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

Stayfree76

• Stayfree76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been watching talk:Death of George Floyd, Derek Chauvin and talk:George Floyd for some time. Stayfree76 is a new user (2020-07-02) with under 300 edits. Of those, well over 100 are to these three talk pages, where he advances a pro-police POV often employing novel theories. His mainspace edits are few, and include, for example, this, where he "corrected" Chauvin and Floyd's overlapping shifts as security guards with Chauvin having worked there "as an off duty police officer" whilen Floyd worked as a security guard. I'm not aware that "off duty police officer" is an actual job. His comments on the talk pages are now into WP:NOTFORUM territory, IMO, and are prolonging argument rather than settling any substantive points of content. I suspect that these contentious pages would be quieter and more productive without his input for a while. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Support tban from George Floyd, broadly construed - Stayfree unfortunately takes up an inordinate amount of other editors' time with unhelpful talk page argumentation, which includes a lot of OR and FORUM-type posts, such as substituting what secondary sources say in favor of their own OR or interpretation of primary sources, as well as arguing that various things are against policy when Stayfree appears to really misunderstand the relevant policy. Example:

• Talk:George Floyd/Archive 1#Misleading/False Information, which involves arguing that what is in the article cited to secondary sources should be replaced with their own OR interpretation of a police bodycam transcript. Other editors' repeated entreaties to WP:OR were unheeded. Stayfree then started a duplicate conversation at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Problem with details as described.
• Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Misinformation in the section Minneapolis police response, wherein he argues that content that is explicitly verified by eight sources in the paragraph at issue is SYNTH. When a ninth source explicitly stating the same thing is shown to Stayfree, Stayfree argued that the paragraph had to go unless the ninth source was added, as if the other eight sources didn't say the same thing.
• There are more examples at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd, Talk:Derek Chauvin, the archives of all three pages, and Stayfree's talk page.
• More than just being incorrect about policy, is an I'm-never-wrong attitude.

This editor seems to mean well, but simply doesn't have enough experience to productively participate in these discussions, and they don't seem to be taking feedback on board or adjusting their approach at all. Lev!vich 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As a person involved I don't want to say any more than to agree with the summary above by Levivich. Basic lack of knowledge of wikipedia practices aside, I am happy to work with new editors constructively, but the user here repeatedly either misrepresented sources by omitting key information, or refused to accept the sources said what they said even when the words were quoted to them.

Persistent attempts to use wikipedia policy incorrectly seemed like a quote mining exercise by the user. Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

i felt like i should throw this out there. i have never had an edit to main page reverted. some have been adjusted, but the one about the police officer thing... well im the one that started the discussion over a month ago and the change was made by another editor as the page was still protected. and the other pages needed to be changed for consistency.

• JzG publicly stated he was on a active campaign to get me banned here
• Levivich, is on record saying But the most important thing is we tell the reader what actually happened, moreso than telling the reader what some incorrectly reported.. here
• and Koncorde, doesnt seem to understand the difference between citing a source "somewhere in the paragraph" instead of following the statement. i was trying to inform them that having the source cited in some random place does not help and makes the statement look unverified when checked. StayFree76 ^talk 21:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Stayfree76, no, I did not say I was on an active campaign to get you banned. I noted that your approach was a fast track to a ban, which is not the same thing at all. You already got formally warned about personal attacks, for example. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

your words here's the deal: you stop trying to use Wikipedia to fix the fact that the sources are "wrong", and I'll stop advocating for your removal from the article that is the primary topic of your obsession.StayFree76 ^talk 22:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The source is literally right there where the statement is. Given you still haven't accepted the sources say what the sources say, I cannot take anything you say as good faith. You haven't suggested moving a source. You haven't suggested rearranging content that doesn't also include removing the sourced information. You have only suggested entirely removing sourced information because you said it isn't sourced in the sources that directly say the thing you say it doesn't. Any arguments made have been inherently misleading, off topic, or misrepresentation of the sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

ill just leave this quote from me here. ok, so why isnt the Minnesota Post cited? the only one that says what the wiki says is not cited... maybe cite the source and call it good? you could have saved us all the time and just linked that source to begin with... next time, cite the source that says the thing that goes in the wiki. StayFree76 ^talk 22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Because the Minnesota Post is yet another source that says the thing you say the other existing sources dont. You still have not acknowledged the other sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, yup - and that is SOP for this user, alas. A time-sink, as Levivich says. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually have found StayFree's contributions occasionally useful. I and others have warned them that contentious articles are a bad place to learn how to edit, to no avail. When a brand new editor comes in and the only thing they're interested in editing is the most contentious articles on the site, it just kind of wears me out. I think this editor is basically well-intentioned, but I do think they also have an agenda. I'm not sure it's compatible with editing contemporary American politics. —valereee (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

can you find an example of an edit i made that got reverted? also, my change requests are at least 80% of the time put into the article ("occasionally" is a little hurtful, tbh). also, i have edited the following pages: Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Cherokee language, Comparison of firewalls, Defund the police, Derek Chauvin, Firewall (computing), George Floyd, Jeremiah Wolfe, Killing of George Floyd, Medicine man, Sergei Skripal. StayFree76 ^talk 01:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I apologize for saying something hurtful. There are many contributors whose contributions I find only occasionally useful. I'm pretty sure my own contributions are only occasionally useful. The point I'd love you to take is that working at contentious articles is a terrifically bad idea for a new editor. If you really are interested in building an encyclopedia, you'd say, "Oh, really? Okay, I'll go edit at (whatever else interests you) until I figure out what's going on here." But that's not what you're doing, which makes me think you have an agenda that is never going to change. It makes me think the reason you are here is not to build an encyclopedia. —valereee (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee what agenda could i have? i was on record defending a Floyd from self incriminating himself with the "hooping" incident. this is the same as before. i read a sentence, click the cited source, read the course, propose/make changes as necessary to correctly represent the information. for example, the wiki said "kueng identified as african american"... but when you look at the source it said "kueng is african american" so i fixed it. maybe go look at the other wikis i have worked on? some of them were major. StayFree76 ^talk 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT: @stayfree does seem to be making unhelful edits to that page for the reason they believe what is described in the official sources is different to their take on what happened. I am sure they are making these in good faith, but are new to Wiki (as am I) and dont appreciate the rules that govern what sources are allowed and what are not. And the fact that only what is stated in allowed sources should be printed and no original research or personal views should be added. I think @stayfree should take their concerns to the article talkpage and engage more to better understand what they need to do if they want to make changes to the article. Always be polite and assume goodfaith, trust me, on here that is very important (should be in life as well obviously) Just trying to push what you want into an article and being not 100% polite at the same time really will not help what you want to achieve. Discuss it @stayfree and you will get a consensus and hopefully make the article better for all Giant-Dwarfs (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: also wanted to point out that your user page shows you made an oath to Take the mantra of assuming good faith to within a whisker of absurdity. and i feel you are starting to divert from that. i am bringing this up because Welcome other editors pointing out to me when I fail to meet the first three pledges.. (this is not accusatory and simply how i feel and comes from a place of friendship.)StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, the problem for me is that although you've been advised to go learn to edit somewhere not as contentious, you've insisted on learning to edit at contentious articles. This is a very common issue with problematic accounts, and most editors have seen editors with such an edit history turn out to be trolls. I'm not saying you are a troll. I'm just saying your edit pattern is one that is similar to many trolls. If you really are here to build an encyclopedia, please go find an article to edit that is not a contentious current event. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

FTR, SF76's top mainspace talk edits: 55 at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, 48 at Talk:Derek Chauvin, 38 at Talk:George Floyd. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a sample WP:FORUM talk page comment from StayFree76. It's OK to have an "agenda" if comments are not WP:OR, generally not WP:UNDUE viewpoints, and geared towards improving the article. I think most regular editors on Floyd articles have made an editorial comment at some point, some more obvious than others. But StayFree76 is developing a reputation for veering off a bit more. I'm OK if they can voluntarily provide us an actionable plan of how they will scale back.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, more tot he point, that's pretty much all they do. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I did make an edit based off a discussion they initiated at talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Misleading/False_Information. Still, I understand how people can be frustrated.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: but that statement was in response to another editors "forum comment" and not just me randomly going in forum mode. the main thing here is that, i havent had a single edit reverted and at least 80% of my proposed changes went into effect. wouldn't those stats show that i am just trying to make Wikipedia better? i never make an edit i think someone would revert for any reason, as a personal policy, and i think that is clearly shown. at the same time, i have worked for the US federal government (held a secret clearance) and have worked for multiple state level government agencies including emergency services. things that may seem like OR are just simply from experience, but at the same time, you will never see me put that into a main without an RS. also, i have done a lot of post grad work. i am very in tune with making statements non pointy or knowing when to attribute, for example. for the people saying i am "a new editor that needs to learn", i have been writing academic reports, or professional write-ups on incidents (i work in cyber crime prevention/ internet security) for over 10 years and have also testified in court a few times as a "witness" to a crime. StayFree76 ^talk 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, like I said earlier, there is leeway for "forum" comments. People are saying you have crossed that line. My suggestion is to listen to the feedback and tell us how you will address it, else it'll be left to a closer to decide what action, if any, to take. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

ah, i see what you are saying. this is my final and official last statement on the matter then:

I feel i have done nothing wrong and the initial post to this is a WP:witch hunt, especially when the poster hasn't even engaged in any of those wikis in a long time. also, i feel the intent of this post was to be punitive and falls outside of The only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm.. in closing, i will no longer post here and defer to the result of the process. StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, of course you feel you have done nothing wrong. Absence of self-criticism is one of the problems. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• We need a resolution. EEng 04:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, consdering !voting.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I !voted. Lev!vich 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Support a very short topic ban, just to get this editor's attention. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from George Floyd and police issuse, broadly construed.--Jorm (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but... Oppose total topic ban, suggest article space tban. It sound like an editor who is acting in good faith but doesn't get it yet. It also sounds like some people are saying their is some good contribution here. What about narrower article only tban. This would leave the editor free to make contributions to the talk pages and suggest/propose changes but they wouldn't be able to actually edit the article itself. It seems like there aren't talk page behavior issues so some sort of balance may help. Stayfree76, I can understand your frustration. For example, prior to Wirecard's crash, there were some smart people on Twitter who were making the case why the company was a fraud. They turned out to be right but RS policies say we don't use Twitter feeds as RSs no matter how smart the author or solid the evidence. Its just how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What should happen is "in the end" Wikipedia should be right but that often means that articles about current events may change significantly once we have some historical perspective. Springee (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, the problem isn't their article edits. It's their talk page edits. They take up an inordinate amount of other editors' time at talk pages for George Floyd. We've tried to be patient, we've tried to explain that they should learn to edit on noncontentious articles, to no avail. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  In that case I wouldn't give my oppose too much weight. However, if the editor can't edit the article then the other editors can always just ignore Stayfree76's comments if they aren't adding value. So long as they aren't harming the article space or acting in an uncivil fashion I think we should try to keep the tbans limited in scope with the option to increase if problems continue. Springee (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments/casting aspersions

• 89MsHm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there. This user just suddenly came out of nowhere and in a bizarre manner casting several aspersions towards me (WP:ASPERSIONS), completely uncalled for. I did warn him but he continued. Generally looking at his edits doesn't conspire much confidence that he is here to WP:BUILDWP.

'His personal negative attitude towards Azerbaijan shouldn't close his eyes to facts and documents. He has already demonstrated his aggressive and biased attitude towards this country, which motivates his nonobjective interventions to the article'

'Your hateful comments on Azerbaijan are more than enough to prove your aggression towards the country. You can't threaten others just because you don't like what they say. If you have anger issues go get help. P.S. Glorious history is in the past, the future will be worse.'

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am disturbed by HistoryofIran (talk)'s aggressive attitude towards Azerbaijan which lets me assume that his interventions related to articles on Azerbaijan might be biased. P.S. I don't know how he managed to delete his comment on Karabakh Khanate article edits where he said something like "Any official source of the dictator regime of Azerbaijan is unreliable". I hope admins can manage the situation objectively.89MsHm (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

More aspersions ^^. I'll let the admins handle the rest of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't deleted it, I found the comment, here it is: "In WIkipedia we use academic sources by historians who are spezialised in this field, not some supposed president library made by an authoritarian regime. Keep this up and you will be reported." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&curid=4832454&diff=975043191&oldid=975013866

1. If you look at the source, it is relied on archive documents. 2. Whatever the government is in Azerbaijan, you should learn to respect the country and its people's choice. 3. You seem to like to threaten users by reporting them. 89MsHm (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with respecting a country/people or not. Anyone with basic WP:CIR can see that. Stop this fixation towards me and your country, I couldn't care less about it (or any other country for that matter, before you start accusing me again). And no, it is still not a reliable source, not matter how much you want it to be - read the guidelines. EDIT: Admins might wanna see that this user has a history of behaviour like this [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

89MsHm Threatening to make changes if I don't stop participating [2] Maidyouneed (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

66.244.121.212

As outlined in Talk:Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC and Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, 66.244.121.212 (his other IP address is 68.45.46.177) keeps reverting valid sources describing the history of literature reviews on Discrete trial training—the structured form of applied behavior analysis that is widely used for autistic children and is based on over 50 years of research—which follows WP:MEDRS guidelines. User:Sundayclose already asked him to remove the unnecessary picture of the drawing in the Aversion therapy article, which I had to remove as well, but he reverted it back (see here: User talk:66.244.121.212#August 2020). I think he needs to be blocked. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Sundayclose (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Just fixed the sentence. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang

The OP has repeatedly shown contempt for the guidelines in his attempt to overstate the evidence in favor of discrete trial training by Ivar Lovaas. While a 2018 Cochrane review finds that evidence in favor of the technique is "weak" and at high risk of bias, the OP keeps insisting on representing the viewpoints of non-MEDRS sources, and on misrepresenting or failing to give due weight to the POV of Cochrane. The technique claims to produce normal functioning in about half of autistic children, and even to raise IQ (by 30 points!). You may be interested to know that one study found that promoters of this technique (like the OP) routinely ignore criticisms and refuse to acknowledge weaknesses in the evidence. So basicly, he's a fringe pusher.

I have tried to educate the OP about WP:MEDRS guidelines here, here, and here. I have warned him against willfully disobeying these guidelines here and here. When it became clear that things were not going well for the OP sourcing-wise, he attempted to recruite User:Doc James to his viewpoint. I politely warned him that this could be construed as an attempt at canvassing, and we went on to have a rather strange conversation in which the OP claimed that autism is caused by an "infused head growth". Doc James did not respond, and so he went on to contact User:Alexbrn (who has in the past expressed sympathy for these viewpoints), and User:Sundayclose, with whom I had recently had an unfortinite disagreement with on a related topic. This was a blatant attempt at canvassing. As you can see from my links, I said as much both users' talk pages, and neither user got involved. When this did not work, he asked Sundayclose to block me. Sundayclose declined the request (possibly because he is not an administrator), and so here we are.

