almost certainly the best solution to his dilemma). I'm not sure just what constructive outcomes folks are looking for here. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Does Bearcat appreciate the value of partial blocking? Does he appreciate not indef full protecting articles? I am missing evidence for that. The closest I can come is through a form of synthesis in reading I'll consider learning about and using it in the future, obviously. This is why the constructive outcome I've asked for, multiple times, is a simple acknowledgement that he's read and considered the concerns in the thread. El C's I hear you all. I'll try to do better or my suggested response of I do get it to a point made by Lightburst above or even you here. This does not feel like it's asking someone to swallow their pride or be unfairly meek which I know we sometimes veer into in these situations and no editor, let alone one who has done so much good like Bearcat, deserves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  If you want the answers to your questions, you need to ask them of Bearcat, not me. I see no evidence on his talk page that you've done so. He is under no obligation to appear here, and frankly if I were in his position and reading this entire section, my sole response would be "get your knee off my neck". If you want the constructive outcome of getting Bearcat to appreciate the value of partial blocking and the folly of indefinite FP, I suggest that posting at this noticeboard is precisely the wrong way to go about it. People respond much better to friendly and collegial discussion than to the adversarial atmosphere prevalent at ANI, and I think that if someone he trusts has a quiet chat with him, they would be far more likely to get the constructive outcome. Threats of ArbCom and de-sysopping are almost guaranteed to entrench his position and make him defensive. I'm sure you understand all of that and hopefully you're prepared to wait perhaps a day or two for feelings of hurt to subside and for BC to tell us he has "got it" now. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  RexxS, I did make just such a request today. They have not edited since so I do not know if they've seen it or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, although I support in principle that this could have been solved by Bearcat compromising to do better, Bearcat has replied 11 times and in none of those replies acknowledges his mistakes, he justifies them. Out of all the articles listed as problematic, he has merely unprotected Doug Robb, a redirect, and still think he did no wrong, even though it's hard to agree on these protections. Arbcom is needed. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mu - I read this as "let's ask Bearcat to do better", which is in and of itself a do-nothing proposal. On the merits of any sanctions coming out of this, I oppose. Admins need some latitude to make mistakes in good faith, which I'm sure this was, and I would like to apologize for having turned a probable misstep into a public flogging. However, admins also have a responsibility to hear community concerns and self-correct, which Bearcat seems dedicated to not doing. That's regrettable, and something we can't do much about as a community. My concern was that we would need to follow up and review a history of pages left frozen in Bearcat's wake, which I am satisfied to learn is not the case. Bearcat has been around long enough to know that there's not much room for admins between "I made a few mistakes" and "I got desysopped by Arbcom", especially for those who repeatedly insist that their mistakes were not mistakes. But we needn't go there over this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose pure notification Ivanvector's summary is a good one - almost no-one involved in the discussions would have felt it was so egregious an error that even with helpful engagement, sanctions would have been necessary. It's the rejection of a fairly strident (though non-unianimous, I fully understand) set of community concerns that's actually more problematic. Community's can give formal warnings, though they obviously don't have any specific force now or in the future, but perhaps that would be the best summary here. Despite their lack of engagement, I don't think this is a desysop action, and Ivan is likely right that, even if he disagrees with us, Bearcat will probably (hopefully?) be more careful in the future. That hasn't always been in the case with other admins, but given what ultimately occurred in those cases, hopefully they act as a cautionary tale. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This would probably be sufficient if Bearcat showed any self-knowledge or an acknowledgement of the concerns raised here. But, as Bishonen notes, that's been deafening by its absence. And per Levivich who argues cogently that It's never the mistakes, it's always the refusal to acknowledge/correct the mistakes that is the problem. And that, dear colleagues, could be the epitaph of this board. It literally sums up every filing against every long-term productive editor that ever got anywhere. That's a tragedy, but each threadcan't be ignored because it's a tragedy. —— § erial 19:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  The above two comments summarize my point well. Nobody expects admins to be perfect, but admins have a duty (not compelled by the letter of policy, but certainly by precedent) to learn from such incidents and align themselves with recent best practice when challenged. There's a very long list of former admins who did not. Jackhammering the point has never helped anyone, in either direction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this does not go far enough. We need to see some kind of indication that Bearcat understands why their approach is problematic, but so far all we've seen is defensiveness. I appreciate that it's unpleasant to be called on the carpet at ANI, but this kind of scrutiny comes with the job. Bearcat needs to adjust their approach to page protection and, based on what we've seen so far, a polite request will be insufficient to produce that outcome. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Like I said before, I'm not looking to drag anyone to arbcom. All I'm asking for is some sort of indication that Bearcat understands why his actions were inappropriate and a pledge to do better in the future. Doing better in the future looks like this: Instead of jumping the gun and the protecting pages at the first sign of disruption, he will block the relevant disruptive users (using his discretion, partially or sitewide) and only protect pages as a last resort (i.e. excessive vandalism or sockpuppetry from numerous accounts/IPs). If he is involved on the page (involved meaning he created it or changed it significantly) he is strongly encouraged to post his actions on an admin noticeboard for review. Simple, really. Also, since Bearcat seems unwilling, it looks like it's going to be up to us as a community to review all the sysop-protected redirects and titles he SALTED up till now. Sro23 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Gapes MP

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

---

Mike Gapes MP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has COI issues editing Mike Gapes, however I am posting here due to this threat to call the police. Admin intervention required.--Hippeus (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I very much doubt they are who they say they are. Regardless, I've blocked as very much not here. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is there any guideline for dealing with accounts that are used to impersonate public figures? Maybe rename it just in case? --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• @RaiderAspect:, Wikipedia:Username policy and specific noticeboard Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. When I first ran across them, they were just editing Mike Gapes from a very non-neutral perspective and I WP:AGF they were who they said they were. The subsequent edits made me lose much of that faith.--Hippeus (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• We would normally block an account like that as a misleading username,even if their edits seemed reasonable - to be unblocked, they'd need to provide evidence that they are who they claim to be via OTRS. In this case, with a combination of obvious vandalism, BLP violations, an arguable legal threat and a dubious username, I've just done a NOTHERE block. I'm not aware of any precedent for renaming accounts like that. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption at Jack Buckby

The article may need to be protected again from edit warring and WP:BLP violations--not convinced 'grifter' is an acceptable description for the lede--and a longer user block for 95.148.249.169 (talk · contribs) may be in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No thank you, just reporting demonstrable facts! 95.148.249.169 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I semi protected Jack Buckby for negative BLP cited to Twitter. Warned User:95.148.249.169 for poorly sourced content. In the end, this is a content dispute and should get sifted on the talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Deepfriedokra, thank you. Ideally, yes, but the dispute had thus far produced a user block and a previous page protection, neither of which stopped the WP:SOAPBOXing. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • 95.148.249.169 looks like a WP:NOTHERE WP:SPA on a mission. A partial block would not be out of order. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Problematic user repeatedly adding unsourced info

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

This user has had multiple final warnings as well as countless others, in fact they have been receiving warnings for unsourced edits since 2014 and yet, to date, their disruptive behavior has not improved. On top of that, they repeatedly remove prior warnings from their talk page (which I know they are permitted to do) but it means most editors assume the recent violation to require only a level 1 warning. A cursory look at their talk page history will give you some idea of this ongoing issue. I tried adding the Old Warnings template to their talk page but that was also promptly removed.

It would not be such an problem if they at least addressed the grievances on their talk page but they have made zero attempt at communication in at least 11 years and the problematic edits continue unabated. Which brings me to the actual issue; the repeated addition of unsourced information, examples of which can be seen here, here, here, here and here. Repeated unsourced additions, a complete lack of communication and refusal to work together lead me to suspect they are probably WP:NOTHERE. Robvanvee 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a bump in the hope that an admin takes a look. Robvanvee 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at High Speed 2

Over the past few months, an anonymous editor has been disruptively editing High Speed 2, including original research, NPOV insertions, and tendentious editing against talk page consensus. The editor is restricted to the 2A01:4B00:881D:3700/64 block; is it possible to block the range from editing the page? Sceptre (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

An editor, Mujinga, adds referenced text. This Sceptre deletes with no reason. I saw no reason to delete. I reverted. He does the same again, I reinstated. If deleting text a reason must be given. None has been. Totally unacceptable in wikipedia. If Sceptre continues measure must be in place to stop this sort of behaviour. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh please, pull the other one, it's got bells on it. You've been disruptively editing the HS2 article for months and are using Mujinga's edits as an excuse to continue your disruption; all I did was tidy up the article and add the paragraphs about Chris Packham's case against the HS2 project to part of the article. Me and Mujinga got caught up in an WP:EDITCONFLICT, and there was no bad intentions there; where Mujinga added information that I didn't, I tried to leave that be in the edit conflict. The only "referenced text" I've "deleted" was your POV-pushing which you've been warned about for months. Sceptre (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: You're right that the IP editor has a track record as a disruptive editor, and his edit-warring is true to form. However, I would suggest that this looks like a content dispute, and it would be best for Sceptre and Mujinga to iron out any disputed points, or clarify the changes in the article talk page. The edit history looks a bit too complex to comment on what's being argued over, but an adult discussion is what's needed. Try to ignore the IP editor, he only serves to cause confusion. Cnbrb (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no edit dispute with Mujinga; the IP is using an WP:EDITCONFLICT (a technical thing) to push his POV through the back-door. Sceptre (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood. As I said, the edit history got a bit too complex to comment on the content, so I may have got a bit confused. And yes, I agree, the IP has a history of very problematic behaviour. Let's see how it works out. Cnbrb (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

By bringing a fresh pair of eyes to the article yesterday, I seem to have entered into a long-running dispute between editors including Sceptre and 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE. I don't want to take sides here, I want to improve the article. What 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE said on my talkpage wasn't really accurate, but Sceptre saying above we are not in an edit conflict is also not 100% true, since they have taken my referenced additions and moved them to a place which seems inappropriate to me. Without wanting to enflame the situation, I do want to work on the HS2 article because in my opinion it's in quite a bad state, so I'll carry on with that. I don't think I have much more to add here since I'm not aware of the history of the dispute. Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm confident that the content issues mentioned above will be ironed out. However, the IP editor's recent contributions give cause for concern. We had trouble with the same IP range a couple of months back with disruptive editing and all-round WP:INCIVILITY - see March 2020 and May 2020. I would be prepared to let this lie, but today we have evidence of more disruptive behaviour ahead:

• This talk page message looks to me like the IP is WP:CANVASSING another (innocent) editor to participate in retaliatory edit warring
• In this article talk post the IP editor has ignored previous warnings and has started to accuse other editors of being "pro HS2 fanatics", having "vested interests" and being "astroturfers"

This is persistent, intractable behaviour. Cnbrb (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Today, once again, I have just been accused of being an "astroturfer" in a public forum. Is anyone going to block this IP editor, or are libellous comments now tolerated? I await an admin intervention with interest. Cnbrb (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruption by George Al-Shami at Paul Anka and Najeeb Halaby

• Paul Anka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Najeeb Halaby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• George Al-Shami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is adding his original research to the high qualities sources I have brought to both Halaby's and Anka's articles (biographies, oral recordings and high quality secondary sources from experts in genealogy) by merging sentences that are separate in the sources I brought to implicate something that contradicts the first sentence, by publishing information from those sources that has been questioned by experts therefore not totally proven even if said in those primary sources, by adding things that have not been really said in the sources such as Bab Touma being the old District of Damascus and then adding less notable sources and deleting the more reliable higher quality ones to support his violations to Wikipedia guidelines.