I propose that the OP receive a sanction on behaviorism-related topics, as he is clearly not capable of neutrality on these issues, or of obeying guidelines in related discussions. As long as he is allowed to edit these articles, I fail to see how we can improve them. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't know what you were thinking when you edit warred to add that highly inappropriate image to Aversion therapy, but it was a mistake. El_C 03:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, our dispute was about sourcing, not the appropriateness of the image. While that was not the best editing I have ever done, it did not violate WP:3RR. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is correct — 3RR was not violated, though WP:DE might have... El_C 03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

While you are free to add you voice to the discussion about whether or not the picture was inappropriate, as it was a well-sourced image drawn by a former resident of the Judge Rotenberg Center of an actual aversion therapy that is well-documented to have occurred there for many years. Regardless, that dispute is cold, unlike the one at present. --66.244.121.212 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No, as an uninvolved admin, I am telling you it is inappropriate. And how is it "cold" if you reverted the insertion of that image a mere few hours ago? El_C 04:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A student receives GED shocks while restrained to a four-point board at the Judge Rotenberg Center.

I apologize for my incorrect statement. My dispute with Sundayclose was cold (as we both agreed that the image was properly sourced), but I had forgotten about the revert with the OP.

It is my opinion that this image is appropriate, as it provides an accurate visual description of a form of aversion therapy that was approved by the courts, cleared by the FDA, and used at the Judge Rotenberg Center for over 25 years before it was banned in 2020. It was drawn by a former resident of the center name Jennifer Msumba, and depicts her receiving shocks from the Graduated Electronic Decelerator while restrained to a four-point board. Jennifer has graciously agreed to led Wikipedia use this image. This punishment (multiple GED shocks while restrained to a four-point board) was inflicted on many residents, as is made clear by the linked articles. I know that this is a tough topic, but per WP:NOTCENSORED, the appropriateness of such an image should at least be up for discussion. You are free to add your voice to the debate, but please do not try unilaterally make the decision, as admins do not have that kind of power. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Shoot. I thought we'd finally adopted painful electric shocks for use here at ANI, as I've long advocated. On a more serious point, the article tone and style is seriously off, with a huge RIGHTGREATWRONGS problem. EEng 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, if you're able to gain clear consensus for its inclusion, then that's one thing — but in the interim, yes, I do have that authority, per WP:DE. El_C 05:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Great. Then I'll seek consensus on the talk page. And thank you for linking me that rule, which I was not previously aware of. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• New issue: After I posted this complaint, the OP began to whitewash discrete trial training and Ole Ivar Lovaas by downplaying their use of aversives. You may read the rather one-sided discussions of this whitewashing here and here. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please note that 66.244.121.212 is the IP who added over 2,000 bytes of copyrighted material to the article in question. This had to be removed by @Diannaa:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Diannaa: It's my impression that the IP is trying to WP:OWN the article, and run it as a PoV attack page against the institution. The article is extremely biased and should probably be reduced in size significantly, so it can be rebuilt in an NPoV way. I complained about this a while back, but no action was taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The POV-pushing and copyvio are reminiscent of problems we had last year[3] (see sock suspicions below). Alexbrn (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken: You have reported that you think the article on the Judge Rotenberg Center is POV, but you have not raised the issue on the talk page. I would be very interested in having that discussion with you if you are still up for it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, no, I am not up for it. I have no energy to take on another badly slanted article. That doesn't mean that the article is any less of a hit job, as any fair-minded unbiased editor can easily see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Then we’ll just have to disagree. I’m open to having this discussion with anyone who wants to have it. In my opinion, the center appears to be whole notable for the atrocities that occur there: In everything I ever read about it, I found nothing positive that was reliable. Some sources try to claim that they are supplying an effective medical treatment, but the FDA made clear that this is not true in the report where they banned the GED. Other claim that they rely mostly on positive support, using punishment only as a last resort. But this is also not true, as found In multiple state investigations. Basically, what is boils down to is this— the JRC claims that what they do is medical treatment, while its opponents claim it is torture. But the FDA has declared that what they do is not medical treatment and the representative of the United Nations has declared that it is torture— so how can we give any weight the the JRC’s side?

On a related note, you may want to check out the article on the JRC’s sister school, Tobinworld. Looks slanted, right? What if I told you that the only positive story I managed to dig up on the place from an independent source was about that one time when they served their students ice cream? I didn’t include it in the article, because it really didn’t seem notable enough. So in short, these articles "look POV", but there is no clear way to improve them, which is probably why none of the people her who argue that they are POV have managed to do so. If there’s a positive story I missed from a reliable independent source, someone please post it here and I’ll admit I was wrong. Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Socking wrt Lovaas?

This controversial topic flared up last year here and at WP:FT/N, with a chief player being Wikiman2718 [4][5] who has not edited since, except once to insert one of these GED images.[6] I therefore suspect there is some kind of coordination/puppetry going on here. Perhaps an admin could dig a little? Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not socking to edit while logged out, as I never at any point managed my accounts abusively. Going to an IP to avoid harassment is a perfectly legitimate use of multiple accounts. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You say "accounts" (plural). How many do you have? It is kind of problematic to edit while logged out when it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Here we have another batch of WP:DRAMA around these articles, with you as the epicentre, and without my spotting it, it would not have been apparent that the issue here is an editor with a known history of problematic editing in this topic space. How many different IPs are "you"? At least 4 or 5 obviously since they all geolocate to the same place, but this makes it impossible to have a coherent conversation on Talk. I am thinking a TBAN may be in order to damp down this kind of disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I edit from whatever IP I'm to be at, of course. There is nothing at all suspicious about using several IPs. But as you were one of the two editors that I went to IP to avoid harassment from (and my currunt IP is rangeblocked), I might as well just log in now. You characterize my editing as problematic, but there was no consensus to that effect and I said the same of you. Now if we would just return to the discussion at hand, we could resolve the relevant content disputes so that it can finally determine who is POV pushing here. I see several accusations of POV, but dispite edits like this, none of my detractors seem to be able to write a better article than I have. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

At the previous ANI, after levelling charges of "harassment" at two editors (one of them me), and requesting time to make your case, you wrote "I promise that I will not make any further edits to the encyclopedia until this issue is resolved". But you've broken that promise and have returned to edit covertly using multiple IPs. Ironically, I would have been completely unaware of this thread had you not pinged me with the outright lie that I have "expressed sympathy" for the view that autism is caused by "infused head growths". Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

1) I did not mean to suggest that you had expressed sympathy for the point of view that autism is caused by and infused head growth. I suggested that you had expressed sympathy for the view that discrete trial training has more than weak evidence behind it. Is this not true? I pinged all editors that had been canvassed to, including you. 2) I have recently been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease (witch is exasperated by stress) and it was flaring up bad during that discussion. It is a very serious disease wich causes me a lot of pain, so I just decided to ghost rather than continue in that stressful situation. I had thought that I would give up editing, but about six months later when it was under control I decided to return as an IP. I made no effort to conceal my connection with this account, and never at any time pretended to be multiple users. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not "expressed sympathy" for any of the viewpoints you mention, but I have surely offered my opinion on what is best supported by sources. That is part of what we are here for. As to how problematic your "ghosting" is, I will leave others to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute

Just in case anyone missed the last section, I am the IP that this thread was filed against (I am logged in now). At the heart of this issue is a content dispute on Ivar Lovaas and Discrete trial training. The content dispute may be found (and participated in) at Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC, Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, and Talk:Discrete trial training#Aversives. If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. This diff shows one such revert, in which he refers to my edit as "vandalism". Rather than engaging in open discussion he has stonewalled, canvassed, and tried to get me banned. This behavior is extremely tendentious, and I fail to see how I can resolve this dispute without the need for outside intervention. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiman2718, Wikipedia has a strong immune system, without which we'd be drowning in nonsense. Occasionally, it over-corrects, particularly when dealing with logged-out editors, or new accounts who focus on righting great wrongs or promoting one point of view. You seem to me to be exactly the kind of editor we should nurture, so please be aware of the immune system. Don't do anything to make it suspicious. If in doubt, go to talk. Don't edit war or edit logged out without telling people it's you. If the talk page doesn't yield results, there are noticeboards where you can ask for help, e.g. WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN. Come here only as a last(ish) resort. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that advice. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• New development: I have used another boomerang at SPI to argue that the OP used a sleeper account to report on me for socking. The present content dispute (and the OPs related behavior) is being used as evidence. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: I just found some really damning evidence that links the OP to the sleeper sock that reported me (viewable at the SPI link I just posted). I do have to wonder why this entire enormous thread was directed at me when the OP's editing was so obviously disruptive. Throughout this whole ordeal, not one person has bothered to investigate my claims, and as a result the OP has been allowed to harass me for a week. But I am not here to live in the past. The OP's disruption is still ongoing, so I would appreciate if an admin would take action fast. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And now that the SPI has been closed with the finding that the accounts were unrelated,[7] it turns out the "week of harassment" has been perpetrated more by Wikiman2718, who has made a number of WP:PAs in prosecuting their case,[8] than by any other editor here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

For anyone who didn't read the thread, the complaint was filed by as seven year old sleeper sock that activated five days ago (right in the middle of my dispute with ATC) who's username was a pun on ATC. ATC's block log contains multiple blocks for socking. Are you telling me that this is all a coincidence? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:HOLES. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have also accused you of harassment (and will make that case when this is over) I would appreciate if you would let others weigh in. It look to me as though ATC has a special status in this community that puts him beyond scrutiny. As a result, he has been allowed to continue in his disruption unchecked. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this dispute, but something needs to be stated about this: If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. I have been mentoring ATC for over a decade, and without saying more, I think you need to AGF a bit here. ATC's communication skills and editing ability have grown enormously over the years I have mentored them, and I am quite proud of them. They are not a bad faith editor, and they respond to reason. I have not investigated the rest of this matter, other than offering my views on the content on the article talk page. I went to their talk page to welcome Wikiman2718 as what I thought was a new account, when I realized this was at ANI, after I responded on article talk.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Wikiman2718

So I never meant to get involved in this, I am a mostly casual user that didn't really use this account to make a few edits (which were deleted a few years back). I filed the SPI because I saw that he didn't seem to be apologetic about not logging in, just from reading this thread. However, can Wikipedia somehow block personal attacks from User:Wikiman2718 against me? His mockery of me in several posts is creeping me out. He is even going after me on an unrelated thread User_talk:DGG#Significance_of_Media_Coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders

Atdevel (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a personal attack. @Wikiman2718:, you need to either file an SPI or withdraw that accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: He won't stop making that claim, apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=976397787

He just made it now. It's like that old joke, "George Washington and George Irving must be related" Atdevel (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've warned Wikiman for these persistent accusations. If it continues, they need to be blocked by an admin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: He did it again! He is asking me to verify IP addresses that I edited on from a while back, which makes me feel uncomfortable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atdevel&diff=prev&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: he is continuing with his attacks after being warned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtdevel&type=revision&diff=976431550&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone missed the big event, ATdevel has retired. But given what just happened here, and this user's relevance to the still-open discussion, I still feel the need to justify my claims that this user was here for the purpose of disruption. I recently happened across some off-wiki evidence that is relevant and I'm not sure what the right procedure is here. Could a friendly admin help me out? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User: Nozoz and discretionary sanction notices

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

---

I have given Nozoz a discretionary sanction notice for Eastern Europe for their editing at RT (TV network) (whwere they introduced badly sourced info which has been introduced many times before, were reverted by another user, and reverted them). Then I notices that they managed to collect three DS alerts, in different topics, in a year. I them warned them that if they continue, they could be blocked. They were unhappy, insisted that their edits were fully aligned with policies, and accused me in admin abuse at their (User talk:Nozoz#Discretionary sanctions alert) and my talk pages. Could somebody please have a look whether continued ability of this user to edit is beneficial for Wikipedia? They do not have so many edits, and these mostly are not that good.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We say, over and over and over, that receiving a DS alert is informational, not evidence of wrongdoing. If the evidence of a problem is that they got 3 of them in one year, then there is no evidence of a problem. If there is actual evidence of a continuing problem - which for all I know there might be - then please provide it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to bring attention to Ymblanter's comment on their revert of my revert to RT (TV network). Ymblanter wrote: "Undid revision 974902120 by Nozoz (talk) and, given the number of warnings, the next revert may result in a block". This is when Ymblanter left a D-notice on my talk page. This shows that: Ymblanter 1) doesn't understand that a D-notice is not an infraction, because they're using them as-if they're infractions and warning points that accumulate - I now wonder how many people Ymblanter has banned under the false pretext of having D notices? And I wonder how many people they gave D notices just so that they could ban them?; 2) Is giving D notices out when there has been no violation of WP's rules, but just to intimidate people against making edits they personally don't like (not that there's anything wrong with them). Are these not admin abuses? I see no explanation from Ymblanter for the revert of my edit, no justification for the D-notice on my talk page, and no basis for the threat of a ban the next time that I... as far as I can tell, simply make an edit they dislike(?), and no reason for any of Ymblanter's behaviour toward and against me. Nozoz (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If the link I provided is insufficient, would you mind for example reading the rant below? I am not going to take accusations in dishonesty lightly.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

When you claim you discovered 3 D's on my page, when you just put one there yourself, that is de-facto dishonest. When you accuse me of making 'mostly not good' edits on WP, that is a dishonest accusation, and it is an offence against me which I am not going to take lightly. And when you claim that my sources for my RT edit were bad, when they aren't and they're more authoritative than the sources given for the position that's converse to my edits (which, so far, is none), that is again disingenuous. And your very decision to place a D notice on my talk page and say that next time it will be a ban, when I didn't violate any WP rule, that is acting in bad faith. Your pretense of being indignant over having what I believe are inarguably dishonest actions pointed-out as such appears to me as an act, to try to push your goal through. I think it is, as I said, a pretense. And calling my explanation of things a "rant", as if I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself and explain myself, is, I think, again a will to manipulate and act unjustly. If my pointing these things out offends you so that you won't take them lightly, then how do you think I would feel about your unprovoked behaviour towards me? Nozoz (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

For the first point: I went to your talk page, clicked on "add topic", posted the DS notice, and then saw that there are three of them including these which I posted. I am not going to answer in detail the rest of the rant, because this is just a bunch of bullshit accusations, however I want to remark that RT is a topic where we have on a regular basis trolls which come there to claim RT has nothing to do with the Russian government and/or is not a propaganda outlet. These edits have been reverted before, I believe several dozen times, and they will be reverted in the future, at least unless RT stops being government-sponsored propaganda outlet. And that you have not just re-added this info, which has been beaten to death at the talk page, but reverted once to restore it, shows that in any case you are not capable = lack competence - of editing this article. Concerning your opinion on me - I apreciate it and I exactly hope that your account will be blocked on the basis of this persistently expressed opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The inspection of my edits show sthat I have not opened the new section but added the alert to the existing section. Fine, let us say I have discovered two alerts at the page where I was about to add the third one. I do not see how this changes the big picture.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't change that there are no grounds to threaten to ban someone based on the number of D-notices they have. But since you based an argument and threat of a ban upon the significance of there being three D-notices, I think it reveals something about your intention and so changes the perception of your actions. It further changes things because those two D-notices you really saw are actually themselves just one instance of receiving a D-notice, as they're given concerning the same edits made at the same time, and not different edits made at different times: One was given regarding "the Arab–Israeli conflict", and the other concerning "living or recently deceased people" - but both are concerning the same edits made to the page for Eva Bartlett. When the premise of your behaviour has been your treatment of D-notices as infractions, which they are not, then, by your own argument, it is significant that even if going by your own reasoning about D-notices, the basis for your threatening a potential future ban 'the next time' you think a D-notice can be issued (though D-notices are not grounds for a ban in any case) wasn't even there to support your own argument, action, and comments. The reason why it doesn't change the big picture is because the premise of your argument and action, that D-notices are infractions that can lead-up to a ban, is false. Nozoz (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

My premise is not that you should be blocked because of the number of DS alerts. My premise is that you lack competence to edit Wikipedia. You have proven before, and now you have additionally excelled in this thread, that you do not have a clue on how Wikipedia works. This total lack of understanding you compensate by assumptions of bad faith and multiple personal attacks, even after being told by another user to stop. To be honest, I am not sure why this has been allowed to go on even for a couple of hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out dishonesty is not making personal attacks, just as editing in WP information that isn't flattering to the topic isn't personally-attacking the topic - or, are reports of users to the Admin noticeboard also to be taken as personal attacks and so invalid? When pointing out what are false, and what I would say are overtly dishonestly statements and allegations, that is pointing to the context of what is trying to be done here, and under what guise it is being done. Since you acknowledge in your complaint to this board that an allegation of admin abuse is a part of this topic, then pointing-out the basis for that allegation is a part of the full analysis of the topic. BTW, there existed no comment from me to you about anything when you commented in your revert of my revert that I would likely be banned the next time based on the number of D-notices on my talk page (one of which you had just put there). And it must be said once again, I violated no WP rule in my edit and my revert of RT (TV network). So, your warning of a ban and placing a D-notice on my talk page remain unexplained. I have not shown in my editing of RT (TV network) that I don't understand how WP works. Rather, I acted properly in my editing and so showed an understanding for how WP works, which is why your behaviour throughout all of this remains questionable. And when you claimed that D-notices could lead to a ban, you revealed that it is you who, in this case, hasn't understood how WP works. So, when you claim that my edit to RT (TV network) demonstrates that I lack competence to edit WP, you are saying something false and hypocritical because my edit is actually in-line with how WP works and there isn't any fault with my decision to make that properly-sourced-and-explained edit, and so there is no justification to being threatened with a ban over it. I believe that it is fully clear from the extensive evidence that you are comfortable in openly-flaunting proper WP practices while abusing your adminship, and that you are simply trying by hook or by crook to achieve, in this matter, a particular outcome that has no basis in the truth and WP's goals. And when you accuse me of personal attacks for calling actions of yours dishonest, while claiming that I'm incompetent (though there is no fault with my edit that you've created this problem over), that is once again hypocrisy and baseless: There is no sign that my edit to RT (TV network) demonstrated incompetent editing - completely the opposite. But there is plenty of evidence that you have engaged here in dishonest behaviour. That's not a personal attack if it is objectively descriptive for the purpose of highlighting the baselessness of your allegation that I ought to have my editing ability removed. I fully believe that bad-faith conduct on your part is readily visible in your behaviour and comments - that is not a personal attack, and it is relevant to the analysis of this situation. The topics being discussed here are: 1) Was there grounds for you to threaten a ban based on my making a properly-sourced edit and making 1 revert in accordance with a page's 1RR rule. 2) Is there any sign that I did anything wrong justifying your threat of a ban and your request here in this Administrators' Notice Board that I be banned. 3) Have you engaged in bad-faith conduct and committed admin abuse, as even your own Admin Notice Board complaint notes that I am accusing you of. I believe that only topic 3) is substantiated here. Nozoz (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You saw there are 3 D notices after you placed one there. You did not "discover" 3 Ds on my page. Therefore, it is dishonest of you to say that you discovered 3 Ds there and act as if that indicates bad behaviour on my part and justification to threaten banning me and opening this noticeboard discussion where you are outright asking that I be stripped of my editing capability - using language that misrepresents all things in pursuit of that objective of yours. And here is another example of you using dishonest and misrepresentative language: I did not edit into RT (TV network) a claim that RT has nothing to do with the Russian government, or that it isn't propaganda - so, you bringing irrelevant ideas into this looks to me like a deflection tactic. RT is definitely heavily-funded by the Russian government. But it is not controlled by the Russian government, evidenced by the fact that the "foreign agent" registration of it in the US, reviewed and accepted by the US government, states that RT has editorial independence while its hosts have creative independence to speak their own views, and also evidenced by the fact that the head of RT UK explicitly stated in a BBC interview that there is no communication between RT and the Russian government regarding broadcasting content. Those things are solid sources backing the claim that RT is not state-controlled (though, it is certainly state-funded). State-funded and state-controlled are two different things. You, conversely, have presented no evidence, no source, no backing for your claim that RT is not just state-funded and that is fully state-controlled. And there is no pre-existing discussion on the RT talk page about this topic as of when I made my edit and when I made the RT talk page topic on it. And regardless, I have substantiated why RT (TV network) does not warrant the label of "state-controlled" with good and authoritative sources. If you have information that is greater than the sources I've provided, then you ought to engage the RT (TV network) talk page discussion I made and present that information and explain how it is more authoritative than what I have presented. My making a well-sourced-and-explained edit is certainly not an example of me being a troll, and my explaining myself and your repeated misrepresentations and mischaracterizations is not an example of ranting. Is is simply the necessary and due analysis of what is happening here, and what it emerged from. What you are really doing here is using your admin position to overrule a sourced edit based on personal opinion and suspicion, and are issuing a threat of a ban on somebody who made a good-faith and properly-sourced edit, in order to intimidate them from presenting information you find non-beneficial to your personal objective. Not only is that clear from the evidence of your actions, but you have outright just said it: When you say that you hope I will be banned for my opinion of you (though, I have only pointed-out that claims you are making are literally dishonest and misrepresentative), you are outright stating that your goal here isn't impartial and isn't about what is right by Wikipedia's rules, but is about personal bias and prejudice. And your usage of your admin power to that end, which is thoroughly evidenced here, is literally admin abuse. That you're flaunting it openly makes me suspect that you've gotten away with admin abuses enough to the point that you fear no consequence for it and feel immune from WP's rules. And calling me incompetent when the ground fact here is that I violated no WP rule, while you treated D-notices as though warning points and grounds for an upcoming ban, and that you are further openly saying you hope I get banned for my pointing-out of what you're doing, is remarkably hypocritical. Nozoz (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter is being patently dishonest in their depiction here, and I believe that underscores that they are indeed committing admin abuse. First, I'll point-out that Ymblanter did NOT discover three Ds on my Wikipedia page - they added the third one themselves in reaction to my recent edit of the WP page for RT. The other two alerts were given by two separate editors over the same edit I made on a page, while my account was relatively new with few edits, and those alerts were posted within minutes of each other. They aren't two alerts for separate occurrences, they are one alert. So, in actual total, I have one pre-existing D-notice from when my account was new, and Ymblanter has just added another seemingly under false pretext, and is now pretending as if they just saw that it was already there and that that's supposed to indicate I have been doing something wrong... when they're actually the person who just put it there, themselves. So, there is a clear willingness to dishonestly represent things right there, and they clearly added the third D out of an ulterior motive to frame me as a problem. Now, the edit I made to the RT (TV network) WP page was not badly-sourced - the sources, as detailed in the talk page discussion I made for the edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Calling_RT_state-controlled_is_unsubstantiated,_personal_opinion,_and_contrary_to_the_determination_listed_the_US_government's_own_registration_of_RT_as_a_foreign_agent ), are NPR and BBC. There is NO source for the converse position to my edit. Therefore, the more greatly-sourced position is the one I edited in. But that's all neither here nor there to the fact that I did no wrong by WP's rules, and that I acted in good faith when making my edit to RT (TV network). I genuinely did not violate WP's rules, and so Ymblanter trying to spin it as if I did (while arguing that a D-notice they just put on my talk page is evidence of it) is, again, patently dishonest. Ymblanter is further being dishonest when they say that my edits on Wikipedia are 'mostly not that good' - this is once again patently false. My edits are just fine, well-sourced, and factual. If this string and combination of false assertions and misuse of admin power to falsely accuse, engage in wilful false representation of themselves and their behaviour and also of me and my edits, and to ostracize me from editing by way of those things, isn't admin abuse, then what possibly could be? In light of the verifiable facts in this case, I believe that the fact that Ymblanter is acting in bad faith and with ulterior motives is fully transparent. Nozoz (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to make a correction to my larger comment here, regarding the pre-existing Ds on my page. They were not made minutes apart, but two-and-a-half months apart. However, they are both concerning the same edits I made on the page for Eva Bartlett. From what I see, the 2nd D-notice is not from a new incident, but was added long after my edits, but regarding the same edits for which the first D-notice was added. So, it is redundant all the same. Nozoz (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NozozPlease take a deep breath, and contribute constructively to this discussion. I do appreciate that it wasn't ideal for an editor to add a DS notice and then observe that there were three such notices,, leading an incautious reader to think that these were three other than the one just added. But let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. You added helpful advice that two of them related to the same edit but as you yourself discovered they weren't added minutes apart but months apart. That still means there are only two edits generating DS notices but the right response is to calmly point this out without using terms such as "patently dishonest". If someone else is already pointed out, a DS notice is informational and should not be construed as a warning. I haven't looked at the underlying substance, and I cannot as I have a meeting starting in minutes, but let's just take a deep breath and discuss this calmly. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Noted, I will try. When a non-provoked and unjustified attack comes out of the blue and the person making the attack goes to all lengths to try to frame their target, with there being no basis in a regard for WP's rules behind it, it is not easy to remain entirely calm. Nozoz (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Another curiosity I find with the D notice Ymblanter left on my page is that it says, "You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans". But the well-sourced edit I made on RT (TV network) was concerning the fact of RT's editorial (though not financial) independence from the Russian government. Is the editorial independence of RT (an international company) really about Eastern Europe or the Balkans, or did Ymblanter simply paint with an overly broad brush to create pretext for potential future sanctions (as they've expressed they conflate D notices with warning points leading up to a ban - and, again, how many people has Ymblanter banned over D notices?) against my account should I edit any information in those topics that is contrary to their preference? Nozoz (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope someone will answer this, point by point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I again have to ask an administrator whether the accusations (in particular, that I am dishonest, all others in this situation I care less about), repeatedly raised by Nozoz in this thread, are justified.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I also request that other administrators weigh-in on this point. Nozoz (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nozoz, I am torn here. On the one hand I think a WP:NOTHERE block is justified (per WP:RGW); on the other, I lean towards topic bans from Israel-Palestine, the Balkans, Russia and Ukraine broadly construed to see if there is anything you can help with here without inserting gross bias. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I see no logic in your assertion. I didn't edit RT (TV network) to right any wrongs, I edited it to make the page more factual - which contradicts your WP:NOTHERE suggestion as it means the very opposite: That I am clearly here to contribute to making a quality encyclopedia. If you think that the intention of making information more factual and substantiated is a sign of not being here to contribute to making a higher-quality encyclopedia, while forcefully putting in unsubstantiated information and threatening people with unjust bans if they improve it is a sign of being interested in making a higher-quality encyclopedia, then I think you have something confused. This all comes down to the fact that I made an innocuous edit for the sake of being factual, and I explained the edit in detail and was never presented any counter-explanation against the edit. The edit I made was in full-keeping with WP's rules, and the intention with which I made it was also in full-keeping with WP's goals. The threat of a ban was clearly baseless, and so this comes down to someone wanting to protect biased information in WP and abusing their admin power to intimidate others from taking away the biased information they are protecting. But, all the same, the edit I made was in good-faith and not a violation of any WP rule, while the threat of a ban for innocently editing in a way that isn't against WP's rule is not a good-faith action. Nozoz (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. @Nozoz: stop acting you're completely perfect and as if Ymblanter is nothing but abusive. The source you try to interpret as RT being innocent is really them trying to avoid answering questions -- The paperwork acknowledges that RT America's parent company is financed by a foreign government, political party or other principal. But the company declined to provide details, saying only that it understands "the Russian Federation finances ANO TV-Novosti to a substantial extent. You're also ignoring the dozen other sources that describe it as a propaganda outlet, merely quoting RT's side of things through other sources. That sort of dishonestly is why any administrators who look at your actions is going to agree with Guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomso:, I have only spoken truthfully. I have not claimed any perfection from me, or that Ymblanter is nothing but abusive. But I have identified what I believe are clear examples of moderator abuse from them. I haven't claimed that RT is innocent or that RT is not propaganda - and so it can't be said that I've ignored any sources claiming such. Whether or not RT is propaganda isn't a part of my edit and this topic. I haven't once even opined on that matter. To call my not commenting on a topic that is unrelated to my edit and this discussion dishonest means that you haven't taken care of the first step that's required to make an assessment here, with the first step being that you understand what you're making an assessment on. Whether RT is propaganda or not is entirely neither here nor there to the topic. Nozoz (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Taking a quick glance at some of their past edits, I see:
  At Doping in Russia, Nozoz throws out the assessment of four news sources (including the NYT and the Guardian) for his interpretation of a primary source. Note that Page 70 of that source literally says "Prof. McLaren stated that the total number of individuals who were implicated in the doping and cover-up scheme was likely to exceed 1,000," and after the bit that Nozoz cherry-picks.
  At Eva Bartlett, censoring and downplaying evidence of Barlett's falsehoods and generally downplaying her connections to RT while emphasizing her accusations toward mainstream news, even to the point of praising North Korea. Here's an extended discussion where all they do is accuse everyone else of getting things wrong, never showing any sign they'll improve.
  And they're still refusing to see any problems with their actions. @Nozoz: Stop acting like you're only right, keep in mind that people are opposing your edits for good reason, and find another topic. If you don't want to do that, leave or be made to leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting things, and so I have to say you are coming across as not a good-faith actor.

*You said: "Nozoz throws out the assessment of four news sources (including the NYT and the Guardian) for his interpretation of a primary source]. Note that Page 70 of that source literally says "Prof. McLaren stated that the total number of individuals who were implicated in the doping and cover-up scheme was likely to exceed 1,000," and after the bit that Nozoz cherry-picks". I didn't cherry-pick anything, and my edit is accurate. Those sources you mention, including the NYT and The Guardian, didn't make their own assessment, they quoted McLaren's report. And then, later, during the CAS court hearings, McLaren walked-back on that claim and stated that he hadn't meant those Russians had for a fact doped, but said he had merely been hypothesizing. The quote and source I have given are accurate.

* I don't think that I downplayed Eva Bartlett's falsehoods, but I did remove some inaccurate claims of falsehoods, and I didn't downplay her connection to RT. I don't think of RT as a dirty word and have no need to downplay a connection there. But Bartlett is an independent journalist. Independent journalists have articles published by larger news publications on a case-by-case basis. You are looking for conspiracy where there is none.

* The Eva Bartlett page is grossly biased and filled with confirmed misinformation. I am not the only person to have pointed this out. My edits to the page were good, and they should have remained. But the page is trolled by a clique of editors who protect the misinformation for their own agendas. Nevertheless, I have not continued to try to force my edits on that page. I have explained the wrongdoing of the editors who tag-team edit that page and left it at that. You have no valid criticism in that.

* People aren't opposing my edits for good reason, but your comment here is misplaced regardless: I made one edit and one revert to the page RT (TV network), and I did not engage in edit-warring or try to impose my edit outside of the WP rules for the page. I have explained my position on the talk page for the RT page. I didn't stay and keep fighting for my edit.