On top of that this user wikihounded to try to discredit my well sourced edits accusing me of having an agenda to get away with his violations. Back when he violated Wikpedia guidelines in the Halaby article I left it alone and didnt continue the argument in the Talk Page but he has decided then to wikihound me and reversed my edit on the Maronites article where he added or kept an outdated source and now wikihounded me to my Paul Anka edit and violate the Wikipedia guidelines there as well and keep disrupting me. I have tried to reach consensus with you a 2nd time without any progress as can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview

Now he is back after not reaching the consensus for a 2nd time and makes a long edit that is not concise and with excessive wording to keep confusing readers implying origins about the personality that the personality has never mentioned or implied himself.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Chris O' Hare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making unfair and false allegations. I have cited what the source specifically says. In the case of Najeeb Halaby, in the memoir source Chris O' Hare uses, Najeeb maintains that his family is from Aleppo; and that's what I added. Here's the proof https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=960795238&oldid=960757668. I invite any administrative editor to check the sources I used for Paul Anka; here's the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&type=revision&diff=964389958&oldid=964386424.

Please look at what Chris O' Hare has done here..

1) On March 24 he adds a New York Times source to Najeeb Halaby's article that states he is Lebanese/Syrian and adds the nationalistic designation "Lebanese", which I don't object to, because it's referenced with a credible source, the NYT.

Here's the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=947160336&oldid=913707962.

2) Then on March 26, 2020 after seeing that no one objected to his addition of "Lebanese" and his NYT source which refers to Halaby as "Lebanese/Syrian", he removes the national designation "Syrian"; even though that's what his chosen source states; this will clearly show that the said editor is not making edits in good faith.

::Here's the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=958972497&oldid=953674217. 

3) With regards to Paul Anka, I am directly quoting him from the source Chris is using. With regards to the Maronite page that used to be on my watchlist, until I removed it. Chris is deliberately being untruthful here. After a lengthy discussion with the said editor there was no consensus reached; again he is being untruthful. George Al-Shami (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, not being abke to reach a consensus is not a behavioral issue. Follow the procedures at WP:DR. This should be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon this is not about not being able to reach a consensus, dont be distracted by editor Al-Shami's claim of false allegations and please take a look at his disruptive ways.

I have put hard work researching and bringing 5 high quality reliable non-biased sources to these two articles and adhering to wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the past this user has violated many policies by merging sentences that are separate in the sources I brought to implicate something that contradicts the first sentence and by publishing information from those sources that has been questioned by experts such as american genealogist Henry Louis Gates in the Halaby article and therefore not totally proven even if said in those primary sources I have brought.

He has also added things that have not been really said in the sources such as Bab Touma being the old District of Damascus when the author has said the Bab Touma his grandfather emigrated from was a small town and then adding less notable sources and deleting the more reliable higher quality ones to support his violations to Wikipedia guidelines.

On top of that please see that this user has been wikihounding me in order to disrupt my work and to try to discredit my well sourced edits accusing me of having an agenda to get away with his violations. Back when he violated Wikpedia guidelines in the Halaby article I left it alone and didnt continue the argument in the Talk Page but he has decided then to wikihound me after into two different articles as you can see how after I left the Halaby discussion he reversed my edit on the Maronites article where he added or kept an outdated source and now has wikihounded me to my Paul Anka edit and violate the Wikipedia guidelines there as well and keep disrupting me.

After leaving the consensus building in the Talk Page the user has come back to add a new disruptive edit where he has relocated all 4 sources and placed them at the end of his unnecessarily long quote as to make it seem all four sources say the same thing and support this long quote which is not the case.

Again, this is not about inability to reach consensus but about an user that keeps being disruptive and violating policies.Chris O' Hare (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly you are at an impass. But you haven't pointed to anyplace anyone had violated any policy. Succinctly please, provide evidence abd leave all the essay behind. Like this:
  • in (x diff) he violated (A policy)
  • in (y diff) he violated (B policy)
  • etc
  • For these violations, I'd like to see him (topic banned), (interaction banned), (blocked), (sitebanned), (executed at sunrise).

• It may be you have a legit complaint, but I cannot see it, and I'd guess that's why no one else has responded. This is a busy board. It doesn't deal with content disputes. Verbose complaints regularly get ignored. If you want action, help yourself and present something that can be easily acted upon. John from Idegon (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon he has no legit complaint, I've been a registered user since 2009 and I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies, however Chris is fairly new to this project and he is using this board to intimidate me and prevent me from reverting his violation of WP:NPOV. Please look at the evidence, he's deliberately trying to confuse and distract and is very untruthful; none of his allegations are backed by the evidence. I'm using the same memoir source he is using. The problem is that he wants to keep one line on the same page that subscribes to his POV, but ignore and then change the following line that doesn't subscribe to his POV. Chris has done that on more than one article that was on my watchlist. He mentions that I'm wikihounding, again, that's another false accusation. In order to stay NPOV and neutral I placed a direct source of what the author says in his memoir. The author says this My parents were of Lebanese Christian descent and the name Anka itself had an almost folkloric history attached to it. It means noose in "Arabic" and it came about in this way: In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from- a man raped a young girl of thirteen. Chris in the beginning totally ignored the second line, after a lengthy discussion he added that his grandfather immigrated to Canada from Damascus, Syria; however that's original research and the source says that he has ancestors/ancestry from Bab Touma, Syria. Adding Damascus, is not the issue because Bab Touma is in Damascus (it's a geographic fact) however none of the sources says that his grandfather immigrated to Canada from Damascus, Syria, therefore I want to keep both - per source- however Chris is changing it to conceal/hide the fact that the subject has ancestries from both countries. In a 1960 Life magazine article, the article says The only place Paul was not an immediate international success was with his Syrian father, Andrew Anka, whose parents came from Damascus; this backs the memoir source, which shows that subject's father has ancestry in Syria, but Chris doesn't want to mention the "Syrian ancestry" part even though it's backed by these two sources.

There is a pattern to his behavior where he hits the articles on Syrian/Lebanese people and he removes the reference to the Syrian ancestry. He purports to be following Wiki polices, but he misuses them to keep his POV in the article.

Here's the evidence.

• On the Najeeb Halaby article he removed reference to his Syrian ancestry that his own source backed up: Here's the diff #[101] he violated WP:NPOV by dropping what the second sentence said in main memoir source he is using and in what is presented in other sources. After a lengthy discussion and after I presented a number of primary and secondary sources he backed off.

• On Paul Anka article he again, like clockwork, removes the reference to Syrian ancestry. here's the diff #[102] he violated WP:NPOV even though the memoir source he is using has a contradiction where the author mentions "Lebanese descent" and then on the following line the author mentions "Ancestors from Bab Touma, Syria". To stay NPOV I wanted to keep both, but in our lengthy discussion the author kept coming up with baseless arguments just not include the contradiction and stay NPOV.

• On his charge that I'm Wikihounding him, that's not true. The diff will show that I was editing this article long before the said editor became a registered user. #[103].

• For this, and since Chris is a fairly new editor, I would like a warning to be sent to Chris O'Hare about the need to include the sourced contradictions to stay in compliance with WP:NPOV.

• Furthermore, as of this writing, the said editor has reverted to his POV. In order to avoid getting into an edit war with the said editor and since consensus was not reached, I kindly ask someone to revert Chris's edit to on June 24 and restore the version before he started removing reference to Syrian ancestry. (Here's the diff #[104])George Al-Shami (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• And I'll tell you the same thing I told him. If you want action on your complaint, succinctly state what policy he violated in what diff and what you want done. No one is going to read either your, nor his, diarrhea of the keyboard. Have respect for your fellow editors. We're volunteers too. If you want action succinctly state what the policy violation is, provide diffs for it, and request what action you want. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject. If you cannot summarize your own thoughts, how do you expect to successfully edit here? John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I provided 3 diffs above and the policies he violated. My apologies for not being succinct enough.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&diff=959107360&oldid=958996232 commits WP:VAND by deleting the highest quality most reliable non-biased source that can be added to a bio article which is his/her autobiography, where it says his father was from Zahle, Lebanon. His WP:VAND also deleted the highest quality secondary source out there which is a book by Henry Louis Gates which states that eventhough Halaby states his grandparents were from Aleppo that they might also be from Zahle, Beirut or Damascus since his last name Halaby doesnt necessarily means they came from Aleppo but adopted the surname many generations back.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&diff=960795238&oldid=960757668 he comes back and publishes the unproven or questioned by Gates information about his grandparents and states it as a fact and violates WP:SECONDARY by not adding a second sentence saying that this has been put to question by Henry Louis Gates as a sourced secondary source as per wikipedia policies in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Strengths_and_weaknesses. By failing to do this he is also violating The Association of Professional Genealogists's Code of Ethics which states "do not publish unproven information as proven" as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy#Ethical_guidelines As I understand if something is not proven its either left out or the secondary sources need to be mentioned. I tried explaining him this is a violation of the guidelines but after I long discussion he fails to understand his violation as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins. I decided to move on eventhough his edit violated the guidelines.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maronites&diff=960408942&oldid=960397246 he violates WP:HOUND after he got away with his previous disruption and wikihounds me to my edition on another article to continue disrupting my editing and reverts my edition of a poorly sourced (outdated sources) with plain false statements and unexplained deletions and reverses it to the previous poorly sourced and disruptive edit again committing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&diff=964302145&oldid=964228845 after I fixed the previous source with updated sources he violates WP:HOUND again and follows me to my new edit and violates WP:SYN by merging two sentences of the source to contradict what the first sentence said as to imply something that is not stated in the autobiography which I brought to this bio as the most reliable source about Anka's descent. He also violates WP:OR by linking Paul Anka's Bab Touma, which he claims in his bio is a SMALL TOWN, to an old District of Damascus claiming Anka is not learned about his origins and made a mistake in his statement which is WP:OR and goes against evidence I presented him in the Talk Page but he keeps ignoring it violating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette .

After a long discussion and failing to making him see that he is violating policies and making disruptive edits as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview he decides to leave the consensus building talk and disappears showing his inability to understand the policies and to reach consensus violating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&diff=967734108&oldid=967721716 after disappearing for 10 days from the consensus building discussion he comes back and violates WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by completely removing what was tentatively agreed upon before he disappeared as per my last proposal in the talk page and adds all the 4 sources at the end of a unnecessarily long quote as to imply they all say the same thing as stated in the long quote which they dont violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and in a way also a kind of WP:SYN . He also keeps linking the small town of Bab Touma to the Old District on Damascus again violating WP:OR which I am willing to compromise as you can see in my last edit in order to reach consensus.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

AbhinavA1694

AbhinavA1694 is a decent editor who generally focuses on Indian films and actors. Generally their edits are good but they have a bad habit of not bothering with sources (see [105], [106] and [107] from the past few days for recent examples). They know how to cite [108] and I've left them a fair number of warnings and a pointed note on their talk page (which they read as they nicely corrected some minor grammatical typos). The WP:OR is still continuing after that note. This area is rife with poorly sourced articles, so adding to it doesn't help. They were blocked a week ago for this problem and have continued. At this point, I think a block until they respond back with an understanding of the problems and a willingness to address them is needed. Ravensfire (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Issues with sourcing and communication are clear-cut and the proposed remedy is the most appropriate action, given the ineffectiveness of formal warnings, personally-written messages, and time-limited blocking. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

AKLand refusal to communicate re: mass unsourced changes

After an initial non-dispute on the evening of 3 Jul, I explained to AKLand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) why their modifications of the normal temperature fields were unacceptable per WP:V, they proceeded to do more of the same sub-standard edits that led to my complaint: 1 on 4 Jul, 2 on 5 Jul, 3 on 6 Jul, 4 on 10 Jul; for my revert of their edit at Long Beach, California, I was even thanked by Magnolia677 for it. Their last user talk page edit was on 26 Jun, a lamentable failure to communicate. They were given a stronger (Level 4) warning for Edit-warring over far fewer reverts at Michigan (1, 2). Now they are off to unexplained source replacement, linking to the same XMACIS interface source already present, in the false pretense it would support their hack edits. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. The Internet has gained sentience and I am its chosen representative (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chosen One, please sign into your original account to edit, many thanks. ——Serial ^# 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What?The Internet has gained sentience and I am its chosen representative (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I found NOAA (w2.weather.gov), to NOWData, to "Monthly summarized data" and got my information from there. My intention was to make good faith edits improve the climate templates by adding to and completing them, not to vandalize by adding in fake information or make any "hack edits", but apparently I'm being portrayed as the enemy here. I do admit that I should've cited my sources completely when I added in the climate normals. AKLand (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I already explained to you on your talk why your, I repeat, hack edits, were not climate normals, but you nevertheless spread your disruption across more than half a dozen articles days after the post. At some point, either WP:DE is no longer "good-faith", and/or you are demonstrating incompetence and refusal to listen. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

AKLand, the point is that the data needs to match what the source says. If you have relevant updates you need to cite them, directly. But regardless, if your mass edits are being objected to, per WP:ONUS, they need to be discussed somewhere (like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology), before you continue to go ahead with updating the data. El_C 12:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I decided to add the source I got to Sioux Falls, South Dakota (https://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=fsd, NOWData, Monthly summarized data). I will nevertheless cite sources to anything I add from now on. I did what I did because I spent a good amount of time of my day gathering climate data for cities and adding them in, and it's just all destroyed before my eyes. AKLand (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a reason every NWS office's NOWData interface has only one Product line entitled "Daily/monthly normals". You have been posting self-calculated averages posing as normals (WP:CALC doesn't apply here because the sources give specific normals values). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The calculated monthly data is official, and climate normals are calculated by averaging all of the gathered data from a 30-year timespan (1981-2010 as of now). I would like to know, though, how to find those sheets that give you all of the normals data (average high/low, daily mean, mean maximum/minimum, record high/low, precipitation, snowfall) AKLand (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, Holocaust denying IP editor

66.194.149.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:NOTHERE IP editor who is using original research to promote Holocaust denial on Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust[109][110][111][112] I think Holocaust deniers should be blocked on sight. (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like he's already been blocked for 12 hours. I'll keep an eye on the article for when his unblock comes. — Czello 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Materialscientist has blocked for a mere 12 hours. I would have blocked for longer, but then Materialscientist is clever with IPs and I'm stupid with IPs. I've asked on his page. Bishonen | tålk 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

Same IP appears to be back at 2601:982:380:1480:7885:252c:420c:ec16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suggest extended confirmed protection on the affected article, Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust, which is covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Antisemitism_in_Poland:_Motion_(May_2020)? (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We haven't tried semi yet; I think that ought to work. Semiprotected for three months. Bishonen | tålk 00:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

103.149.52.73 (talk · contribs) impersonating Kevin Gorman

• 103.149.52.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Diff 1
• Diff 2

Quite weird, this. Some IP based in Bhagalpur, India is impersonating Kevin Gorman, who sadly passed away in 2016. IP also seems fairly familiar with some terms and mentions a "hidden account" which uses RedWarn, so it may be worthwhile for a CU to look into this too. Ed6767 talk! 12:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

IP is listed at abuseat - it may be likely that the computer is infected with botnet malware, and therefore could be a secret proxy output, or could just be a computer infected with malware. Only a CU can make sure that this is the case by checking for associated user accounts. Ed6767 talk! 13:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's likely the latter, as abuseat hasn't logged anything in the last 24 hours, the period in which these edits were made. Ed6767 talk! 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, This is an ip hopping lta whose schtick is writing fan fictions about Gorman; I don’t think CheckUser will be help here. Best to just revert, block, and ignore em.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 13:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this LTA is a perennial problem. Best to continue to WP:DENY. El_C 13:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's liable to be based anywhere. Just WP:RBI. Bishonen | tålk 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Chris Tomic (again)

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

---

• Chris Tomic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Idris Elba - English or British (again)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Chris Tomic
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Racism (at Idris Elba)
• Talk:Idris Elba#English is an ethnicity

Recently JzG opened a thread (since archived here) concerning Chris Tomic, who has been engaged in changing the nationalities and ethnicities in British BLPs without sourcing, and was recently blocked for edit warring on Idris Elba, where they argued that the subject could not be described as English because he is black. Since the edit warring block has expired, Chris Tomic has made no attempt to address the concers that were raised at the previous ANI thread, or on their talk page, but has continued with what appears to be their single editing interest - making unsourced changes to nationality and/or ethnicity of British people here, here and here. I said in the previous thread that I would support a TBAN if they continued in this vein without addressing the concerns; since that is what they have done, here we are - I propose that Chris Tomic be banned from editing in the areas of race, ethnicity and nationality. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd support a TBAN on those terms, but given their lack of engagement on this issue I would also not be opposed to just indeffing them. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban since the recent block did not correct the problematic behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clear policy arguments were given at BLPN. This is just disruptive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I came to support this propsoal until I saw this and this, Not the time or place to have this discussion but if we can label American-English people as "American" then why the hell can't we label British-English people as "British" ? .... I'm fed up with people changing these so I for one agree with their edits here. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  The context and arguments regarding this issue are at BLPN. That label isn't about ethnicity, it's about nationality, per MOS:ETHNICITY. That American-English issue has nothing to do with this, but if a person is an American and British citizen, American-British (or American-English) is suitable. If they're of English heritage (but not a UK citizen) then solely American should be used. There is no rule on whether to use British or English (see WP:UKNATIONALS and talk discussions since 2007). They can be labelled as English or British, depending on various factors, many of which are summed up at WP:UKNATIONALS. Arbitrary uniformity shouldn't be enforced. Chris Tomic is aware of these guidelines, since he participated in that BLPN discussion where I pointed them out, and has persisted with these arbitrary and disruptive changes. And frankly, his arguments at BLPN regarding Idris Elba were at best flawed, and at worst, as other editors labelled, racist. He should've just dropped the stick after his unblock. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  If they're half English and half something else then sure I'd agree with English but if they were born and bred in Britain then they're British .... –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Davey2010, English is a subset of British. Guy (help!) 16:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Davey2010, if you wish to change the existing consensus on the matter feel free to start an RfC. But this has been debated for over a decade with consensus against a rule for uniformity. Consensus permits both, and WP:UKNATIONALS is clear in documenting the issue. This ANI is about intentional disruptive editing by a single editor, regardless of whether you personally agree with the long-held consensus. Perhaps don't follow his lead, especially with covert edit summaries? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - clearly WP:NOTHERE to aid and assist other editors in the improvement of BLPs. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBAN or indef due to previous ANI and block not correcting problematic behaviour and persistent lack of communication, along with potential WP:NOTHERE. Ed6767 talk! 16:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this started as a support but foiled by a couple of (edit conflict) starting with Davey's comment, and I'm glad it did. We have a problem because the ambiguities in our PAGs and MOS are causing this issue. I think before we t-ban and block editors, we need clarity regarding how we define ethnicity, or if we should even include it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, this isn't an ambiguity issue. Girth Summit forgot to link to previous discussions regarding this, that ANI section is not the main one. This was discussed thoroughly with Chris Tomic on BLPN and various talk pages (links in my above response). Chris Tomic is well aware of the guidelines on this issue, and has just had a block for edit warring related to this. Btw, we do have WP:UKNATIONALS regarding this issue, it's not formally part of MOS, though it should be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme (and Davey2010), the issue here is that we do have guidelines on how to deal with these issues, Chris Tomic has been repeatedly pointed towards them, but is refusing to engage with them or even give any indication that they are willing to read them. The relevant guidelines are MOS:ETHNICITY (summary: we don't mention ethnicity in the lead, unless it's central to their notability), MOS:OPENPARABIO (summmary: we do mention nationality in the lead), and WP:UKNATIONALS (summary: neither option is 'correct', you consider whether the sources mostly use a particular word, and which identity the subject professes). It doesn't matter which word we personally prefer, and Chris Tomic is flatly refusing to hear that. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am an uninvolved editor here and have no dog in this fight so can we please discuss this calmly? I need the diff for the following statement: ...the subject could not be described as English because he is black. Quite frankly, Girth, and with all due respect, your diffs simply do not support a behavioral issue, and you cannot simply make accusations without supporting diffs. The terms British and English are interchangeable - look it up in any dictionary - both are ubiquitous terms used for nationality. Please provide some solid evidence that justifies a t-ban other than an editor simply adding Welsh ethnicity in an infobox (that actually didn't publish, although it is in the short description), or a preference to British over English which is simply a POV. And that's where I'm seeing the need to specify which is WP's preferred term in MOS, do we say they are British or English? That is simply not a t-bannable offense. Is there any evidence of incivility, CIR issues, relentless disruption on article talk pages, PAs, etc.?? If so, I will gladly reconsider changing my iVote. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, OK, reading back carefully, you are right, they didn't say that Elba couldn't be English because he was black. They did say that Elba couldn't be English because his grandparents didn't originate in England - this despite it having been drawn to their attention that Elba was born in England, a source being provided in which he self-identifies as English, and the fact that our leads talk about nationality, not ethnicity. This is all in the discussion at the BLPN discussion - please don't make me dig out all the diffs from the history, it's not too long a discussion!