It would be a good idea for you to have a handle on what you're responding to and commenting on before you make bold assertions. Here, you have not taken that first step and have made baseless claims and accusations, and given advice that is inapplicable to the situation. Nozoz (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

People aren't opposing my edits for good reason should be the motto for WP:TEND. I don't have time for this and I don't feel like the community should have to waste time on this, either. Indefinitely blocked as not here to work with the community. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Circumstances of placing DS alerts

Issues with Nozoz aside, I'm concerned that we have an admin "explaining" [10] that DS alerts are issued

when we see that a user is doing something wrong ... You managed to get three alerts, for three different areas, which means that for whatever reason you are attracted to highly controversial areas, and your editing there is not ideal. I have seen this editing pattern a lot, though you are the first person I see with three Ds alerts at the same talk page, just one after another. My message is that unless you start editing very carefully (something you are not currently doing) or move to uncontroversial areas your account is likely to be blocked.

The idea that DS alerts are badges of shame, or demerits counting up to a block, reflects a complete misunderstanding of their function. Perhaps there should be a "DS Alert Alert" we can use to remind admins what DS alerts actually are and what they're actually for. EEng 03:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This issue separate from Nozoz, yeah, someone who was completely unfamiliar with me could theoretically leave me a DS notification in good faith. Heck, if a new user walks into a DS area, goes to the talk page, and says "I have this source from (Reuters, Oxford UP, something else equally trustworthy) that says (proper and relevant quotation that should be summarized in the article), can this be added to the article?" we should still leave them a DS alert. That's why Template:Alert says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." I'm leaving a note (and trout) for Ymblanter. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well, do not take issues with Nozoz aside. I give several dozens of DS alerts per year, and in the vast majority of cases I do not even need to provide any explanation, I just expect users to take a note that they must be careful in editing the area. However, in some cases I see serious misconduct, and sometimes even potential that a user soon will be presented to WP:AE when a prior alert is mandatory. In this case, I saw serious misconduct which prompted me to give an alert, and I discovered that they already have two prior alerts in different topic given for even more serious misconduct as well. And the user had just over 100edits. I am not at all surprised that they were indefblocked before they became extended confirmed. May be the situation could have been handled slightly better, but I am afraid the outcome would still be the same, since in retrospect we see that all their edits are about whitewashing RT using bad sources or misrepresenting the sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the point. Can you please (a) acknowledge that (contrary to what you said in your post quoted above) the fact that an editor has received a DS alert, or several DS alerts, or several DS alerts in a row, is not evidence of misconduct; and (b) assure the community that you'll stop saying such things? This shouldn't be hard. EEng 13:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(a) By itself, a number of DS alerts is not an evidence of misconduct. However, in this case all Ds alerts have been given for misconduct. (b) this is a question "have you stopped beating your wife". I am not going to stop calling misconduct misconduct. Sorry to disappoint you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a beating-your-wife question, because you are being asked to stop doing something you clearly have been doing. Now yes or no: Will acknowledge that you will stop issuing the false statements you made in your post quoted at the start of this subthread? This is a formal request per WP:ADMINACCT. EEng 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not made false statements. I actually never lie, though I remember it was for you last time impossible to believe. I said that behavior of that user is disruptive, and we have a chance to check that I was right, even if the form I used was possibly not optimal. I am not sure what is difficult here to understand. For the rest, I am afraid, you will have to go to ArbCom if you believe that my behavior is contrary to ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. This can be (and probably was) interpreted that DS alerts are given for serious misconduct. Whereas this user has performed reasonably serious misconduct, I promise to be more careful choosing the wording in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was half expecting you to say that you not only never lie but that you're incapable of error as well. There's hope for you yet. EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you once accused me of joining a mob that existed only to provoke you into a rage, so you could then get dragged to ArbCom. That's not just a deliberate falsehood, but tinfoil hat nutso. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You did join the mob, and this is factual. I try to never make statements on motivations of other people, and I do not know what your motivations were. May be you genuinely thought that I have no clue on the Wikipedia policies and my long-term behavior was absolutely inappropriate. I apologize if what I said then sounded like I made some conclusions about your motivations. We also know by now that the mob was directly related to WP:FRAM, which of course does not excuse my overreaction on several occasions. I also hope that I learned from that situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Aww c'mon let's be honest. "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" is a lie. 99% of the time when an editor gives another editor a DS alert, it's immediately following something the recipient did that the poster didn't like. Getting a DS alert, contrary to the notice, does in fact imply that there are issues with your contributions to date. The template notice ought to be updated to describe actual practice. It should say "I am leaving you this notice so that if you repeat your behavior, you can be more easily sanctioned." The proof? An editor can inform or remind another editor of the existence or import of DS with a normal, non-template message. That makes the editor aware of DS without fulfilling the actual DS awareness requirement. The only reason to make someone aware of DS using the template is to fulfill the awareness requirement, and the only reason to do it that way instead of with a regular message is to clear the way for future sanctions. Lev!vich 14:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  An editor can inform or remind another editor of the existence or import of DS with a normal, non-template message – I don't believe that's true, actually. IIRC, to have effect a DS alert must be in the exact form of the template, without modification (though you can append other stuff after it). EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's my point exactly: the only reason to use the template is "to have effect", i.e., to trigger the awareness criteria that makes the editor subject to DS, i.e. to pave the way for future sanctions. If we wanted to inform someone without paving the way for future sanctions, we would say "Hey, FYI, this article is under WP:ACDS" (which many editors do write to each other), rather than go through the cumbersome process of posting a DS template (which requires checking three places for prior awareness; even the script requires running twice as a failsafe measure). Very few editors will go to that trouble unless there's disruption. Lev!vich 17:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Probably 75% of the time I've given alerts I have no clear opinion on the editor's editing, and 95% of the time it's not in response to any particular edit. I haven't given that many warnings, but from what I've seen there are a large number of editors like me who do give alerts regularly to editors when they seem them active in an area or article, especially an area that has had significant problems recently (to be clear, an area here doesn't mean the whole DS area but some more limited area of the encyclopaedia, of one article). There are also a number of times when someone comes to ANI or AN and complains about an editor who is editing in a DS area. Rather than wasting time working out if anyone did anything wrong, it's hardly uncommon to simply DS alert the editor (and probably the complainer if they aren't aware), and tell the people concerned to use the discretionary sanctions process in future if needed. I've also seen this happen elsewhere. Note that this is distinct from what you're saying. Some editor may think they need to be sanctioned in the future, but it's not the editor actually giving the alert. The editor who thinks they need to be sanctioned may be completely wrong, the point is it doesn't and shouldn't matter, there's no point wasting time working out if they do. I've also remarked before that IMO the best DS alerts are given by editors who agree with an editor's edits. I'm not denying that some editors do give them because they disagree with an editor's edits and think they may need to be sanctioned in the future, but you said 99% which is an extreme number. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Usually what I do is I come across some disruptive editing on a given page, look at the page history, and give an alert to everyone involved on that page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's a great practice. EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe we should update the template to "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. It might be the other editor. ;-) Lev!vich 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Tough but fair. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  When I have given the notices, it's either been to a relatively new account that I think may not be aware of the standards on DS articles, or it's a way of reminding an experienced editor to stay calm and reflect on recent engagements -- not necessarily with me. But even in the second case, the editor placing the notice is not signalling Admin disapproval or a pending sanction, just that editor's personal concern. And some Admins routinely place the notices on a large number of user talk pages when they see a new user in one of the topic areas. Short of automated messages listing all DS and GS topic areas, updated annually by a bot, I don't see any better way to do it. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Non admin here. For the record, every instance in which I've been "notified" of DS in a topic area it never felt like useful information. It felt like a warning. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Think of it as an informative warning. EEng 13:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's definitely a warning, just not one that assumes any wrongdoing on your part. The same way that you might see a shark warning at a beach, to ensure you know what you might be getting into before you head out into the water. Grandpallama (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  A DS template is not at all like warning people of sharks or other dangers. DS sanctions can only be applied to editors who have been made aware of DS, e.g. with a template message. Thus the message doesn't warn of a danger, it creates the danger. If sharks only attacked people who had received a warning first, then no one would warn people about sharks. Lev!vich 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  I can think of a few people, actually. EEng 08:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich: That is perhaps the best example of your work I have seen on all of these many notice boards. A classic. Mistaken, but a perfectly stated false analogy 👌😎 SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, in what way is it mistaken? EEng 08:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, If sharks only attacked people who had received a warning first, then no one would warn people about sharks People wouldn't issue warnings, but sharks would have an interest in warning people that they wanted to attack. Vexations (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Very clever, Vexations, but sharks don't count for the purposes of "no one", because sharks aren't people (though I've known some people who are sharks). EEng 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I am genuinely puzzled and would appreciate an explanation of what you meant. EEng 05:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Pretty much. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I comment because I routinely issue DS alerts. Since it's not standard procedure to all send them at the initial welcome message, it's when editors edit the relevant area that they tend to get noticed and notified. Because those notes are important to be able to followup with WP:AE enforcement, it's not a coincidence that those who made controversial edits are more likely to receive them. But that information is really for everyone, a fact the DS/Alert text attempts to explain. I've recently issued one on my own talk page, since noone did and I became familiar with the related situation (in relation to the Falun Gong topic area, in this case). —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

W28394 - Disruptive editing and Edit wars

This user W28394 has been involved in edit wars and is involved in disruptive editing on multiple articles. He has been edit warring and has reverted edits of multiple users such as User:Anupam, User:NavjotSR, User:Editorkamran. All of them have tried to engage with this user on the talk pages of the following articles but he keeps on reverting the information without even providing any references.

• Disruptive Changes and Edit Wars

Article : Khalji dynasty [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]]

Article : Jalal-ud-din Khalji [[15]] [[16]] [[17]]

Article:Hindkowans [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]]

• Warnings against this user:

[[22]] [[23]]

• Here he has accused me to be a Sockpuppet of User:Editorkamran

[[24]] [[25]]

Please look into this as he is removing big chunks of articles without even providing any credible source and is reverting all constructive edits. Kami2018 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of vandalism by Kami2018

Good Evening, unfortunately, I have to write on your talk page due to the petty targeting, complaining, and accusations initiated against me by Kami2018.

I have been accused of edit wars, disruptive editing, etc, for making factual and well sourced changes to articles. I have provided all required sources for every change I have made. You can find the reasoning and sources for them on the talk pages here [[26]],here [[27]] and here, [[28]].

Rather than engaging and replying on the talk pages, Kami2018 has resorted to flippant behavior and is trying to get me banned by various editors/moderators. Kami2018 has been obtrusively imposing his views on to others and has been warned against doing so by various users numerous times in the past as well. Thank you.

W28394 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by third-party editors

Thank you to User:Kami2018 for pinging me here. From what I can see, several editors have reverted and/or opposed the changes of User:W28394 on the article about Hindkowans, including User:Kami2018, User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, and User:NavjotSR. As of now, there is a consensus on the talk page that opposes the revision suggested by User:W28394. Both User:Kami2018 and User:W28394 have commented on my talk page asking me to examine the situation and my recommendation has been for User:W28394 to self-revert and allow the talk page discussion to continue, rather than continue the behaviour of edit warring. Whether User:W28394 complies with WP:BRD and the current consensus should, in my opinion, play a role in the result achieved in this WP:ANI discussion concerning User:W28394. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• W28394 is WP:NOTHERE as evident from the diffs provided by Kami2018. I would support an indef block. NavjotSR (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:NavjotSR This user User:W28394 has been blocked for disruptive editing for 24 hrs and just after one day he has started carrying out disruptive edits as seen here [[29]] & [[30]] with two different users. I am not sure how to deal with this person anymore. Kami2018 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced sister city additions from multiple IPs

A user operating from multiple IPs is persistently adding unsourced sister pairings variously involving Cary and Raleigh, North Carolina, USA and Salzburg, Austria. With roughly 60 edits spread across four IPs so far, the user has also on occasion improperly deleted other cities from the lists. I initially left edit notes indicating that I was reverting due to unsourced content, then escalated to talk page notices, but the multiple IPs have made things rather futile.

Involved IPs:

• 2606:A000:4508:A00:CD71:BF28:347F:3383 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:4508:A00:243C:D98E:414E:4A78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:4508:A00:DCE0:99F2:91B8:E57F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:4508:A00:6D5A:DAD9:E155:1845 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Involved pages:

• Raleigh, North Carolina
• Cary, North Carolina
• Salzburg
• List of sister cities in North Carolina
• List of twin towns and sister cities in Austria

All of the additions are unsupported by current lists of sister cities, including for Cary and Raleigh and in the membership directory of Sister Cities International. WildCowboy (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not overly impressed by the sources: do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Nevertheless, the prior list at had some sourcing, unlike the IP's efforts. I've partially blocked the /64 range from editing Raleigh, North Carolina indefinitely for now. On the slim chance that another IP is allocated the address and also wants to edit the Raleigh article (the IP does geolocate to Raleigh), I'm happy for an unblock with a convincing reason to happen without consulting me. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation, I found https://raleighnc.gov/raleigh-sister-cities which confirms the prior list and sources and looks like the authoritative site. I've instead partially blocked the IP from all five pages for 3 years for now. If they have genuine reasons to edit those pages, they will have to engage in talk somewhere first. Hopefully that fixes it. On the slim chance that another IP is allocated the address and genuinely wants to edit those articles (the IP does geolocate to Raleigh), I'm happy for an unblock with a convincing reason to happen without consulting me. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reduced your indefinite block to 3 months. Please don't do indefinite blocks on IP addresses, or block random IP addresses for years. Sometimes a residential cable ISP will allocate a /64 to a single customer for a very long time time, but you can not assume that it will last years. As a CheckUser who has done thousands of CU lookups and thousands of range blocks, I can tell you that this will cause unacceptable collateral damage. Partial blocks mitigate this, but they still need to be reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I had already reduced the indef to 3 years. While it's true that a residential cable ISP might reallocate that /64 to another customer, they will still have a much larger base set to reallocate than in the days of IPv4. The chances in most cases of the new customer getting that /64 also wanting to edit the Wikipedia article on exactly the same topic out of our 6 million articles will be so small as to be negligible, therefore there's much less chance of a problem when a partial block is used. In this case, though, the article affected was geographically local to the IP, so there's perhaps a higher likelihood that the new customer might want to edit it. Nevertheless, I think your reduction to 3 months is just kicking the can down the road. In 3 month's time, if the vandalism starts up again, will you be suggesting that this is a new vandal who just happened to be allocated the same IPv6 and just happened to edit the same article? Thought not. --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone...much appreciated. Will keep an eye out for future edits from any additional IPs. WildCowboy (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A new IP in the block is at it again, adding bogus sister city relationships on Cary, North Carolina, Munich, Würzburg, and Klosterneuburg.

• 2606:A000:4508:A00:4941:108:7728:15BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

--WildCowboy (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And now Salzburg‎ as well. --WildCowboy (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also just noticed that seemingly all of the edits from this entire IP block (2606:A000:4508:A00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) are either making vandalism/hoax edits to city/region pages or editing pages for kids shows (which I haven't examined to see if those are legitimate or not). There are over 15 specific IPs involved in the geography-related vandalism dating back about six weeks, mostly involving bogus sister city pairings or changing pages for various European countries/regions to state that they are located in the United States. --WildCowboy (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(nac) From this DABfixers POV, ambiguous and unsourced sister city listings can be a real pest. I've seen several. Even if you have the will and ability to look at non-English WPs and to do multilingual searching, they can be impossible to confirm or to deny even from the towns' own websites. All one can do in first instance is WP:AGF and add {{disambiguation needed}} and {{citation needed}} tags, even if a link looks completely implausible. Whoever added it may have a source I failed to find. Narky Blert (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This user is clearly trying to cause trouble, however, as all of the IPs on this block appear to be the same person and they're making other edits stating Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are in the southern United States, among other clearly incorrect edits. I've checked the official Sister Cities International directory, I've checked city/town websites, and I've found nothing to support any of their sister city claims. Sister city pairs are also typically of somewhat similar stature, so it makes little sense that a suburban town in North Carolina would be paired with major cities like Munich and Vienna. And the user refuses to engage on talk pages. --WildCowboy (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Now using 98.122.148.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to engage in the same behavior. The IP has already had two blocks in the past six weeks. --WildCowboy (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Back at it again today from the same IP. Can we get an admin to take another look and put some more blocks on this person? The 98.122.148.179 IP has been a continuing problem for weeks, as can be seen from the laundry list of warnings and two blocks. Thanks. --WildCowboy (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Cú Chulainn and Ferdiad - user persistently removing cited information

The articles about the Irish mythological characters Cú Chulainn and Fer Diad both contain a reference to the interpretation of their relationship as a sexual one. This is discussed in the critical literature and is cited in both articles. User:CreativeFlesh93 is persistently removing this reference from both articles, apparently because he doesn't like the cited book. He also keeps insisting that when I linked WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, that was me calling him a homophobe. I asked for help from the WP:Wikiproject Mythology, and got one revert by User:Enuui, but CreativeFlesh93 has continued his campaign. I can't maintain this alone without risking being called for edit warring or 3RR. Someone, please, lend a hand. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because it was written by someone (who is not an expert in the field of Irish mythology or mythology in general) does not make it a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeFlesh93 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(nac) CF93's edit summary "Just because it is in a book does not make it accurate" (the book in question being an encyclopedia published by Cassell) and their comment here suggests that they may be unaware of WP:TRUTH. Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You're presenting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint with WP:UNDUE weight, without explaining that it is not accepted by mainstream academia. And editwarring to include it in this unexplained unqualified state with the edit summary "revert arbitrary removal of sourced material". My removal wasn't arbitrary, I explained it in the edit summaries. On top of that you are forum shopping around the 'pedia (here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology#Cú Chulainn and Ferdiad) begging for help so you don't get blocked for editwarring ("I don't want to get involved in an edit war or break 3RR, so somebody else please stop him.") instead of addressing the policy and sourcing issues brought up. Heiro 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Potentially deceptive characters in username

Note the unusual characters in this username: 𝗺𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲. This appears to be an abuse of the charcters from the Unicode block Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols. I've added some patterns at User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist to try to catch any repetition of this or similar ruses, but I'm surprised this wasn't caught at source by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or similar mechanisms. Does anyone know how this might have been achieved, and how we could stop it from happening again? -- The Anome (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw the username through the filter logs, but I wasn't sure if the username would be considered disruptive. I'm still not sure if different characters are considered disruptive...like 𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖉 𝕺𝖋 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖉𝖔𝖜𝖘 𝖝𝖊𝖓? Jerm (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a homograph problem. Unlike names which are in Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese, Korean, or other non-Latin scripts, which are uncontroversial, this is a misuse of the Unicode standard to achieve decorative effects, at the cost of creating confusion. Depending on your local font set, it may be either difficult or impossible to tell the difference between "𝗺𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲" (using mathematical symbols) and "my mom is proud of me" (using the standard Latin alphabet). Just for one example, an internal search within Wikipedia for "my mom is proud of me", will not bring up any reference to that user, and the page search function of my web browser also fails to find the obfuscated name. And yes, this also applies to 𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖉 𝕺𝖋 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖉𝖔𝖜𝖘 𝖝𝖊𝖓. -- The Anome (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there policy that forbids alternative fonts? This is the English Wiki, and their usernames are still english. Typing their usernames though is just as difficult as typing a non-latin script username such as Hebrew or Arabic, but such usernames that use non-latin characters are still allowed. Jerm (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Jerm: It's disallowed by Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-script_usernames, since these are symbols (albeit letterlike ones) — the third bullet point there prohibits "Symbols and characters that are on the block lists at Unicode symbols", and indeed, Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols is present in that list. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Soul Crusher's redirects

About a week and a half ago, I came across a number of edits by User:Soul Crusher where a number of redirects were created pointing to Cleopatra Records and yet are not mentioned in the target article. I expressed my concern on their talk page. After finding better targets for many, I nominated the rest of them for deletion at RfD (just ending as delete all). I also nominated the article for the compilation album Sin Factor, in which Soul Crusher created a number of other redirects to there simply because a band or band member without any other reference in Wikipedia had a track or was credited as a songwriter. The album's article as well as all those redirects have also been deleted. Unfortunately, it continues. I repeated my message upon the creation of There Is No Time, another compilation album along a number of new redirects for more non-notable bands pointing just to the album. I voiced my concerns again a few days later, but to no avail. Yesterday, they created three redirects to Pankow (German band) for being listed as songwriters for a track on the compilation Funky Alternatives Seven, although the trio aren't mentioned in the band's article. They have refused to communicate on their talk and have continued the practice (see Lee Popa and Max Edgin).

• I think Soul Crusher needs to refrain from creating these needless redirects for a simple mention as part of a track listing without additional information being available elsewhere.
• Even if a redirect is mentioned in the target article, I think Soul Crusher should stop creating links to each band member over and over when they simply redirect to the band's page (and is already linked itself as the recording artist in the same articles). For example, they created redirects for Gary Dassing and Dwayne Dassing to their band Mentallo and the Fixer, and in articles such as Centuries (EP), their names are linked in every instance despite the link to the band already existing in the intro and infobox already.
• I've also asked them to stop linking to countries under the "Release history" section of these articles per MOS:OVERLINK, but that request has been ignored as well.

There are other concerns as well, including the creation of many potentially non-notable topics and unchecked hyperlinks to disambiguation pages and unrelated articles about something else as tagged by a bot here in the article The Black Bible, which is how I began to notice the depth of these issues. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate.Soul Crusher (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This and this say otherwise, and this one is in progress. And part of the problem is you failed to discuss the issue when I brought it up to you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The track on Funky Alternatives Seven is by Pankow (Italian band), not Pankow (German band), it is not only about notability it's whether they redirect to a relevant article. Peter James (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate." In Wikipedia:Redirect, one of the reasons listed for their deletion is "...and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.". Most of your recent redirects link to articles which either briefly mention the subjects, or in the case of Cleopatra Records, make no mention of them at all. This is rather problematic. Do you see these as redirects with possibilities of eventual expansion? Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently ignoring the issues presented here because they don't view it as a problem, Soul Crusher created Markleford Friedman pointing to a band's article in which the name is never mentioned. The reason? Because Friedman is listed as a songwriter for a track by the band that is featured on the barely, if at all, notable compilation The Best of Mind/Body: Electro-Industrial Music From the Internet, that was also just created. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Block review

Posting here since I think I toed the line of admin discretion and thought that there are some issues that needed community addressing. I blocked Kaleodu for 31 hours after they continuously disruptively tagged articles with notability tags in spite of being asked to stop. They were addressed by me and UW Dawgs who opened up a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Notability in NFL player articles where they refused to communicate. I felt they displayed IDHT behaviour and it was becoming disruptive. If the community decides that I was wrong, I completely accept their admonishing and will unblock.

I am bringing this here because I am also concerned about several of their image uploads. They're asserting PD US but sourcing to unofficial sources. This likely needs a deeper look and perhaps a longer block. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Kaleodu might be overzealous, but some of their recent notability tags seem reasonable to me. Joy Golden,for example, is a stub article on an advertiser. Most of the sources are biographical background, and there is actually only a single mention of her career. Other articles Kaleodu tagged for notability are also stubs.:

• George Mira Jr.'s entire college football career is summarized in a single paragraph
• Pierre Champoux's article contains a single line,
• Bob Fisher (tight end) is two-lines long and mentions a professional career which lasted less than two years. Dimadick (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Dimadick That's fair but they were asked to either add "a more references needed" tag or take it to AfD, which they refused to acknowledge. I blocked because I felt their tagging and IDHT behaviour was becoming disruptive. For example, they tagged James Melka but I easily expanded it 1K bytes and added two in-depth articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

    I've been told in the past that rather than take articles to AfD, I should tag them with notability tags. I still have no idea what it is the community expects an editor to do with an article that they think is not notable but that meets the relevant SNG, i.e. the old "meets GNG but not SNG". My current practice is to ignore it. Lev!vich 21:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2

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

---

• Swmpshield2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned about this user. I have encountered them in two contexts: COVID-19 and G. Edward Griffin. At the Griffin article, they are arguing that The Creature From Jekyll Island is a respectable work (e.g. [31], [32], [33] and talk page comments. Griffin is a member of the John Birch Society, a conspiracy theorist, and a long-time promoter of the quack cancer remedy laetrile (see also this edit by Swmpshield2 removing two sources critical of laetrile quackery). In relation to COVID-19, they have been warned of DS ([34]), but all notices and warnings are blanked without comment [35] or with aggressive edit summaries [36]. There's an AP2 DS notices [37] from Doug Weller not blanked at time of writing. The user has been blocked for edit warring on multiple articles, and warned for personal attacks. A focus on Wuhan ([38]), China and organ harvesting ([39]) suggests strong anti-Chinese sentiment but that could be wrong. Regardless, the amount of drama this editor has stoked with their 187 edits to date leads me to speculate that they are here to WP:RGW rather than help. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum: possible Wikitam331 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• While their support for G. Edward Griffin's works is reason for concern, that talk page comment you linked is merely questioning the reliability of The Daily Beast as a source for a BLP article. Which seems to be a reasonable concern, when it comes to the Beast's scoop-oriented reporting. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Dimadick, his argumentation on the Talk page is predicated on the false idea that The Creature From Jekyll Island is a legitimate and respected work of scholarship. Spoiler: it's not. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding Jzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is suspicious. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Very suspicious as they just added to this thread but signed with Guy's name. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD, Swmpshield2 is now edit-warring against multiple others at G. Edward Griffin. This is not good. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm getting notifications! I'm new to Wikipedia, I can see that I'm unable to make changes to an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Zackomode

@Doug Weller, RolandR, Larry Hockett, Richard3120, and Esowteric:

New user off to a bad start of ignoring repeated warnings on the same set of issues. A brief block may be needed to emphasize that the warnings mean something.

These ([40],[41],[42],[43],[44]) are some of the edits that have prompted user talk messages and warnings. Click "Next edit" on any to see the reverter's summary, or just look on User talk:Zackomode. Essentially, the pattern is one of blindly replacing certain words and phrases with the user's preferred word or phrase, even when this breaks grammar, breaks wikilinks, introduces inaccuracy, or changes a direct quote. The user's editing frequency seems to be increasing, so this strikes me as a good time to make an impression, and hopefully save a lot of later cleanup effort. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have repeatedly warned this user, over behaviour such as needlessly changing from British to American English,[45][46][47] unnecessary fiddly edits,[48][49][50][51] and particularly changing direct quotations to match their own preferred usage.[52][53][54][55][56]. They have even edited my comments on their talk page.[57] I have left them a personal message explaining the problem with their edits,[58] as well as several templated warnings. But this does not seem to have made any impression, and the editor continues regardless with their disruptive, unhelpful and frequently outright erroneous edits. I think that the editor needs a short block as a warning, with a warning that continuing in this way could lead to the permanent withdrawal of their editing privileges. RolandR (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Swpb's final example above, the J.K. Rowling edit, is a good example of the two biggest problems with this user's edits. I can live with the addition of serial/Oxford commas all over the place, even if their addition is unnecessary and breaks the flow of the prose in places. But direct quotations should never be changed, even if the spelling or grammar was incorrect in the first place. And more troubling is the changing of words which then make no sense in the context of the sentence – in the J.K. Rowling article it's the change of the noun "a wait" to the verb "await". There's another example here where in the "Critical reception" section "with in" was changed to "within" which makes no grammatical sense in the context. I don't know whether the user just has poor grammar (in which case WP:CIR applies), or if they are running the article through an automatic spelling/grammar checker and making the corrections suggested by the program... if so, this is exactly why the use of machine translators to translate articles from other languages is discouraged on Wikipedia, because computer programs are not infallible. Richard3120 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. I do think there can be legitimate fixes applied to direct quotes (per MOS:PMC) to correct errors, but rather than correcting errors in such quotes, this user is simply swapping out words to match his own preferences.

This edit concerns me. To me, it defies logic to hold out a preference for American English over Australian English on an article titled Culture of Australia - especially after having received a user talk page warning related to national varieties of English a week earlier. Because Zackomode doesn't use talk pages and rarely uses edit summaries, we are left without an understanding of how to best help him with these issues. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Maybe a short-term block would be appropriate, so that the user's attention is drawn to the issue. Then, if they choose to appeal, that may provide an opening for constructive dialogue? Esowteric+Talk 15:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

DE: Karmapa Controversy / 100 edits in three days / OR, SPS and NPOV

• Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karmapa controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ANI thread from June 2020 that mentions Pasdecomplot (some editors had complained that Pasdecomplot was refusing to indent their posts on Talk)

Incorrectly reported ([[59]]) as WP:VANDAL yesterday.

Reporting WP:DE by Pasdecomplot on Karmapa Controversy.

The Karmapa Controversy has been labeled as having "multiple issues" including WP:PSTS and possible WP:OR, and recent attempts to remove WP:OR were recently wiped way by Pasdecomplot, who made upwards of a 100 edits from August 29 to 31. Many of them are seemingly innocuous, but sandwiched in between are WP:OR, WP:SPS and non-WP:NPOV violating edits.

Pasdecomplot comments on the article's talk page have been verbose, confusing (advocating against the use of books as WP:RS--"removal of most internet-based RS in favor of books is quite curious, since no one else can check RS") and times lacking WP:CIV ("sorry to be blunt, but the whole paragraph reeks of Chinese state disinformation;"..."Sophisticated sockpuppet or what? Doesn't know what a 'pink floyd' is either."). The number of changes along with the degree to which WP:NPOV has been affected goes beyond a WP:DR and necessitates that an administrator to step in and additionally a WP:RBK is being requested as well.

Here are the diff links (August 29-31 changes) along with text you can copy/paste to search each diff page.