  Now, the fact remains that after all that, I was still reluctant to support a TBan, because I hoped that they would engage with the advice they'd been given, and would be more circumspect when their block expired. If they had said "OK, I'm hearing it - I won't change any more stuff like this without either a talk page discussion, or providing a source to demonstrate why I'm doing it", we wouldn't be here. Instead, they have completely ignored the concerns that were raised, both here and on their talk, and have gone back to doing what they did before - changing nationalities and ethnicities in articles without discussion, or any indication that they have looked for sources to support the changes. That is disruptive. I truly don't care whether any article says English or British - both are equally correct in my opinion - but I do care about someone who routinely goes around changing articles to their preferred version, without any indication that they have looked for sources to support their change, or discussion prior to making the change, and who ignores concerns raised when they do this. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Girth, beleive me, I can relate to the time sink involved in the excavation of diffs but you brought it here for discussion, and diffs are an important part of the process. The editor has been contributing for 10+/- years - that should mean something. I believe what you're telling us - and I would think that you already (or should) know where I stand relative to your abilities - but we need to think a little further beyond the obvious. If an admin can present a case that is unsupported by diffs, then Katy bar the door! This venue will be overwhelmed by cases based on aspersions/misrepresentations, intentional or otherwise, myself having been the target of the latter, and it's not a good place to be. Besides, what can it hurt to CYA, and make sure the behavior is what you perceived it be by presenting evidence to your peers for validation? Consider this a little bit of friendly advice from one of your many Wikifriends. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: "The terms British and English are interchangeable". Are you serious? Because if so, you are seriously wrong. As my father, a Scot living in England whose parents were from Northern Ireland (as it then wasn't), would have told you rather more forcefully than I am doing. I suggest you throw all those dictionaries away, and buy one which contains accurate information. Narky Blert (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme No worries - I understand your point about diffs, I'm just lazy and hoped that people might be willing to read the whole discussion. The diff I'm talking about is here, in which Chris Tomic said None of my grandparents originate in England and nor do any of Idris Elba's. We are two such people along with many others who are not 'English'. This edit immediately follows an edit where they have been told that in our leads we describe nationality, not ethnicity. Again - if Chris had at any point said 'Shit sorry, I hadn't read the guidelines', I would feel differently - but what they did was to continue to edit war to say that Elba could not be described as English, and they have still not responded in any way to any of these concerns. That's not cool at all. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Forgive me, but what I'm seeing at this point is that English people are an ethnic group, and British refers to citizens or nationality, according to our WP articles; are they incorrect? In the diffs you provided, Chris Tomic removed the English ethnicity from the leads and replaced them with British as demonstrated by the 3 diffs you provided: #1 here, #2 here and #3 here. WP:CONTEXTBIO clearly states: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Tomic's #1 edit was reverted back to the English ethnicity; same for the #2 diff, but the #3 diff was an infobox wherein Welsh was changed from ethnicity to nationality. Three different BLPs, and what I'm seeing are 3 corrections by Tomic, all of which were reverted. Have I lost my mind? Girth, I swear, my sincerest intention here is to make sure I'm understanding this situation correctly and that you and I are on the same page. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, no, English is not an ethnic group. I mean, you can use it like that I guess, but it's a really wooly definition. What English actually means, in the context of our leads, is 'English nationality', which anyone can have if they are born in England. The idea that someone can't be English because they weren't born here, or their parents weren't born here, or (in this case) because their grandparents weren't born here, is so massively problematic that I'm genuinely struggling to understand why I need to explain it. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  If that's true, then we need some serious work done to English people which clearly states: The English people are an ethnic group and a nation native to England, who speak the English language and share a common history and culture. I struck my oppose. Good luck. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I think that lead might need some attention - English as an ethnic grouping, as distinct from Scottish, Welsh, or even North Germanic, does seem rather vaguely defined. The nations have distinct history, but the idea that there are distinct and separate ethnicities between the people who live in those nations, and who have been intermingling for upwards of a fifteen hundred years, is dubious. Be that as it may, our leads refer to nationality, not ethnicity - if you are born in England, and self-identify as English, you are English, at least as far as our leads are concerned. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, Atsme, re need some serious work done to English people, JzG started a discussion on this last week: NPOV/N § English people. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose nothing particularly egregious here. The editor is not a vandal, and there are some minor content disputes which are better discussed on talk pages. Lightburst (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Lightburst, the last time this individual engaged on a talk page, they flatly said that it was not possible for a black person person whose grandparents weren't English to be English. I'm not saying they're a vandal, but they have some very esoteric ideas about how we refer to subjects in our articles. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I am not seeing how the encyclopedia is in danger - and now you have struck the comment about (summarizing) "black people cannot be English". Another editor has stated that English and British are interchangeable. it is a Synonym. So perhaps the racism accusations are unfounded? Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, they're not synonyms - one is a subset of the other. When an editor says that our articles cannot say that a black person is English on the grounds that their grandparents aren't English, despite it being pointed out to them that they were born in England and self-identify as English, that's a bit of a red flag for me. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

English and British are synonyms for sure. And regarding the comment about black people, please show us a clear diff of that statement. Seems like we are dancing around this and yet no diff of that exact statement is provided. If it happened why did you strike black above?Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

English and British are synonyms for sure – surely you can't be serious? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

English and British are synonyms for sure

I have to agree with Imitiaz here. A person from Scotland is British by nationality, but not English. The terms are not interchangeable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets get over this contested synonym and get to the big accusation of racism. Atsme and myself have asked for diffs to support the most egregious claims. Lightburst (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I did a Google trending comparison for English nationality vs British - the result was overwhelmingly British. English nationality flatlined; perhaps because the word is mostly used as a language. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Like hell are British and English synonyms. The idea is ridiculous. Ask anyone but anyone from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. (Full disclosure: I consider myself 100% British, subdivided as 3/8 English, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Scottish and 1/8 German.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you're so divided; all this time I thought it was the United Kingdom. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I feel the same about the United States. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert Are we still going on about this? I am not British so I will yield. As you can see I am not the only editor who has made this determination. In any event we are still waiting for the racist diff. I think we can all move on from this argument about semantics. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain (i.e. the big lump of land which consists of England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland. "Great Britain" is an idea that was cooked up in 1707. We're now all British, whichever of those countries we live in or prefer to say we are from. How difficult is that to understand? Your flippancy suggests a lack of understanding.

Did I mention the Manx? They are British, but neither English, nor Irish, nor Scottish, nor Welsh. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK. I said I yield so we can get to the serious accusations against the editor. If I was flippant it is because we are still bantering about these semantics even after Atsme pointed out the confusion with the google result. I yield! Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. All the lameness of genre warring with an overlay of WP:BLP and seasoned with nationalism to the point of probable racism. Add to this an obvious unwillingness to acknowledge the validity of concerns with his edits, and I say enough. Guy (help!) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Guy, his log shows an edit warring block in 2015, and another in July 2020. We need diffs that show disruptive 3RR editing after the July 6th edit warring block. Probably racism?? Where are the diffs? That's a hefty accusation without any diffs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nom. Regardless of whether or not our MOS or guidelines are murky on the issue, you don't go through being told not to do something and being blocked for it and then just go back to doing exactly the same thing like nothing happened. Add a picture of this editor to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, based on edits at BLPN, Niko Bellic, and others discussed above, and also based on apparent failure to take feedback on board so far. Race/ethnicity/nationality, especially of BLPs, need to be handled with care. Also, may I recommend Countries of the United Kingdom#Identity and nationality. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• {non-admin comment) Support. Not least because of this diff, "[Idris Elba] is civically British, not ethnically British. According to the logic being deployed here in this instance, it would mean that on moving to NZ I would become a Mauri."

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. British isn't an ethnicity - ask my cousins on my mother's side, who identify as British, despite having one English parent and one Dutch. This is dog whistle stuff at best. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• NOTE I've unclosed this as apparently it was closed too soon (my mistake, I thought it was full banning discussions that needed 24h). Given the time closed, this should now run until at least 20:00 UTC. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Edits that are racist in effect, whether or not made with racist intent, need to be kept out of the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Someone is erasing my contributions

An editor named kevinmce is going through my list of contributions and erasing them because he's mad about a minor incident in an article and is trying get revenge....I'm fairly new to wikipedia but I believe these are valid, relevant contributions and he's gone through the last 20 edits I've made over the past month and erased them is there anything I can do aside from fighting him by undoing the edits??? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

comment @Raleigh80Z90Faema69: please give us somewhere to look. I cannot go through edits to ferret out the offending edits. Perhaps start with the most offensive edit/revert. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks as though you need to communicate on these content matters. I haven't reviewed this thoroughly, but it does seem as though you're adding what could be considered irrelevant trivia to several sports/athlete articles, which is to say you're adding information which, although it may be correct and verifiable, is not relevant to the subject of the articles you're adding it to. For example, on Lance Armstrong: "Had Armstrong not won this World Championship then Miguel Induráin, who finished in 2nd place at +0:19, would have become the only rider aside from Eddy Merckx and Stephen Roche to win the remarkably rare Triple Crown of Cycling." Most likely correct (although you didn't provide a source) but this information is just not important to an article about Lance Armstrong. Or, if it is, you need to do a better job of explaining why, which you should do either by expanding in your edit summary, or starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits aren't just trivia, but frequently lacking sources and scream of original research. [113] Also, if you've been on Wikipedia for over two years, I'm not sure "fairly new to wikipedia" is an accurate description; by now, you have little excuse not to be familiar with basic WP policy around editing behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And this looks a pretty clear-cut personal attack [114] instead of responding to the concerns being raised. Grandpallama (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• While there is a policy against WP:HOUNDing an editor, there's an exception for if you have related problems on multiple articles, which seems to be at least a reasonable position for kevinmce to take given that you seem to have been adding similar unsourced trivia to a bunch of sports articles. You need to add reliable sources for the things you add, and make sure that they're actually relevant to the article where you add them. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely true although I am not a regular editor as I have less than 1,000 edits and just created my first ever page last night. With that being said I absolutely understand the importance of the information being truthful and relevant to the article being edited.... As far as some examples on the article for Davis Phinney I made an edit which stated that aside from Greg LeMond he was the American that came closest to winning the Green Jersey in Tour de France history.... Yes this isn't a big deal but it's a true statement and I provided the link to the 1988 Tour de France which shows him finishing 2nd in that competition.... Just because it doesn't seem important to someone doesn't mean it isn't important and I had to look through every single edition of the Tour de France to verify this was true.