Links by category

WP:OR: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975870847 ("the majority of lamas and Karma Kagyu Sangha also agree") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975776585 ("He had claimed for years that he was the Karmapa.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975775211 ("for the secret interview of Trinley Thaye Dorje sometime after 1988, and two other lamas that eventually helped Trinley Thaye Dorje to arrive in India for his enthronement in 1994. Sources are unclear as to why the Sharmapa waited to reveal his selection.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975769086 ("lead regent") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767647 ("Possibly referring to the controversy"; reference doesn't support; later cites WP:SPS) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767074 ("The date at which the Sharmapa announced his preferred Karmapa is unclear.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975758893 ("his cousin Topga Yugyal, an unnamed person as the Sharmapa's source)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975745071 (The Nyingma school has always been non-political.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975884558 ("loses India's support") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975784756 ("Tai Situ Rinpoche became the lead member of the regents") WP:SPS; website appears legitimate (i.e. org.nz address) but is a repository of self-published articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975966021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767647 Additional references used by Enlightened Heart, Notes: #44 WP:NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975715194 (changing meaning of sentence; "The 10th Sharmapa had been accused of instigating a war with Nepal) according to members of the Karma Kagyu lineage.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975891010 (just copying and pasting chunks from an article) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975888700 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975714124 (subtle edit to change wiki link which would benefit reader / Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, 16th Karmapa#Controversy and Recognition as Karmapa) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975769086 (subtlety changing order of individuals listed) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975756066 (subtlety removing that Shamar Rinpoche identified TTD) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975720207 (subtle "Authority" to "Collaboration" change affects section meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975716884 Compare introduction before editing to after (intro has since been reverted): Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&oldid=975115850 After: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&oldid=975969026 WP:AOBF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975786453 (subtle edit changing meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975745071 (subtle edit changing meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975716884 (unnecessary removal of wiki link) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=975127649&oldid=975115850 (introducing grammatical error into lead sentence of article and not willing to correct) WP:MTAU: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975782227 (parinirvana instead of death) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975772301 (parinirvana instead of death) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975239020 (reader will not understand what "Buktham Letter" is; ignored on talk page)

Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot was also sanctioned for WP:DE earlier this year:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pasdecomplot&oldid=965318307#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pasdecomplot&oldid=963877925#Discretionary_sanctions_alert

Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki sockpuppetry by Henry408

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

---

• Henry408 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry425 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry430 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry432 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry540 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry636 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry815 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) etc.

A globally-locked user Henry408 (talk · contribs) has been abusing multiple accounts since 2019, often editing animation-related articles. They sometimes appear in the English Wikipedia. Looking at their cross-wiki contributions, I think Henry815 (talk · contribs) is the current sock of Henry408. I'm not sure if CU works when most of the previous socks are stale. Should I open an SPI? Anyway, I think this case needs some attention by administrators. 153.207.164.49 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to request a glock at M:SRG. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Henry130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry380 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry721 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry750 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry875 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry864 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry2134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry3243 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry3545 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry4366 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I've found 11 more socks; they were active in March, April, May, and June 2020. 153.207.164.49 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and harassment by User:Sankura

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

Would it be possible for an editor with some kind of authority to speak to User:Sankura in order to stop his unprovoked harassment against me? Looking over his contributions and editorial remarks, this user appears to regularly make offensive remarks and personal attacks against other editors. For my part, I have attempted to reach a compromise with them in good faith, but Sankura refuses to, even to the extent of repeatedly removing my requests for third party arbitration. His abusive language towards me and others is uncalled for and am at a loss as to how it was provoked. However, if my behavior in this dispute also merits some kind of disciplining, then I will respect that and fully abide by any actions decided upon. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Their userpage suggests that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Goose^(Talk!) 23:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean they're arrogant and insulting and combative, perhaps to a degree incompatible with being a Wikipedia editor—I don't know, I've only looked at a few dozen edits—but that user page explicitly says "I plan to do what I can to stem the decline [of Wikipedia articles]"... being critical of Wikipedia, even extremely critical, isn't of itself a sign that someone is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The user's page tracked their work to fix a common grammar error. If that suggests to you that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia, I think that is extremely troubling. Perhaps you looked at the wrong user page. 109.144.19.43 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sankura has only been around a few months, so this type of behavior isn't really surprising since Sankura is a new editor. @Sankura: Please remain WP:CIVIL. Jerm (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:CurryTime7-24 undid my work on improving the lead section of List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich, replacing some sensible content with "This is a list of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich".[60] Since then, they have repeatedly lied about my edit, and slandered me and my work on a variety of forums. And here they go again. Looks like they have managed to encourage someone else to start slandering me.

I fixed more than eight hundred instances of incorrect grammar over the last few weeks. As a result of this lying editor and his incessant slandering, I'm not going to waste any more time doing that. Sankura (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User has been given final warning for personal attacks, pointed to WP:NLT, and asked to remove all accusations of slander. User reverted talk page post warning. Meters (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And blocked as sock by user: NinjaRobotPirate Meters (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising that someone who displays obsessively dogmatic behavior will sock repeatedly. I feel sorry for people like that but their disruption cannot be tolerated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

JMRAMOS0109: long-term lack of sourcing

JMRAMOS0109 has had a long history of adding huge chunks of texts into articles without a single source (or a source or two, which does not back up the bulk of the content), or moving articles without previous discussion (generally forced English translations of names). Likely long-term violation of WP:OR, but to an extent that a good percentage of articles on WP:MILHIST is probably affected with entire unsourced, low-importance sections. That and unattributed copying within Wikipedia.

As an example, just within the second half of August and not all: [61],[62],[63],[64],[65] predominantly on military parades, standards and bands, occasionally units.

The user has been warned regarding every now and then in their talk page since as early as 2011. Within just the last 6 months or so, they have been warned regarding either lack of sourcing or copying by five different users. They really should know better to add sources by now, and yet they still add thousands of bytes of unsourced claims per day.

Either they have to start adding sources, or they should be removed from the project in order to prevent the addition of unverifiable sources in such large amounts. Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil argument involving multiple parties on user talk page

• Editor interaction: [66]
• Grufo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.37.150.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(note: I have included 2 partial snippets, please read the entire argument on the talk page for full context).

On a user's talk page currently there is an ongoing argument that started with Vice_regent alleging that Grufo was WP:STALK'ing them:

I notice you have restarted WP:STALK-ing me. Please stop. We've been over this before (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Hounding).[67]

To which Grufo then responded:

Vice regent, if you believe that my any of my edits were not aimed at improving Wikipedia constructively or against destructive edits (removals or POV-pushing, from you or anyone else), but I rather wanted to cause “irritation, annoyance, or distress” to you in particular, please do come forward. sent by Grufo.

Multiple other comments were made[68] which then eventually attracted the involvement of 39.37.150.110 which then further escalated the situation, primarily starting an argument between the anon user and Grufo. This also appears to not be the first dispute between Vice_regent and Grufo that has resulted in ANI, highlighting the necessary for intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairo2k18 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to bring this to ANI, the above was an attempt by me to resolve this on the user's talk page. The background is that Grufo has a history of following me around (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Hounding) and this week they once again reverted me[69][70] on two articles they'd never edited before. I also pointed out that >90% of Grufo's 520 edits in the month of August were spent in disputes with me (each one of which Grufo followed me to).VR _talk 14:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair, to be fair you didn't really say much other than that, just the anon user and Grufo started being a bit unfriendly. Cairo2k18 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

user:Za-ari-masen POV pushing, removing citations, and referenced texts and general WP:DE

Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs) is removing citations [71] and cited texts [72]. A number of editors have tried to WP:GF to engage with him on various POV pushing where he is in the minority of one, but he seems impervious to all arguments. [Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system] He will reject sources on one pretext or the other if they do not align with his POV. [73]. This behavior has been persistent. Chaipau (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Chaipau and the other user (Msasag) are simply misrepresenting the sources at multiple articles in what seems to be an ethnic POV pushing. The case here is Rangpuri language and Bengali-Assamese languages. The most widely used source for linguistic articles on Wikipedia, Ethnologue, lists "Bengali script" as the writing system for Rangpuri language[74]. But Chaipau is rejecting the source and replacing it with citations from sources that don't even support his edit to include Assamese alphabet or Bengali-Assamese script in what seems to be a source misrepresentation. Instead of discussing and addressing the issue, Chaipau and Msasag has resorted to edit-warring. The predisputed version at both articles had Bengal as the writing system for Rangpuri language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • We have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by Za-ari-masen, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [75], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [76]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [77]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [78], [79], [80] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [81]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [82], he ignored their advice when they went against him [83], [84], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't know why you are showing diffs of selective comments. On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics, Uanfala commented that the Toulmen source that you were citing is already referenced in the Ethnologue survey for the language. So that makes Ethnologue a superior source in my opinion. In another section of the same talk page, LiliCharlie [commented ""It"? No. Unicode calls the script "Bengali script"]". Even on Rangpuri Language, Fylindfotberserk commented "As for this matter, one can ref the unicode source if it is newer and necessary." Overall, the neutral editors didn't take any sides as to what the script should be called. In fact, the diff of the comment by UserNumer you showed actually supported my position as he commented "Rangpuri is the term used by ethnic Bengalis of Bangladesh (and possibly a few West Bengalis). This specific tongue is written with the Bengali script". Yet, I agreed to keep both the scripts in the infobox as a compromise but even that was reverted by Msasag, who has simply been aimlessly edit-warring. The moves on Bengali-Assamese script were made 18 months back and I already accepted my mistake and refrained from moving the article. Even there, several editors have had corroborated my argument, [85], [86]. I'm at least allowed to discuss my points on talk pages, this is not WP:DE. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Za-ari-masen is making conflicting and misleading edits. I have noticed he changed the writing system of some Languages from "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". In the talk pages, Msasag and Chaipau have provided many references to make him understand why it should be "Bengali-Assamese script" and not "Bengali script". But, he rejected all the points and is not ready to agree. We didn't reach any conclusion yet, but he is continuously making changes. And when Msasag reverted his repetitive edits, he reported the user for edit warring. He also proposed to rename "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". By doing this, he will recreate an issue that was solved long ago after a year long discussion. Mohsin274 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Za-ari-masen is regularly engaging in disruptive editing on Bangladesh Liberation War by removing peoples' comments,[87] starting RfC and then withdrawing after it went against his POV,[88] casting WP:ASPERSIONS by calling editors a "nationalist"[89], engaging in very selective WP:CANVASSING,[90] wikilawyering,[91] and more. A sanction for such WP:CIR issues is definitely warranted. Orientls (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd request the admins to look at the diffs carefully because Orientls is clearly misrepresenting the diffs. The comment I removed from Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War was a blatant WP:NPA which was already stated by User:Nomian at the discussion[92] and after being restored by another editor, the comment was eventually redacted by an admin. I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC. There was a solution proposed and approved by uninvolved editors so I thought there was no need for an RfC anymore. Before withdrawing, I also left a comment expressing my desire to withdraw, nobody objected and User:Aditya Kabir even supported it[93]. The comment being described as WP:ASPERSION was "I think nationalist sentiments have been exhibited from both sides...", I don't how it's aspersion. Regarding WP:CANVASSING, the diff itself shows that I didn't even notify any editor as I used "noping" to write the usernames of different editors in my comment. This false allegations are nothing new by Orientls as he has been doing this for everyone who opposes his POV, even User:Aditya Kabir and User:Kmzayeem have been subjected to such false allegations by Orientls multiple times at the talk page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But how any diffs were misrepresented? Just because you don't see any disruption in your editing, doesn't mean you are not being disruptive. I see you are still selectively WP:CANVASSING the editors so that they can come and defend you but note that you are alone responsible for your edits. These 2 diffs[94][95] are not similar to each other. "I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC" but WP:RFCCLOSE's 5 points contradict every single reasoning of yours. Seeing your response here, it is clear that this is exactly what you do when you are discussing articles or interacting with other editors i.e. exhibit your own issues with poor comprehension skills. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

"But how any diffs were misrepresented?" From what I can see, not all diffs match Orientis' description of them. Za-ari-masen removed an anonymous editor's comments about the inferiority of Bangladesh's military in comparison to Pakistan, and the same editor's comment that the ones who disagree are Bangladeshi nationalists. The comment was not particularly constructive. The "aspersions" diff acknowledged nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument, without accusing any specific user. The "canvassing" diff demonstrates that no users were pinged, so not a real case of canvassing. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean from "an anonymous editor's comments"? See WP:IPHUMAN. The messages clearly didn't warrant blanket removal, and removing the comment was nothing more than an attempt reduce opposition. Making conduct based allegations without citing diffs is casting aspersions and just making acknowledgement of "nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument" without providing any evidence does not make it any less of "aspersion" as long as it is not backed with the evidence. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know all the stories and backgrounds here, but the one I know seem to be somewhat mispresented by the diffs and the commentary provided by Orientls. Za-ari definitely has discussed the closure of the RfC before he closed it (he also stated his reason), he was within his rights to do so (though it was probably not the right course of action, given the combustible nature of the discussion), and when reverted, he didn't go into war.

He closed the RfC because he explicitly agreed to the status quo achieved, not because it went against him. Rather the current status quo went against what Orientls wanted and he is the one who reverted the RfC closure (I am not trying to incriminate him, just pointing out the irony). As for the "nationalist POV" bit, I believe that particular word was used over a dozen times by at least half a dozen editors, including Orientls and I.

As anyone reading this would have noticed, I have provided no diffs here (I don't want to waste my energy on digging dirt for nothing). But that doesn't mean I can't. Anyone can ask for the diffs if needed, and I shall provide them as promptly I can.

Thank you. Y Tea anyone? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The close was completely inappropriate and having "discussed the closure of the RfC" is not gonna fly especially when Za-ari-masem is deliberately misrepresenting WP:RFCCLOSE. I am not the "one who reverted the RfC closure", and not a single time I have used the word "nationalist". You should better try citing diffs for your claims and you are not going to put up a strong defense for Za-ari-masen if you continue making these invalid claims. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right. You didn't right "nationalist POV", you wrote just "POV" (I checked back). And you didn't revert the closure. Srijanx22 did, another editor from the team bludgeoning that talk, did. If I remember correctly the status quo really went against all of your opinions (not Za-ari's). Good that you have most everyone of that team here, including him. Anyways, my interest here is not Za-ari or Rangpuri language. So I think you can continue this without my participation. You guys have already managed a 48 hours block against me, and I don't think I have enough lawyering in me to fight with this kind of games. Y I go back to my cup of tea. Have nice day all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban for Za-ari-masen

Za-ari-masen has been blocked 2 times this year over a subject that is intersection between India and Bangladesh. There has been already one ANI thread against Za-ari-masen earlier this year.[96] Two days ago, Za-ari-masen went ahead to report an editor on WP:ANEW[97] while himself violating WP:3RR by making 6 reverts in just 7 hours 1 day.[98][99][100][101][102][103] The above response which reads nothing more than WP:GASLIGHTING given the misrepresentation of WP:RFCCLOSE alone, I do think that Za-ari-masen lacks the necessary competence to edit in this area and should be topic banned from anything related to India and Bangladesh for an indefinite period.

• Support as proposer. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support The continued double downing, failure to understand any policies and the recent edit warring against multiple editors is enough to justify this sanction. Orientls (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic ban based on two incidents, a mention of past blocks (dude, many of our admins have one or two blocks under their belts, and I have one too, WP is not about being judgemental), an essay and an untruth about an RfC closure (see above discussion)... can that really be a case for topic ban? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above.

• Oppose A clear case of editor targeting. Orientls and Abhishek0831996 are part of the group of users who had been edit-warring and stonewalling Bangladesh Liberation War. Za-ar-masen's RfC at the talk page of Bangladesh Liberation War brought attention of the wider community to stop the stonewalling and this led them to target the editor here. Orientls has clearly falsified the diffs which had been explained by Dimadick above. Even Abhishek0831996 has used the same tactic by falsely claiming "6 reverts in just 7 hours" when the diffs actually extend across 31 hours and all of the diffs don't seem to be reverts. I think an action is due against Orientls and Abhishek0831996 for using ANI as a forum for personal vendetta against an editor, that too by falsifying diffs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kmzayeem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above.