Other articles include Georg Totschnig didn't have much of a biography so I added and expanded to it by researching all of his results from every Tour he ever entered and that got erased.... I also added clarity to an incident involving Andy Schleck that explained what happened in a certain race that was erased....

It's not that I have a problem with someone altering an edit as obviously a large group editing ensures accuracy and I have thanked people on many occasions all I am saying is that just because Kevinmce got mad at me regarding an edit on the history of the Tour de France he went through my contributions page and deleted every single edit I made over the past few weeks..... Not because the information was false, or irrelevant but because he got mad, wanted revenge and decided to attack me and it shouldn't be allowed if my contributions were made in good faith, are relevant to the article where I made them and are verifiable as being true even if there isn't a direct source to link them to Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment thanks for the response. I saw that you only had 900 edits and I considered that information when I read your first post. Congrats on the article creation, i am going to go look at it now. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a bad first article attempt. I did not determine notability but I formatted, the layout and added an infobox. I will look further. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simply put the, onus is on the person who adds the information to make sure it is sourced. If you do not, others can remove it. If you did research all these results, then you should have citations you can make along with the statements. It doesn't have to be a direct link, but you should be able to provide a citation to a book or other work, and provide a direct quote on the Talk page if necessary so others can verify the citation.

Also, it is unlikely that Kevinmce got mad, wanted revenge and decided to attack you. More likely, they saw you added unsourced information, looked at your edit history and saw how often you added unsourced information, then removed those instances. Which is what's supposed to happen for unsourced additions — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

comment

@Lightburst: Thanks it was my first time creating an article and I wasn't entirely certain what I was doing but when I finished it looked like a wikipedia article.... As far as being notable I figured that since he is a NY Times bestseller and had articles in the Washington Post and Publishers Weekly that it would meet notability requirements.

Regarding the other incident I can appreciate and understand how information can be removed if it isn't relevant, isn't proven to be factual and that sort of thing and this happens all the time and is what makes wikipedia so good because it's people upon people all fact checking each other.... What I was saying about this KevinMce editor is that he got mad regarding a legitimate post I made in the history section of the Tour de France and then he literally went to my contributions page and deleted about 20 consecutive edits... Possibly more.... Edits he knew were in good faith and edits that he likely knew were true because they were true or I wouldn't have included them otherwise and which could have been easily verified through the statistics and history of the race in most cases..... Is it possible that some of them could have been removed on some technical grounds? Of course, but none of the other editors who monitor those Tour de France pages found anything wrong with them....it was just upsetting that out of spite and revenge he decided I'm going to delete this guys contributions and that is exactly what happened because soon after this Tour de France edit he went right down my list which I didn't notice until today and I just didn't think it was fair someone could be allowed to do that. Especially for such childish and petty reasons.... Not because they were inappropriate edits because if they were inappropriate someone else likely would have removed them immediately.

Thanks for the infobox and the formatting on my new page! I also never knew about citing direct quotes or other evidence and legitimate reasons in the talk page so thanks for that as well. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Great work! I moved your article to main space after some additional work. Regarding your WP:PAs we need to get you to stop doing that. Always speak about the research/article and not about the editor. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Raleigh80Z90Faema69, it is difficult to understand exactly what your concern is since you did not link to diffs, as you were asked to do (in teh bright yellow box at the top of the editing window). But you mention three pages, so I looked at your contributions to those. In Davis Phinney you added original research here. Kevin McE reverted it with an edit summary explaining why. I agree with their assessment. In Georg Totschnig you added quite a lot of minor statistics and original research again, here. Kevin McE reverted it with an edit summary explaining why. In Andy Schleck you added some text that looks like personal reflections or evaluations, here. Kevin McE reverted it with an edit summary explaining why. In each of those cases you reverted back with accusations of "vandalism" or "childish spite". Given that all the edits you provided as "evidence" are in fact examples of Kevin McE doing due diligence by reverting edits that were not constructive, and given that there isn't any indication of inappropriate behaviour from them, I think it would be a very good idea if you simply dropped this matter and went through your edits with a bit of reflection on why they were reverted. Looking at this edit history (which is what you claimed was the root of Kevin McE's alleged annoyance, right?) I see why they were a bit concerned, though I don't see any annoyance, much less any signs of them being "mad". Did you try to talk to them about your edits to Tour de France? I can't see any other posts to their user talk page by you than the personal attack linked above. Where did you try to discuss the issues? --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst I don't get mad at all when someone edits, alters or deletes something I've done. As long as there is a legitimate reason that's what wikipedia is for other people make it better... What I got upset about and launched that attack on my talk page is a result of this:

About 10-12 days ago I made an edit on wikipedia with citations regarding these miraculous incidents. This editor KevinMCE deleted this edits stating more or less that miraculous is not encyclopedic. I let it go and his edit remained. A few days later I came up with another edit on the Tour de France page since 1988 in the history section mentioning Lance Armstrong encyclopedic and Miraculous in the same sentence as the reason for an edit which is true but I was adding the [[]]. and also an edit about Roger Rivière regarding the 1961 Tour de France page which was factual evidence I found on his wikipedia page and Kevinmce reverted claiming it wasn't factual but he didn't even click on the page of Roger Rivière to find out and did no verifications. I didn't notice it at the time but 11 days ago KevinMCE clicked on the " contributions" section of my page and started going through and reverting every edit... Even though none of these edits were inflammatory, questionably false, or irrelevant and just undid every contribution I made one by one.... I had no idea what to make of this as I do not know Wikipedias full rules.... I could get you every example if you don't check the contribution pages of editors.... It's not something I want to spend the whole day worrying about, it just seemed like it should be against the rules unless there are clear and deliberate violations of the spirit of wikipedias rules. Could some of these edits I made been removed, sure, for legitimate reasons if every single sentence of wikipedia should have a citation which even current events articles that matter right now don't always do.... In any case thanks for the help, with multiple things regarding wikipedia and if talking really is the best solution which the talk pages should be it would have been better if this kevinmce came to my page first and said something and I wouldn't have accused him of vandalism for obviously targeting my contributions which is basically attacking a page where he might not even have read the article or the edit he was removing .... Nevermind putting something better in its place... which isn't in the rules. Again Thanks for the advice and ways to better learn this website Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you are talking about your edits on the 1960 Tour de France; Kevin McE replied on the talk page, and explained why he removed it. You say that you found it on Riviere's article, but as Kevin McE says, this article does not say that people thought he was dead, it did not say that he fell 50 feet, it did not say anything about the lack of cries. (Kevin McE also says that there was no source that Nencini was considered one of the best descenders; there were two sources, but you moved this statement away from the sources.) At best, you found this information somewhere else, but forgot to add sources. At worst, you made it up. You say that Kevin McE did not "click on the page of Roger Rivière to find out and did no verifications"; this is provably incorrect: he followed that link and found that the Riviere article did NOT contain this information, and even replied that he did so. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I have encouraged Raleigh80Z90Faema69 to retract a personal attack against Kevin McE, which they have not done. Best, Darren-M talk 08:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RPA Any editor may remove personal attacks and I have done so Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.. The questionable PAs were on the editor's own talk page, and RPA states: Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. From the editor's lengthy comments on their talk page they understand. I do not want us to beat up this new-ish editor any more. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I Move to close with no action newish editor has been educated about processes. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor deleting material from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi saying that "Sources which are associated with groups militarily active against Zarqawi/ISIS are not reliable."

The subject of the article is a well-known terrorist, but User:Nuruddin Zengi is deleting anything that suggests that, ignoring the sources, eg [115] here. User:TheTimesAreAChanging and I have reverted. In the normal course of events I might block, but I'm in a content dispute with him over his use of primary sources (OR). Another of his edit summaries says "Opinions of people who you are at war with would be biased, also about 99% of references here about a Muslim, Arab person is from non-Muslim, non-Arabs. You should probably check that." Doug Weller talk 18:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for edit warring across multiple articles. I have a feeling that block will become indefinite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yup,  Confirmed to a case I'll create in a minute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Jersey Crabs help

Hi there. I was looking through the log of Draft:Jersey Crabs and it was deleted through G5 and G6. Recently, Jersey Crabs was created [116], albeit in user space and looks like a fully developed article at the time of it's creation, including some draft templates. Could someone possibly look to see if the deleted draft version matches that version of the article? If it does, it probably needs a histmerge. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 18:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's identical, and the draft should have been histmerged. I'll take care of it. Thanks for the heads up! @Ged UK: FYI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Predictions made by Shah Nimatullah Wali

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

---

This article was created yesterday with maintenance templates from June. It obviously was not written by its creator, Linguafocus (talk · contribs) or if it was there is something very odd going on. The editor also created Alvi (tribe) yesterday, which Beshogur has taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvi (tribe) saying that "This article is pretty much artificial, claiming there are Sunni Alevis. Also the user is putting Turkic peoples category every time. Such thing doesn't exist. Source 2, 3, 4 and 5 may show like such people (?) is actual, but all these texts are copy pastes from other articles mainly Alevi. Especially the infobox looks ridiculous. It should be deleted, pure original research." I was also bothered by their replacement of the founders in the Hindu infobox which said no founders with an academic source with something that claimed that Aryans founded it sourced to what appears to be a very good children's website, but in this case simply wrong. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make some of the sentences but, you are messing, because many sentences are made by me, and there are many Alvis who were converted to Sunni Islam. Linguafocus (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Article needs better sources, probably a new title, and some major work in general. But it does seem notable? One of the sources is an academic journal paper that discusses the predictions (poems) in context and in history. Doug, is this report about the article (in which case idk why it's at ANI) or about an editor? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: both really. @Linguafocus:'s reply is apparently about the article at AfD, I'm more concerned about an editor creating somehow an article complete with maintenance templates. I don't know if we have a competence issue here or what, and figuring out how the Predictions article came to be may help decide that. I'm going offline shortly, it's after 8pm here and I'm up at 5 to walk our dogs before there are many people around. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, I am so sorry, bro, i am in stress, and you are considering my articles of speedy deletions, in my country (Pakistan), It's 12:30 here, For now, I can't being the part of discussion, so i am worried. - Linguafocus (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller and CaptainEek, I can say with confidence that this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Fixed ping. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Whom? Linguafocus (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I saw Predictions made by Shah Nimatullah Wali mentioned at FTN and redirected it to Shah Nimatullah Wali. Most of the sources don't mention Wali, others are social media and/or purely religious sites. Nothing reliable that I can see. And it's full of copyright violations, for instance from https://daiyah.fandom.com/wiki/Ghazwa-e-Hind. I expect "your" academic journal paper makes a word-for-word appearance, too, CaptainEek; there are so many footnotes I haven't had time to study them all in depth. The steeply varying quality of the English prose suggests which bits are copyvio and which were written by a Wikipedia editor (not a native speaker, I assume). Redirecting seemed a way of fixing these things, but at the same time I don't think it's much of a redirect; perhaps it should be deleted. Linguafocus, please note that you are not allowed to copypaste pieces from copyrighted material that you find on the internet. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

Can we get a checkuser to take a look, given the LTA concerns? If its a hit, I'd say just G5 Alvi (tribe) and Predictions made by Shah Nimatullah Wali. That redirect is an alright solution, but its an unlikely target tbh. Other exciting pages by them include Draft:Predictions_made_by_Bill_Gates and Draft:Predictions made by Nostradamus, which seems CSD worthy but I wasn't sure what tag to throw on them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to what? As I said it's jusr an artificial article. Not sure what he is talking about. Alevis? Those are Turkish speaking socio cultural group, nothing to do with his Indian tribes. Beshogur (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The user has been confirmed as a sock of the LTA mentioned above. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

IP on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mezzo Secolo Di Ritornelli

151.52.254.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) copied and pasted this message [117] that they'd left on my user talk page (minus my reply, but with a couple of the others) to the closed AfD discussion that they were angry about, with a shouty comment about the Mafia [118]. They then reinstated (but without the Mafia bit) after I removed it [119]. Any chance of a block? YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it was IP user 151.38.94.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that posted the comment of 151.52.254.197 to the AfD page. I can only assume the same person is behind both; in the message they note that they are the same person as 151.74.138.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (but deny being the same IP as other ones on that AfD). I'll notify all three of the IPs about this discussion. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As well as adding the copy-paste back to the AfD page a couple more times [120], [121], the IP ending in 117 also left a couple of cryptic messages on my user talk page [122], [123]. I think they think I'm Merynancy, but it's hard to tell (I'm definitely not). YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 21:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

They were referring to people supporting the page's deletion as a "mafia", it seems like a sort of persecutory delusion to me (they also assumed I had something personally against the book's author when, in fact, I had never crossed him before his pages were SALTed on it.wiki for persistent spamming and I noticed they'd been rewritten on here). Nothing serious imo, they're just pressed "their" page got deleted. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I cleared the AFD earlier. If their IP changes that often, a block is meaningless. If they keep trying to change the AFD page, I will just semi-protect it for a few days. Kind of off the beaten path to do that, but it works. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

Since this report I filed in May, Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in increasing levels of hounding, disruptive and controversial page moves and capitalization changes, and other seemingly retaliatory behavior against myself and Qwirkle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This behavior has included:

• In just the last two days, he quickly followed my edits on Boston University Central station, edit-warred with Qwirkle and I there, made a personal attack, made the same disputed edits on Central station (MBTA) shortly after I made unrelated edits there, pinged me despite my explicit instructions not to, and followed me to an article he's never edited before just an hour after my edit. Despite me telling him Do not ever post on my talk page or ping me again unless you are explicitly required to - which I know he saw - he again posted on my user talk page a few days ago.
• This following behaior has gone on for months, with him making either capitalization changes that he's well aware I disagree with, or trivial changes to commas or dashes. Typical examples include Nubian station (not even two minutes after my edit), J Church, and Park Street station (three times, all lagging my edits by a few days). The majority of these are on articles related to the MBTA (and New England transportation generally) or Muni Metro. I have contributed heavily for years on both subjects, and on almost every of these articles I have made significant expansions prior to his involvement. He has made only style edits in these topic areas, with a notable increase within the past three months. I have warned him of both the following and the disruptive nature of his edits, so he is well aware that I believe he is following me.
• He commented multiple times at two ANI threads posted on my talk page (neither remotely related to him): to defend an editor who insulted me, and to offer advice to a sockpuppet angry that I brought them to SPI. He also followed Qwirkle to a completely unrelated ANEW report, and complained about both of us there.
• Immediately after I reverted his decapitalizations of "Central Subway", he created what I consider to be a blatant POV fork (completely duplicating existing information on the Green Line and Tremont Street subway articles) to legitimize his decapitalization. It's the only content addition whatsoever that he's done in MBTA-related articles.
• Less than 15 minutes after I converted that article into a redirect, he made undiscussed moves of Canal Street incline and Pleasant Street incline. (Making undiscussed controversial moves is a behavior that he has engaged in for years, despite multiple ANI threads about it.) This is part of a pattern of using moves as retaliation: he also opened an RM of an article I'd just created immediately after I filed that May ANI, and requested a technical move of MBTA bus hours after we clashed about capitalization on Green Line E branch and other articles. These disruptive moves are also based on his preferred lowercase style rather than actual research: he didn't do even a basic search before that RM, and his recent requested technical move of MBTA boat (which he claimed was based on sources) indicates that he didn't look at the sources, which overwhelmingly use "ferry" and not "boat".
• Twelve hours after I majorly expanded an article and nominated it for GA, he moved it. This article is completely outside my usual subject areas, an article that he'd never edited before, and the only such move (along with a second river of the same name) he made that day; I can't imagine him finding it other than by following my contributions.
• Two hours after I completed my initial version of Ipswich Street line and nominated it for GA, he made a cosmetic edit with an atypical edit summary. (He doesn't seem to have used "'n'" as a word separator in any other summaries). While he'd edited the article with a semi-automated tool while it was under construction, it seems a bit unlikely that he would have watchlisted it, and the unusual edit summary seems to imply 'I'm watching you'.
• On Commons, he casually mentioned checking the timestamps of my photos to see how close he was to encountering me in person.

I believe both a one-way I-ban and a topic ban from MBTA articles are necessary to stop this months-long pattern of harassment and disruptive editing, which has made me feel targeted and anxious, and constantly interferes with my editing. Given that his sole content addition in that topic area is a single stub article – every other one of hundreds of edits is a cosmetic tweak or disputed capitalization change – such a topic ban would not be interfering with actual content additions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dunno one way or the other what the best remedy is, but the description of behavior seems fairly accurate. Qwirkle (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not ever post on my talk page or ping me again unless you are explicitly required to

Is banning users from your talk page a thing here? While I would agree that if it gets disruptive (which becomes far more likely if someone has been told they're not welcome), I don't think banning another user from a talk page is an option. (unless an IBAN has been issued) Though you can certainly tell anyone they're not welcome.

While he'd edited the article with a semi-automated tool while it was under construction, it seems a bit unlikely that he would have watchlisted it, and the unusual edit summary seems to imply 'I'm watching you'.

This seems maybe a bit far-fetched. I have accidentally watchlisted thousands of pages because of tools. I don't see "case'n'space'n'dash" as a threat. Maybe Dicklyon's semi-automated tool wasn't working well for the article so he made a less automated edit and entered a jolly edit summary. Be careful not to read threats in edits that really aren't threats.

He commented multiple times at two ANI threads posted on my talk page (neither remotely related to him): to defend an editor who insulted me, and to offer advice to a sockpuppet angry that I brought them to SPI. He also followed Qwirkle to a completely unrelated ANEW report, and complained about both of us there.

I see absolutely nothing objectionable in the content of the first two links and little more than some annoyance in the third, which isn't actionable unless it's 1984.

On Commons, he casually mentioned checking the timestamps of my photos to see how close he was to encountering me in person.

15 July 2020 Krd deleted page File talk:Berryessa station artwork LIFE!.jpg (Ophaned talk page)

Besides being on Commons which makes it utterly irrelevant here unless it's part of a pattern that involves enwiki, which I'm not convinced of: the comment in question can't even be read, so unless you or another Commons admin undeletes the page, we can do nothing but assume good faith.

Dicklyon is quite an active editor, so it's likely inevitable that you'll cross paths here and there. Besides, if one sees a familiar username pop up in Special:Recentchanges or their watchlist, they are more likely to get involved. As an example, I have this page watchlisted because I edit it sometimes. I saw BorkNein's edit on my watchlist with "New section: Guy Macon". I've heard of Guy Macon, so I took a look. And right above that report was this report, which is why I'm now here. - Alexis Jazz 05:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, per WP:NOBAN, If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. The community has generally accepted that as the ability to ban users from your talkpage, and posting on someone's talkpage after such a request (in the absence of placing a required notification) is usually deemed disruptive and inappropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Thanks. Though the next line in that guideline is However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project. I think in general it is like I said: you can't ban anyone from your talk page, but if you signal that someone is not welcome, anything they do post on your user talk is much more likely to be considered disruptive. - Alexis Jazz 14:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There are editors who share your view about the wording of the policy, but in practice, the community has consistently endorsed an interpretation that you are allowed to ban someone from your talkpage. Doing so repeatedly to numerous editors, to avoid criticism or over basic reminders/warnings, though, has also consistently resulted in smacks on the nose. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

When I posted this on Pi's talk page, I had forgotten about his request to never post there or ping him unless required to. I was thinking it would be better to talk than to try to argue it out in revert edit summaries, which is where he was. I'd say if he doesn't want to hear from me, he should not say nonsense to me that needs a response. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done my best to be civil with Pi and Qwirkle, over-capitalizers who like to revert my edits that conform with MOS:CAPS and other style items. I'm sorry Pi finds my style edits and moves to be trivial. On Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston), he may not be aware that I have moved over 1000 river articles after working with Wikiproject Rivers on the river naming conventions. Nothing about him on that one. Most of the other articles were found by searches, and the MBTA articles were where most of the over-capitalizations of "subway" and "branch" and "tunnel" were found; others were at SF Muni, another set of articles he edits. And yes we happened to visit a new BART station on the same day, as I noticed when Pi replaced my photo with his and had another of my photos deleted. For our most recent disagreements, see the discussion I've got going at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. I'm very surprised these guys want to talk about it at AN/I when they're so reluctant to talk at talk pages. I'm happy to have my edits and behavior examined, and will take feedback if found wanting. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, have no problem discussing something on an article’s talk page. Why Dicklyon instead prefers to put himself on a user’s talk page I will leave as an exercise for the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

On the downcasing of "incline" and "portal", I think I had zero pushback from anybody on those, before or after the 2 page moves he mentions. So why is that coming up now? If I do something that's wrong, tell me. But sources say these ones are not wrong. Same with MBTA bus; nobody has suggested that maybe it should be MBTA Bus, which if we used it would be a WP-created proper name never seen in sources. Changes that nobody pushes back on are not generally thought of as "controversial", so bringing them up as such at AN/I represents some kind of pent-up need for over-capitalization, I guess. What's controversial is Pi's capping of "Station" contrary to the convention of WP:USSTATION, via obscure template/module hacking, and then repeatedly reverting my attempts to fix that, backed up by Qwirkle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