• I don't see a single diff being falsified, and given you don't even understand what is a WP:REVERT since all of those cited edits indeed "seem to be reverts", I can't expect anything from you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

And it seems both Abhishek0831996 and Orientls have started to bludgeon, [104], [105], like they did at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: As the reporter, I shall not take a position here; but in this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [106], he ignored their advice when they went against him [107], [108], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — moving this comment to the top of the section in context. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Misrepresentation of source on Bengali–Assamese languages[109] is concerning because the quote verifies the information of the source by noting "as used in Assamese script". But this user makes 3 reverts [110][111][112] without any participation on talk page just to remove the term by falsely claiming that it is not in the source. This clearly shows that we are better off without having this user create problems in this whole subject. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

After Abhishek0831996 and Orientls I was waiting for Srijanx22 to join in. This is the same group of editors that has been hounding Za-ari and bludgeoning the Liberation War article, has fought him in other ANIs and came after me when I supported him. This pretty much looks like a pattern of behaviour with this particular group of editors. But, seriously guys, are you going to use every revert Za-ari ever made against him? Well... your choice. Maybe you guys will win. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support: When Za-ari-masen was warned about edit warring in the jhalmuri and mutton curry articles, he called Kingarthur581 a "troll."[113] Also, when his behavior was pointed out, he "did not hear that".[114] --1990'sguy (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with what have been said above that this seems to be a spillover of the animosity shown at Bangladesh liberation war dispute. Folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight wars as representatives of different countries. Ganging up on a person if you disagree with them is uncalled for. W.r.t the original report, I don't see any formal dispute resolution effort at the language articles, perhaps, adopting one of the DR venues is the best approach to sort out a disagreement. WP:ANI only creates animosity and should be used as the last resort. Nomian (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nomian (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above.

Nomian Thank you for your suggestion on taking this through the DR process, but we have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by a single editor, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [115], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [116]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [117]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [118], [119], [120] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [121]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC) - moving this comment to a reply to Za-ari-masen instead.

• Comment Hi, I stumbled in this discussion through the notification for mentioning me here, I am not here to judge anyone or take any party's side. I do agree that I had disagreement and argument with Za-ari-masen previously but he is also very friendly toward me and helped me create the article shukto and I think except some disagreement in past, he is a very nice person. But I am also opposing the term Ganging up on a person used by Nomian, Accusing the supporters of topic ban as some "Indian Wikipedians who are trying to gang up on a Bangladeshi Wikipedian and block him just for personal disagreement without any reason" is a very serious accusation when the discussion going on here with each party providing their proofs and reasons and where the general consensus is being taken up without disrespecting any opposition party's opinion. I hope Za-ari-masen will evade this process and won't engage in further NPOV dispute with other editors as accused. Kingarthur581 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to disrespect anyone here and I didn't say it's an Indian vs Bangladeshi scene. My only intention was to accurately describe the situation. I apologize brother if my comment sent a wrong message which was not intended. Nomian (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I DID NOT HEAR THAT is best way to describe the attitude Za-ari-masen pursues. He has been blocked multiple times for similar set of misconducts earlier as well. Most of his edits which caused him to be reported here, are focused on unsourced PoV tweaks, not about substantial changes in article but rather like changing country of origin being Bangladesh for cuisines/languages/scripts (regularly involves in it and causes disputes) or Bangladeshi victory on liberation war etc..[122][123] He misrepresents sources, rejects or ignores elaborations by other editors, even pushes news articles from barely used sources as "established reliable sources" [124] for whom, not even an RfC ever occurred, (that even without interpreting the context within those sources). He has been pushing for a result unsupported by sources on Bangladesh Liberation War, and always starts to accuse other editors of not assuming good faith towards him, bullying him or gaming the system. But has never cared to failed to provide any sources. He holds serious competence issues and displays gross failures to understand Wikipedia policies about WP:VAND/WP:EW/WP:CANVASSING.[125][126] It is not like that anyone has not tried to help him understanding how system works. [127][128][129][130], he ignores that and instead flamebaits is his own misconduct. It is not entirely true that his misconducts are only because his lack of understanding of sources and wikipedia. But rather his WP:ILIKEIT preferences motivate him to derail underway dispute resolutions. For instance, closure of this ongoing RfC without concensus towards his side, in fact, not even any substantial leaning to his preferred version, yet has an approved version (by which editors?) as a result [131] and in fact had been dragging his entire case in this RfC solely on emotions of editors on his side than any single reliable source. There are plenty more issues he has created and has become a problem for lot of good editors. He clearly is a disruptor than a contributor and should be topic banned until he realises and acknowledges for what he has been reported. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I can see a lot going there — repeating "source" 10 times, discussing an RfC closure (which is still within Za-ari's rights, though the unnecessary revert of the RfC is probably within the right of the reverting editor as well), repeating other editors, and contradictory agrument like he doesn't understand policy and he ignores policy (which, obviously, are not the same)... is there anything in this long and somewhat repeatative post that addresses Chaipau's complaint? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I shared my experiences, but don't forget multiple articles have been mentioned above where Za-ari-masen has aggressively edit warred. For policies, he indeed didn't understand it much. And kept mum on his own misconducts (and misconducts from the editors he favoured as well) to little part he was citing repeatedly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Quite frankly, I do have to agree with the other Oppose !votes. A lot of this has came from assuming bad faith. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would again urge the admins to carefully verify whether the descriptions of the diffs match or not. The source mentioned by Srijanx22 states on page 52, The Rajbanshis are making an effort to rediscover their own script by resurrecting the scripts of the texts written mostly during the 15th century which means the Rajbanshis are not using Assamese alphabet but are trying to create their own separate script which is why I removed Assamese alphabet. The claim of 1990'sguy is false because I didn't call the editor a troll rather described the inappropriate notice on my talkpage as "troll notice" in an edit summary. Aman.kumar.goel has just restated the same false allegation that he has been making against me for a number of times. All my edits are sourced, on Bangladesh Liberation War, I provided quotation from a book published by University Press Limited to back my argument. The news article mentioned by Aman is actually a source from The Daily Star (Bangladesh) which was used in an unsourced stub article, so essentially he was arguing to revert back to the unsourced version of the article without even providing any contradictory source. In both cases, he has tried to reject the sources just because they didn't match his POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support: The above comment by Za-ari-masen is really a case of WP:CIR. Searching for a script does not mean finding it. And then finding that the Rajbangsi script was identical to the Assamese script does not mean that the Assamese script is the Bengali script. I am amazed at these mind-bending inferences. I have noticed no substantive contribution from this editor in any of the articles I have seen so far except POV pushing; nor have I seen any help from him for the community to come to WP:CONSENSUS except never-ending conflict on nationalism issues. I have no choice but to support a topic ban, if not an indefinite ban. This editor displays WP:CIR issues and helps Wikipedia in nothing. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I believe you just killed your case with your last few posts, here and elsewhere. WP:CIR, though unusual, can be a reason for blocks and bans. I requested you to let go and not fight, and you didn't listen. Now you are here.

Even if you get out of this unsinged, please, learn to listen. Wikipedia is written by a community, not individual authors. Not listening in a community is a big problem indeed. Chaipau and Aman.kumar.goel has also complained about this tendency of not listening.

How do you remain compliant to a community if you don't listen to it? Not good, brother. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I have informed the user earlier that their edits are “anachronistic and problematic.”[132] I said to the user: Surely, you know that the Bengal region is shared between Bangladesh and India so don't you think the previous revisions characterizing these as being "Bengali" or from the "Bengal region" of South Asia are better? I agree with the other users here, clear WP:IDNHT and WP:CIR. Also, I find these examples to be more of the same problematic behavior.[133] [134] Even those who earlier supported them here, have now stated the following: How do you remain compliant to a community if you don't listen to it?.Eliko007 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support When there is no doubt about apparent WP:CIR then there should be no doubt towards this proposed sanction. Lorstaking 13:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, because there's plenty of evidence here of people supporting sanctions to clear the decks of opposition. If there's evidence of problematic editing, it's much better handled at AE, where uninvolved administrators can decide whether this is just a content dispute or if there are genuine policy violations occurring. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh isn't covered by any Arbcom sanctions. Hence this issue cannot be handled on AE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• support 6-month topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel's diffs show a pattern of misconduct, but this thread also shows evidence of misconduct by others and disagreement over the severity of Za-ari-masen's poor behavior. Based on what I've seen, I feel Abhishek0831996 has a stronger case, but a possible consensus from this thread would be a temporary topic ban. Worldlywise (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Over 3,000 at Speedy Deletion - is this an error?

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

---

Overnight, CAT:SPEEDY has been flooded with over 3,000 deletions, seemingly all related to the the Middle East. I didn't scroll through all of them, but the first few pages of this looks like talk pages are being deleted. Are these errors? If not, is there a quick way to clear these? — Maile (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The common link looks to be the presence of {{WikiProject Lebanon}} on those talk pages, but I cannot see why or how...the pages themselves are not tagged for deletion. GiantSnowman 13:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it was this [135] on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/To do List2 which is part of the Wikiproject template. I reverted the placement of the speedy deletion request. I assume the speedy deletion template should be noincluded or something but I don't really know. I guess it's probably received enough attention by now that it's no longer needed anyway, if someone feel it's eligible for speedy deletion they can go ahead and make sure they fix the template. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Still in progress - increasing rapidly - it is now 4,264 total. Meanwhile, error or not, we have this glut of thousands that nobody is going to wade through one a time, to find legitimate Speedy Delete nominations. — Maile (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgive any technical ignorance, but surely it is increasing as the server or cache or whatever updates the tags, and then once it's done that it will decrease given the speedy tag has been removed? GiantSnowman 13:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the caches for these pages need to be purged, to receive the new version of the template that doesn't have the CSD notice (which indeed should've been noincluded). Lemme see if I can run through them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Joe's Null Bot still active? Primefac (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I assumed the same thing although I manually purge the Wikiproject template after reading this since I forgot to. (I'm not sure if it's necessary, I also manually purged the todolist but I'm fairly sure editing it is enough.) I also don't know how the backend prioritises purges i.e. does it need to finish updating for the older version of the template before it gets around to the new one? In any case just in case I missed something I also removed 2 more speedies which don't look like they would be included in that template, but out of an abundance of caution. These were on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Announcing [136] and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/outreach [137]. Like with the todolist, these removals were an emergency measure just in case they were causing problems rather than an attempt to prevent speedy deletion. Nil Einne (talk)

I requested access to edit Template:WikiProject Lebanon. My request was denied eventhough I curated that template for a while. I have filled the template sandbox as requested and I am waiting for deliberation. The wikiproject template includes a to-do list that has links to deprecated bot-generated lists; the bot itself is defunct. The list is also very hard to maintain and keep up-to-date. The notice that you saw is directly related to the "To-Do list" transclusion. I am sorry for the inconvenience. If you can hasten the Template:WikiProject Lebanon modification it would unlink the template from the to-do list. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, speedied that page per the author's request, good spot. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, related changes (under tools) on the left can help finding where the problem may originate if you visit a page and it doesn't seem to have been directly changed. See e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:WikiProject Lebanon for the Wikiproject template or Special:RecentChangesLinked/Talk:24 October Movement for one of the affected/speedy listed pages. Both of these should show the show the to do list although you may need to click the arrow to expand to see the speedy deletion edit summary. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well, as far as CAT:SPEEDY, this issue has been taken care of. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Superbsic

Superbsic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account less than a week ago and has been primarily active within the last 24 hours. Since then has indulged in an almost exclusively disruptive pattern of editing on several articles including a BLP. To me it seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Timeline of Diffs is as follows; the exact times are in IST:

• 11:09, 2 September 2020: Adds the unsourced term "Jihadi" to the ideology section of an organisation which already lists "Islamic fundamentalism" while leaving the edit summary of "Fuck Islam".

• 12:41, 2 September 2020: Removes a reliably sourced term "militant" alongside its references from the article of another organisation with the edit summary of "minor spelling and word editings" while marking the edit as minor.

• 12:58, 2 September 2020: Adds the unsourced terms of "Naxalite" and "anti-national" to the lead of a BLP with the edit summary of "minor word changes" and again marking the edit as minor.

• 13:01, 2 September 2020: Repeats the same as above after being reverted and warned.

• 13:42, 2 September 2020, 13:44, 2 September 2020, 13:44, 2 September 2020, 13:47, 2 September 2020, etc: Spamming a number of editors with the same message stating that "they have been on wiki for a long time" and requesting to be nominated for RfA.

• 13:53, 2 September 2020: Repeats the same action as in the second diff, this time leaving the references intact.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Here is a note I just left on their talk: Hi there Superbsic, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I'll be frank and honest, I feel like you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In the short amount of time you've been here 3 admins have already left you notes on your talk. You have been leaving extremely rude edit summaries, constantly removing sourced content, breaking NPOVs, going to multiple sysops' and crats' talks and asking for adminship despite clearly failing all the requirements, and edit warring at Bajrang Dal, breaking sanctions, all of which can be seen in contributions. The only positive contributions you've made have had to be reverted because you improperly used images. It is very likely you'll be blocked and I thought I might as well make this before you ask why. No constructive contributions and mostly disruptive editing. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block as NOTHERE, but I'm feeling nice this morning, so let's see what they have to say for themselves. Of course, now that I've tried to AGF they're probably going to be CU-blocked within an hour GeneralNotability (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The spamming of RfA suggestions is pinch of salt territory for me. The rest is pretty bad, but as GN said above I'm not against a ban, but it's too borderline for me to want to enforce one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The "Fuck Islam" edit summary combined with the other inappropriate behavior described above leads me to conclude that this editor should be indeffed. I would do so myself, except that I gave the editor some advice at the Teahouse, which they have not yet followed. Though my involvement is minor, I think it would be best for a completely uninvolved administrator to make that decision based on the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary was offensive, but categorizing Lashkar-e-Taiba as a Jihadist organization seems correct. At least it matches the Jihadist-related categories already added to the article. If not banned, Superbsic should learn to avoid using misleading edit summaries. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

UTRS unblock requests

One of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was ensnared in a range block dated August 2. That unblock request can be viewed at this link. She made a similar unblock request via UTRS after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7. That second unblock request can be viewed at this link. I'm wondering why there's a "Handling administrator" among the listed "Appeal details" here but not here. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place to ask? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing a handling administrator is not listed in the second unblock request because it was closed without comment or further action, unlike the first, which was "claimed" by JJMC89 before it was closed. It was closed by Ohnoitsjamie, as one can see in the activity logs. Why do you ask? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for your response. I'd asked because I was hoping the handling administrator would clarify the reason the unblock request was declined. My understanding is that administrators are able to post comments on UTRS requests that only other administrators can see. Can you confirm that there are no such comments at either this link or this one? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: (?) HistoryManUSA (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether there are or not. If you want more information on the decline, you should ask Ohnoitsjamie, although I see from your talk page you're already in communication with them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for your response. Administrator Ohnoitsjamie has explicitly refused to respond to me further and falsely suggested I'm a blocked sock who's created this account for the sole purpose of wasting people's time, but I'm planning to try again. HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Hi again. You appear to be the closing administrator for my UTRS appeal of a talk page block, as well as for a UTRS unblock request made by one of my relatives. Would you mind telling me how many private comments from administrators there are at this link, and this one? HistoryManUSA (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: After at least 80 contributions today, administrator Ohnoitsjamie still appears to be intentionally violating WP:ADMINACCT, and especially the communication principle. Can you direct me to any policy that would clarify my remaining options? HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're trying to do. If you're trying to appeal a block on behalf of someone else, you don't have any; blocks have to be appealed by the person who is blocked. If you're "just curious" or something, then that's okay I guess, but you're raising way too much of a fuss about this for that to be the case--accusations of violating ADMINACCT are not to be thrown around lightly just because someone won't satisfy your curiosity. If you yourself are the person who is blocked, then...apparently you're a block-evading sockpuppet, as the HistoryManUSA account itself obviously isn't blocked. So...I don't know what your goal is here, and I don't know that I can help you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for responding. I'm not a "block-evading sockpuppet", and I'm not "trying to appeal a block on behalf of someone else", and my suggestions that administrator Ohnoitsjamie is violating WP:ADMINACCT aren't being "thrown around lightly". As I've explained above, one of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7, and I'm raising good-faith concerns about administrative actions relevant to the reason the unblock request was declined. How many private comments from administrators are there at this link? HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Response from Narky Blert

(nac) From your links, all those blocks were applied to anonymous IP ranges. The best get-around for an honest editor is to register a named account. That doesn't stop all rangeblocks (to which WP:ADMINs are immune), but is likely to get a more sympathetic and speedier response to an {{unblock}} or UTRS request.