While on these things, I downcased "Tunnel" in State Route 99 tunnel. An editor objected and reverted, so we had an RM discussion; with no editors objecting there, it passed, and no problems remain. In MBTA articles, even after reaching consensus in RM discussions on "branch" and some other things, I continued to get a fight from Pi and Qwirkle in implementing the changes. I've also moved about a hundred other rail and station articles in the last month or so, mostly in India, Sweden, UK, and Vietnam, very few related to Pi, and with essentially zero pushback since the reasons for the moves are generally accepted and uncontroversial. It's what I do. That and rivers, and uploading and placing photos, where I also get mostly zero pushback. I think I've actually made a lot of great contributions recently; even a few new articles; only in the MBTA space am I running into strange pushback against implementing consensus style. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally public works above a certain scale tend to be named, not merely desribed, with the name of the thing capitalized like any other proper-named thing. It isn’t Brooklyn bridge, or Pennsylvania station, not even on Wiki. Qwirkle (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally, that's not WP's approach, per MOS:CAPS. Yes, some tunnels have proper names; the State Route 99 tunnel is a big public work that does not; maybe some day they'll name it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Pi's a friend and I want to say something about hounding, having experienced it myself (not from Dicklyon). The issue here isn't the correctness of the edits, or where we all stand on NCCAPS as applied to bus stations. I think the point, and it's a reasonable one, is that every time Pi looks over his shoulder on this project (and Commons) he sees Dicklyon, and that makes him uncomfortable. He's been clear about that, and the point of WP:HOUNDING is that such behavior isn't okay, regardless of the edits themselves. Let's talk for a moment about Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston). Dicklyon says he's worked on the naming convention for rivers, so no coincidence. Fine. That said, he was reverting a move that had occurred six months ago. Now, there's no deadline on Wikipedia, but reverting a six month old undiscussed move the same day Pi undertook a major expansion is the sort of thing that makes a user paranoid. It's possible to be making nothing but good-faith edits but still making another editor uncomfortable, and that's why we have a policy about hounding. The present dynamic here is unhealthy, it's affecting two good and productive editors, and something needs to change. Mackensen (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just reread WP:HOUNDING to see if anything I've been doing could be what it describes there. I don't see it. The only place my edits interfere with Pi or his enjoyment is where he's fighting for over-capitalization. The fact that I edited a few other articles that he edited should not have much affect on him, especially if they are edits that are unrelated to his, and that he has no objection to. If he's paranoid, it's not I who made him so. The dynamic that needs to be fixed is his sneaky way of working around case conventions by burying over-capitalization deep in template/module data, and running to AN/I instead of engaging sensibly in discussion about the disagreement. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I particularly seek more input at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. It is my intention to continue to fix the overcapitalization of bus route descriptions from Pi's June 26 and 27 edits, across many MBTA station articles. If someone sees a reason to not fix those, speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Pi's opening complaint, I'm bewildered also about these claims:

• disruptive and controversial page moves and capitalization changes – where? which move might be considered disruptive? or controversial? what cap changes might be considered disruptive? or controversial even?
• other seemingly retaliatory behavior against myself and Qwirkle – what? I have nothing to retaliate for. I even had an extensive good collaboration with Qwirkle at Artillery wheel during this period. And I thought I had a friendly interaction with Pi when noticing the we both visited the new BART station on opening day to take pictures. I do wish they'd stop defending over-capitalization, but that's nothing that would provoke retaliation of any sort. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

On sins of omission, guilty as charged. Probably I should have noticed that MBTA ferry would be a better title than MBTA boat, instead of just fixing the over-capitalization there. Maybe I should have sought a better title for MBTA bus, too, instead of just the case fix. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There in a nutshell is the crux of of the problem. Got a dispute that has gotten this far, but is unable to see any possibilities except that others are wrong. Qwirkle (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And completely refuses to acknowledge, much less apologize for, the hounding that I described in my original post. That harassment is why we are here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You simply assume bad faith. As usual. - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran some quick numbers, but without more reference points they are not very meaningful. 2% of the pages that Dicklyon has edited in the past three months have also been edited by Pi. 3% of the pages Mjdestroyerofworlds (otherwise unrelated, I was just trying out some users with possible overlapping interests) has edited have also been edited by Pi. So in conclusion Mjdestroyerofworlds is 50% more likely to be hounding Pi than Dicklyon. Lies, damned lies, and statistics of course, but maybe patterns will emerge if I try more users. Any suggestions for other users with similar interests? - Alexis Jazz 00:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Shockingly, users with common interests edit the same articles! The problem is not editing the same articles; Mj and I get along just fine, with our edits building off each others'. The problem is that Dicklyon follows my editing across multiple subjects in a manner that cannot be coincidental, moves articles as retaliation for disagreeing, makes repetitive edits that he's aware I consider unconstructive as the majority of his edits in my usual subject areas, and pretends to be unaware that all of this would bother any reasonable editor. That's harassment, and it's unacceptable, regardless of your previous grudge against me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The human brain is really good at seeing connections, even where there are none. With the edit volumes of the both of you, combined with common interests, you are bound to run into each other. Dicklyon's edit volume is considerably higher than yours, but your edits are, on the face of it, more substantial (I notice some copy pasting though, but that doesn't matter for the subject at hand) where Dicklyon does more small fixes. Neither is better or worse, but this guarantees that Dicklyon will often edit an article after you did. (or any other editor who adds substantial amounts of text) Because those substantial edits both cause the article to appear in searches for articles that could be improved as well as recent changes. The OP may just be a case of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, fallacy of the single cause and jumping to conclusions.

regardless of your previous grudge against me.

Is that where we are? You threatened me, falsely accused me of "treating anyone you disagree with as an adversary" and called Tuválkin, a respected editor, a "perpetual mess-maker". You said that I "antagonize anyone with a mop", so tell me, how come there are half a dozen admins (not to mention other users) who have been willing to make edits in my place without me even asking? Never mind your accusation that I "advocate for the worst blocked users" (which is false anyway), because some opinions must be suppressed, in particular those you don't agree with.

It is you who is holding a grudge. More than one, in fact. Which raises the question if Dicklyon could be one of them. - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

non-admin comment To show hounding, try making a table, listing locations with a history link, sample timestamp of your edits, then time stamp of the claimed "following" by the other party. Also would help to have a fourth column showing all contribs of the other party at that location. Then anyone interested could quickly review the evidence for you complaint of hounding, without having to wade through the saga and do all that thinking and analysis for you. I did look at the diff for the claimed personal attack in the first bulleted point in the opening post, and that does seem excessively snarky at best and intentionally insulting at worst. If you can show (visually) the pattern of following by organizing the complain this way, you may have better luck generating an appropriate response.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon

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

---

Guy Macon is edit warring to impose his preferred format on an RfC I filed at Talk:Daily Mail#RfC: sourcing of "widely criticized for its unreliability". I posted it in this format, he boldly altered it here. I reverted his change, asking him not to alter my preferred formatting, explaining that both are optional under the guidance, and for obvious reasons, the person filing the RfC does get first choice. Instead of proceeding to a discussion to establish a consensus for his change, as part of this edit, the first revert of an edit war, he again imposed his preferences. Please restore the status quo ante, pending any support arriving for his preference from someone other than himself. BorkNein (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@BorkNein: Both are a bit confusing because of your quite long !vote, but Guy Macon's version is better. You don't "own" your RfC. - Alexis Jazz 03:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said I did own it. I said I get to choose the format as filer, and he doesn't get to edit war to enforce his preference without a consensus. Better is subjective. His is better for him, clearly, but better for Wikipedia? Better for resolving this specific question? I doubt it. Why is that even the issue here, rather than his edit warring? You can't justify edit warring on the basis you think you might be proven correct, you can't justify it ever. Who told me that? Guy Macon. BorkNein (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@BorkNein: It wouldn't be unreasonable to think you've been around lot longer than 14 days. If that would indeed be true, it would be wise not to file reports on noticeboards. Just a hypothetical. If you want to accuse Guy Macon of edit warring, there are instructions at the top of WP:AN/3RR and more info on Wikipedia:Edit warring. - Alexis Jazz 05:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been unreasonable to have at least expected you to have clicked that noticeboard link before you let your imagination put 7 and 12 together to get hypothetical 58 cubed. BorkNein (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Borknein in this thread: "I never said I did own it [the RfC]". Borknein at the RfC: "I do 'own' the RfC". It's all becoming a bit Trumpian. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

In the sense you're spreading fake news? Yes......"I do "own" the RfC in the sense the format is necessarily first chosen by whoever first posts it." BorkNein (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Beware of curved Australian wood that starts in one direction and does a 180 to return from whence it came. — Ched (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say, oh helpful one. Beware of official looking letters from relatives who learn their loved ones slit their wrists because you misjudged a room. Speaking hypothetically of course. It's all just fun and games here, with me and my pal Nomo. He's got my back, he said as much, and I believe him. BorkNein (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive SPA editor mid-AfD process

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

---

We're in the middle of an AfD deletion process for the article "Jill Phipps", and a single-purpose account has been disrupting the process with COI-type edits to the article. User Love n Peas (talk · contribs) started editing in January of this year and has edited ONLY this one article. The types of edits and reversions this editor has performed point to someone who personally knows the subject of the article.

The user has been "softening" the image of the subject, Jill Phipps, by removing details that are mentioned in reliable source news articles. During January and July 2020, the user removed content mentioning Phipps' affiliation with a radical group, removed a quote about the details surrounding her death during a protest, altered (to lessen) the sentences imposed in a criminal conviction, removed details of a crime, and added inapplicable information about some other disreputable person that isn't relevant to the article.

The reverts/alterations they have made are: in January, on 7/14/2020, on 7/14/2020, and on 7/16/2020.

I have tried numerous ways to communicate with the editor and get them to stop, but have been unable to reach them, or they are ignoring the warnings.

• I placed the soft edit warring notice on their User Talk page.
• Another editor (Ponyo) placed a COI warning on their User Talk page.
• I have placed a thread on Talk:Jill Phipps alerting of SPA activity (giving details).
• I have put COI & POV hatnotes on the article.
• I have twice tried waiting 24 hours between reverting their edits in the hopes they would see any of these messages.

Despite the content coming directly from the citations, this user has removed properly-cited content and offered no citations/sources as explanation, leaving only edit summaries with such wording as: Removal of factual errors. Correction of misrepresentations. Removal of some individuals names in the interests of privacy. Factual inaccuracies. Removed irrelevant and incorrect information. These phrases, coupled with the types of changes they made to the article suggest the user is very close to the subject.

I can think of nothing further I can do to stop the disruption. Please, is there some sort of an intervention that an administrator can do?

— Normal Op (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted it and will keep an eye out. I'm actually not sure what the editor is trying to achieve, as some of the sourced material they have removed is not critical of Phipps at all. AFter the AfD is closed I may try to untangle the mixture of reliable and trivial sources, having looked at it there are useful sources out there that can be used. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Someone "speedy keep'ed" the AfD and renamed Jill Phipps to Death of Jill Phipps. Someone restored some of the parts removed by 'Love n Peas'; I'll take a look at the article now and probably restore some of the other edits that weren't (yet) restored. But I sure hope 'Love n Peas' doesn't repeat the behavior. Normal Op (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Normal Op: It wasn't speedy-kept; it had been open for more than 7 days. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Looong list of stuff that sholdn't be happening, courtesy of User:C. A. Russell

C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

→ WP:AN3/User:Drmies reported by User:66.90.149.252 (Result: No violation, OP warned)

• Personal attacks against other editors (clueless users like User:Calton), calling other editors (dishonest), threatening to harass others (notwithstanding blatant invility (Quit fucking up)), more incivility (Grow up, grow a spine).
• Comments such as this—especially to a blocked user's User Page which you know they cannot edit—is outrageous: a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the recipient is indefinitely blocked.
• Comments such as "and then tries to retrofit some bullshit argument to justify their original actions. Let's watch the next instance of this unfold... now", rather suggest that this whole episode was engineered by CAR to get this very result. That's wholly unproductive behavior.
• This edit summary, is a clear personal attack, considering its contents (f*** Codename Lisa).(Now redacted)
• Is C A Russell not aware of the policy regarding logged- out editing, which instructs that editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors. In this particular case, it would appear they did both deliberately. ——Serial ^# 11:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• warned about edit warring by RexxS.
• Personal attacks continue (Go screw up some other part of the encyclopedia, combined with incivility in edit summaries (Go the fuck away, and then doubling down on the same PA.
• Reinstating personal attack.
• Multiple admin warnings
• Trolling Drmies' talk page; one of the few editors I've seen that have been effectively requested not to post there again! (...not counting the trolling of Cabayi's talk or my talk.)
• For someone as keen as C.A.R. on telling people to "knock it off" ([124],[125],[126],[127],[128],[129]) they be pretty keen on keeping it going.
  Needs sorting one way or the other: they've managed to tie up the energies of—nine, ten editors?—to quote Objective3000, they need to take a break, voluntarily or not. —— § erial 09:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I was already inspired by the convo on your talkpage to consider blocking C. A. Russell for personal attacks (so it tied up my energies too), but I lost heart when I realized that three or four of your diffs, with very nasty-sounding quotes, were simply links to the history of WP:ANEW. They look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=history. Something went wrong with the copypasting, I guess. Unfortunately you've got these not-diffs here to, in the first sentence, "Personal attacks against other editors ("clueless users like User:Calton"), calling other editors ("dishonest"), threatening to harass others (notwithstanding blatant invility ("Quit fucking up")), more incivility ("Grow up, grow a spine")." Could you fix, please? Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. My copying is socially distancing itself from pasting by the looks of it, thanks for catching. I think I've fixed 'em now. Cheers, —— § erial 10:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for 48 hours. Considering how bad-tempered and all-over-the-place the attacks are (managing to get in a glancing blow at Calton? What's that about?), it's a short block. But I'm also considering the previously clean block log in twelve years of editing. Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think that's reasonable. Thanks for dealing with this so promptly —— § erial 10:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Is there a museum of all your past signatures somewhere? --JBL (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa

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

Despite several warnings and guidances by me and other editors, Machinexa persists in adding content to articles about health effects while using citations that do not comply with WP:MEDRS. Latest is Berberine. See also Nicotine. This results in a very high revert percentage. David notMD (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa is a problem editor who, despite numerous warnings about adding unreliable sources and poorly composed content - and even admitting inadequate knowledge or competence on topics (mostly in WP:MED articles) - continues unabated, causing other editors to clean up a mess. MED topic-ban recommended. Zefr (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Topic ban from medical articles, broadly construed, for their failure to understand WP:MEDRS. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, Could someone range-block 2.218.85.153 as they keep adding redundant categories and don't ever listen, The last discussion was at User_talk:TKOIII#Ford_Fiesta where the same IP chimes in there, Blocking alone never achieves anything as they simply return whereas rangeblocking sort of does a better job, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, Can you point out some of the other IP addresses so I can put an appropriate rangeblock together? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey CaptainEek, 2.123.32.0/20, 2.125.184.101, 2.127.78.222, 90.195.58.193 and 90.195.51.28 are the most recent I know of, Apologies for not mentioning these earlier, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the originally reported IP, but the 2.12/././ IP range is too big to rangeblock. If they edit again, let me know their IP so we can narrow down their current range. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay will do CaptainEek, Many thanks for your help here, It's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Raval77

I am bit concerned about the amount of new page content that Raval77 is creating regarding World Games, every new creation might have one single citation entry. But this seems like mass creation without regards for true GNG. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eh, that's not good. I've warned the editor not to create any more whilst this is discussed. None of these articles, as far as I can see, are viable - they're only sourced to primary source, and are about sports events from a minor meeting, comprising mostly non-notable athletes (I mean - Lifesaving at the 2017 World Games - Women's 50m Manikin Carry - really?). My temptation is to just nuke the lot of them, but that's very IAR (they don't conform to any CSD catergory), and alternatively I really hate bundled AfDs. And in this case there are around 460 articles. Just PRODding them all (quite apart from the effort involved) will of course attract one of the usual suspects who just remove the PRODs for no reason, meaning we'll end up at AFD anyway. So - ideas? Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if we get a response from Raval or not, but every time I see one of these articles I might start PRODing them. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Can another admin take a look at this?

I'm off to bed for now, but I just stumbled across this mess of a page. Too tired to sort it out right now. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Add this mess, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected both pages for 2 weeks with instruction to make use of respective article talk pages. El_C 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editing by Za-ari-masen

Za-ari-masen has been relentlessly pushing Bangladeshi nationalism on large number of South Asia-related articles. He has violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:EW, and WP:Civility. I’ll share examples of these, in brief.

In languages related to South Asia: Za-ari-masen has been changing shared the Bengali and Assamese script to the Bengali script only. In Bengali–Assamese script, he moved a shared Bengali and Assamese script to Bengali script.[130] He was warned by Amakuru not to do so ("please stop moving this page without consensus") even though their previous attempt to POV push on the page failed.[131]. Without discussion, using a random claims, which was challenged in Bengali–Assamese script, he changed Bengali-Assamese script on mass to Bengali Script, this can be seen here for Rangpuri language, here and here for Hajong language, here for Chittagonian language, here for Sylheti language, here for Chakma language.

To provide some background, the Bengal region is shared between the countries of India and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan, which was created through the partition of India in 1947 along communal lines). In South Asian cuisine, he has been changing many articles to Bangladeshi only, even though it is a shared South Asian dish that both the Bengali people of India and Bangladesh consume. It would be neutral to list the origin as the Bengal region of South Asia or medieval India or of Bangladesh and India, but not Bangladesh alone as they have been doing. In chomchom, the Banglapedia source he used, only stated it was a favorite in Tangail, but used that to put the origin of chomchom of Bangladesh, however, this was reverted by admin Utcursch with the following: "The source doesn't support what you're stating". This again after edit warring with Gotitbro here. At the same time, in Bangladesh Liberation War, he removed all mention of "India" on the infobox.[132] This has been a trend by him in many articles, he removed all mention of "India" from the infobox on many South Asian cuisine and unilateral modifications involving "Bengali" to "Bangladeshi" and removing any mention of India or Indian cuisine from the infobox as they have done here on Misti doi, here on Bakarkhani, here on Mughai paratha, here on jhalmuri. Even after on shorshe ilish from May 2015 it was decided that Bengal will be given "dish clearly predates the division of Bengal", he removed any mention of "India" and changed it to Bangladesh only as seen here. His edit warring on edit warring on Bakarkhani resulted in two blocks [133], he has started a new edit warring in Mishti doi, as seen here, here, and here, again a blatant violation of WP:EW, multiple refs were provided to him that misti doi was a shared dish as seen here, here, and here, still he decided to stonewall and wikilawyer.

In Bengali and East Indian history: he changed in Gauda (city) the entire lead and infobox to put Bangladesh in prominence, even though the majority of the city falls in Malda district of India. [134] When he was confronted by Gotitbro, "sources are pretty clear that the Gauda falls in Malda, rvt POV alphabetic arrangement and coords" instead of engaging in dialog in the talk page, Za-ari-masen moved to edit war.here and here. Pala Empire, he inserted "Bangladeshi art and Sculpture of Bangladesh" in there. Bangladesh was founded in 1971, long after the Pala Empire. The Palas spoke proto-Bengali, not even modern Bengali[135]. NavjotSR explained this on the talk page of Bakarkhani.

Za-ari-Masen consistently conflates Bengali ethnicity with Bangladeshi nationality, though once again, the Bengal region is shared between India and what is now Bangladesh. He then went to engage in an edit war with Soug, redirecting Bengali American to Bangladeshi American. As mentioned, the user has a consistent habit of conflating Bengali with Bangladeshi, even though there are 100 million Bengalis in India. The edit war with User:Soug clearly violated WP:EW as seen here, here, here, here, and here. Five total reverts over the same subject on the same article with two editors.

I tried to discuss the issue with the editor in question on his talk page but nothing worked out. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the alleged civility problems; As for EWing maybe there's an issue, I don't know. I find the story telling format hard to follow. YOu might get ideas for presenting the EWing problem by reviewing other cases at the edit warring board WP:3RRN. (Comment by nonadmin) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Saurab Mani Rimal

• Saurab Mani Rimal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Nuwakot, Nuwakot (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nuwakot, Bagmati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nuwakot, Nuwakot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Doing some WP:WCW work and happened upon Nuwakot, Bagmati and Nuwakot, Nuwakot being redirects to a user talk page. On investigating, the editor appears to have blanked the page then moved it to a User talk page for a user that doesn't exist. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerod Lycett. I have reverted the page move and blanking, and I shall check the editor's history to see whether what is needed is a friendly message about why those steps were mistakes, or something more serious. JBW (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A request for help with a sockpuppeteer

A sockpuppeteer is being highly disruptive: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dunnt717. New socks are coming up and editing so rapidly that it is impossible to keep up with all the blocking and reverting that is needed. Several editors have been helping with reverting, but none of us can keep on doing so for ever, and I am having to leave soon, after working on this one case non-stop for about half an hour. Any help from any editor in reverting, and in spotting new socks, and any help from administrators in blocking, will be very welcome. JBW (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously protecting pages that have been attacked by more than one sock could be possible, but I am afraid that might just lead to the sockpuppeteer moving on to other pages that we don't know about, making it harder to spot. I am in two minds as to whether it's worth a try. JBW (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been reverting on his latest sock User:Magi717 - they appear to be putting a tag on that gets removed by a bot, which removes the ability to rollback?   Kadzi   (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's crafty - if they're all editing from the same IP, it may be worthwhile to implement a block to the IP and account creation Ed6767 talk! 11:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor has edited from an IP address without using an account. It's an IPv6 address, which makes it possible that the editor has been easily able to switch to new IP addresses within a /64 range, thus evading autoblocks each time a new account is blocked. If that is so, then blocking the /64 range with logged-in editing blocked should put a stop to the shenanigans, so I've done that. Whether it works remains to be seen, but if that is indeed the case then doing IP editing was a gift to us. JBW (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)