I speak from experience. I have only ever edited while logged-in, but have three times been collateral damage in a hard rangeblock, in two of which I was unable to post anywhere in any Wikipedia (though I've heard since that there are obscure bits of Meta which might have been open to me). I didn't even know about UTRS until after my second block (hey, I'd only made 100,000 edits), which needed off-wiki emails and some hours work by at least two admins to get lifted. (YOU try contacting a steward who either (a) doesn't respond to emails or (b) whose email is closed.) I live in a block of 80 apartments, and imagine that the idiot vandal(s) had the same IP as me. Narky Blert (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Thanks for the advice and the sympathetic story. What's "(nac)"? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryManUSA: Non-admin comment; to show that an editor giving advice is not speaking with the authority of one with adminship. Narky Blert (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Got it. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith editing by User:Andrew Davidson

Concern is regarding an issue (singular) with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). I'll be short. What the fuck is this [138]? Isn't this as egregious as someone putting a picture of a certain person who says bigly, beside an article titled Mental disorder? I don't go around digging someone's edit history. But I am confident that despite being aware of BLP policies, he made a troll page to provoke others. I have zero intentions of ever communicating with him in the future but I want to ask him here. What's your obsession with Greta (who was then 16)? His version was removed here and here (by User:ජපස and User:Bradv respectively), which means it stayed in public and indexed for more than a year perhaps. - hako9 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"I don't go around digging someone's edit history." - but you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? The picture seems fine in the context of that one-line stub. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? What? The article has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety. - hako9 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, but that's not obvious from the diff you provided. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target:
  • [139]- accuses User:Ajf773 of racism
  • [140]- more accusations of racism, this one leveled at @Piotrus:
  • [141]- accuses User:Soetermans of shilling for Fandom, Inc.
  • [142]- Further accusations of racism
• Good luck getting AfD closers to acknowledge these personal attacks, but maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI. Reyk _YO! 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article in question is currently at AfD, where I have explained some history of the article. It was initially based on this BBC article, which highlighted Greta Thunberg in this context, including the cited quotation of hers. I read that BBC article at the time, noticed that we didn't have a corresponding article and so got one started. Lots of other editors have expanded the article since and I've mostly left them to it. This just seems to be ordinary editing per WP:BOLD. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you, for instance, put a picture of Sushant Singh Rajput in an article titled depression, with his quotes (out of context), in the caption. The BBC article doesn't put her picture as the top display. Is this not completely un-encyclopedic? Isn't this enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate this article with her personal life and her mental health, all in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks a lot, for leaving this articles to others. The harm you caused would maybe be more difficult to fix than creating an article from scratch. - hako9 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(after several edit conflicts) No, "his version" was not removed in those edits. He neither created the caption removed by User:ජපස nor the text removed by User:Bradv. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Phil Bridger: for pointing it out to me though, that those weren't "his versions". Striked that word. - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The OP is now claiming that I have an "obsession with Greta" and adds some innuendo about her age. But the OP fails to provide evidence of such an obsession. So far as I recall, I have never edited the article about her and it wasn't on my watchlist when I looked at it just now. I don't think I've even read the article before as it was interesting to discover that her second name is Tintin, which I was not previously aware of.

What I have done previously is create some other articles about environmental topics including beach cleaning; back to nature; ammonia pollution; decline in insect populations; plogging; Boyan Slat; sharawadgi. I have also created hundreds of articles on a variety of other topics as I'm not especially obsessed by any particular topic. One such other article was give a dog a bad name and hang him. I don't recall exactly, but suppose that was inspired by some similar proceeding here at ANI. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was it interesting for you to discover her second name is Tintin? - hako9 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of articles about ecoanxiety mention Greta. She represents worrying about the environment rather well. I don't see this is an insult. Why call it a "mental disorder" when people are worried about the environment? Dream Focus 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Look at this version (before today's nomination)- [143]. Quoting from the article's lead Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg, is a high-profile example of youth who have been affected and has been pivotal in making climate anxiety more visible around the world. At the age of 11, she became seriously depressed because of her worries about global warming, although her anxiety exacerbated her pre-existing mental health problems. Here is the source (paints a completely different picture imv)The Guardian. Do you find anything wrong? If not then ask yourself, what is this article about. Is it about psychological emotion or about a girl and her personal life. If a line on this and her past was included in her own article, that would've been fine. This isn't. - hako9 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't in the original article he created. Her article has a section for her mental health issues including depression. Greta_Thunberg#Mental_health Dream Focus 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus, It wasn't. But I'll repeat, his creation of the article was done with a purpose of enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate the article with her personal life and her mental health, in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds rather ridiculous. Why would you believe someone would create an article for that devious purpose? How exactly would that even work? You honestly believe he somehow knew others would come and add in more information that you find offensive, despite it being listed in her own article? Dream Focus 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The section on her page distinguishes completely, her past and the issues she overcame, in contrast to her activism later in life. The article portrays that the psychological response in teens is unsubstantiated by way of making her the poster child of people who had issues earlier in life, and who are known for that mere reason. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Not seeing an ANI-level issue here. Would need much more evidence to make the case for a tban or some other sort of action. I don't agree with Andrew's editorial decision in that article, but don't think it rises to the level of a behavioral problem. BD2412 suggested a very sensible approach to handling the article(s), and as Reyk's comments show, the longer this stays open the more likely it is to drift into other issues. If something's going to happen with Andrew (or ARS, since that's relevant to this AfD) it's probably not going to happen in the context of this thread. $0.02 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI- every time I allow myself the least bit of optimism I end up disappointed. Why do I bother? Reyk _YO! 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like I stand corrected. Usually bringing up unrelated issues with regard to the subject of an ANI report, when the initial report doesn't have much meat to it, doesn't go anywhere (and IMO weakens those same arguments for when they are relevant down the road), but it looks like perhaps enough is enough [for a warning]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Although the diffs provided by Reyk are much much more serious, can someone please comment on whether an article creation like this is ohk? Am I losing my shit over a paltry issue or does my concern have maybe, an iota of validity? - hako9 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, I understand what you're saying and I guess my passive agressive complaining just now wasn't a good idea. But sometimes you just can't satisfy everyone. If I protest at the AfDs, closers ignore it. If I start an ANI myself people will accuse me of just having an axe to grind. If I attach my concerns to another ANI regarding insinuations against people who don't deserve it that's too off-topic. If I wait for a more AfD-centric discussion I'll get dismissed because the alleged misbehaviour was too long ago. Reyk _YO! 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Chin up, Reyk! Lev!vich 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning and urge Andrew Davidson to take it seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• I also endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning, and will enforce the same if I see uncivil conduct continue. BD2412 T 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Adding my support and my endorsement to this as well, please take this seriously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's nearly ten years ago (I did have to check, it wasn't imprinted on my brain) that I blocked Andrew for equating deletionists to Nazis, I really would have hoped that this would have improved since then. It really should. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I had thought this complaint was something of an exaggeration until I saw this diff. Here, the user lists three sources that are ostensibly about the topic of eco-anxiety. The problem is that none of the sources are about eco-anxiety. None of them use the term even once. This kind of appalling editorial indiscretion is an enormous red flag. I don't know what to do about it, but it's clear this user is here to use Wikipedia as a venue for his own original research rather than a means to collate what third-party sources say about a topic. This is a really big issue as far as I'm concerned -- especially as the user seems to have sufficient abilities to make it appear as though he is following Wikipedia standards and practices when in fact he is flouting them completely. Something needs to be done. jps (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. The OP who couldn't properly link a WP:DIFF aside, I was pinged by Reyk and I do concur that Andrew's behavior in some areas of the project is problematic, in two dimensions. First, an occasional lack of civility is an issue, coupled with a significant amount of POINTless disruption with AfDs. Few examples: 1) an edit summary accusing others of disruptive PROD (I think it is deleted now). 2) in another recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull Cave Andrew accused the nom (me) of "abuse of our deletion process"; his Keep vote was the only one there and User:Argento Surfer explicitly said 'you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse"' 4) another recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee saw where his keep vote was the only dissenting one saw him making yet another personal attack at the nom (me): "The nomination's claims are therefore false.". This has been pointed out by User:GizzyCatBella [144]. 5) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbird (comics) he accused the nom (me...) of "cookie-cutter" nomination, his post there led to explicit criticism by User:Darkknight2149: [145]; and he used the cookie-cutter in other AdDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle where again his vote was the only dissenting one 6) a pattern of dePRODing articles with an unhelpful rationale, and not participating in the resulting AfDs even when pinged directly (I could link dozens of cases like the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaran or the still ongoing but quite clear Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club; here's a random one from few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Clark - please note that this is not a case of 'once every few weeks', but rather 'several times a week'); this is particularly problematic when the dePRODs are done on content that is unreferenced and later not contested by anyone like the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wingmen_of_Thanagar. His pattern of dePRODing has been subject to numerous complaints before like this recent one by User:DoubleGrazing: [146]; they are easy to see because Andrew habitually removes such warnings from his talkpage... through some discussions are preserved: User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Mass_prodding_by_Piotrus, few more at User talk:Andrew Davidson/deletion discussions but I think most are not archived and I don't have the time and will to dig through the diffs of his talk page. ANI archives, however, are more stable: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. I really don't know what to do, since this is not white and black, some of Andrew's dePRODs are valid, and so are some of his AfD comments. But the ratio of bad to good is a problem here. I really don't like the idea of sanctions when an editor is editing in good faith, and even through I disagree with Andrew quite a lot, I am not sure I'd support any topic ban. But one suggestion I do have is a custom sanction that would force him to provide a meaningful rationale with his dePRODs. Check: [147] and remember that it only shows kept articles (or ones nobody bothered to challenge again). But a lot of the stuff he dePRODs with no edit summary, not bothering to comment in AfD, effectively wastes community time (and I repeat - if anyone wants more data points, I can easily list several dozens of articles that Andrew dePRODed with a generic edit summary, that he did not participate in a resulting AfD even after being pinged, and that were uncontroversial deletes). And when he comments in those AfDs, as the diffs show, too often those comments are not constructive nor polite :( PS. To be clear: I don't mind deprods, and I don't want to topic ban Andrew from dePRODs, but what I see is a pattern of mass dePRODing with no BEFORE on his part, as evidenced by mentioned dozens of articles that he PRODed with no rationale, that in turn were AfDed with him being pinged and where he did not participate, and nobody else found any reason to keep an article. When this happens dozens of times each months for years now I think we have a problem. Andrew needs to stop dePRODing on a whim, and when he occasionally participates in a resulting AfDs, he needs to AGF the nom and make his arguments constructive, not battleground-ish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, I did not link a diff because I had a single issue with the user. That of creation of an article with a picture and caption of a person to try to portray that person as maybe an environmental alarmist at best and a person with mental health issues at worst . If no one finds this as an issue of malintent, it would be better that I strike my comments and let others speak. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. - hako9 (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hako9, in my opinion, the matter you brought forward is worthy of attention, and is relevant to the broader discussion, and there is no reason for you to apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Apologies are under-used here, but yes, this was my mistake - I didn't realize you meant the very first diff. Through next time it wouldn't hurt to make it more clear. I apologize for dismissing the OP's link. This is not a waste of time. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a gracious thing to say, Piotrus. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I... I really wish this wasn't something to thank me for. This project would be in much better shape if people would be more willing to say 'sorry' and 'thank you' more often. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, Oh man. Thanks for saying that. From the beginning of starting this post, I was constantly thinking, Am I assuming the worst in people or have I gone completely insane. I just want to make a final comment. I don't want any action against Andrew (atleast for my complaint of creation of that article. Reyk's and your issue, needs different look). I just want someone to say to Andrew that, Dude, that article, with that picture and that caption, was 100% INSENSITIVE and you just can not do that. - hako9 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I'll say that my interactions with Andrew have probably been disagreements at least as often as not, but I believe he's a net positive for the project. His standards for inclusion are lower than average, but his quality of contribution is higher than average - when he was reviewing a DYK nom for me, he actually bought the book and read it before passing so it wouldn't just be a rubber stamp. Although I can appreciate the sheer volume of deletion noms he wants to oppose is probably overwhelming, I would encourage him to put effort into improving the articles he defends rather than add a bullet pointed list of references to the AfD. That effort will either result in some WP:HEY keeps and people will start giving his opinion more weight, or he'll realize his sources weren't as useful as he believed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is nothing egregious here. And there is no need for the OP to say, "What the fuck is..." It does not make the argument better, it is distracting. Andrew Davidson has written a great article and many others on the project...that the OP misinterpreted the intentions of Andrew D who used a photograph of a well known environmental voice, is not the fault of Andrew D. This is also quite a dramatic revert by JPS also with a very...uncivil "Fuck no" edit summary. That the truth is offensive to certain editors is not a problem with Andrew D, and now that everyone has been overruled by Bradv's edit we can move on. Or maybe not...JPS also nominated the article for deletion as possible WP:REVENGE and that seems more egregious and disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• No need for action here except maybe a boomerang. If there was a valid case to make against another editor it should be possible to do so without use of the f word, calling them a troll or assuming you know what they think. Accusations that include phrases such as "He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target". Don't need further investigation - unless accompanied by a diff from the target saying that they hadn't actually meant an accusation but had only done it to annoy. The best way to deal with such attacks is to dismiss them out of hand. ϢereSpielChequers 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, because you know that the Colonel's accusations of racism and shilling are indefensible, you seek to dismiss the complaint by quibbling about its wording. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt they are indefensible, but that isn't the point. Using the F word, calling someone a troll and presuming you know what they think are not some minor typo that could be dismissed as a quibble. If there were valid complaints to make against the Colonel they could have been made without them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should have tried to dismiss my valid complaints before several administrators in good standing backed them up. Bit late to protect your friend now. Reyk _YO! 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• I hope none of our colleagues share whatever moral code led you to conclude that three accusations of racism merit "no need for action" but using the words "fuck" and "troll" merits "maybe a boomerang". Lev!vich 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  The combination of the f word and the presumption of knowing what someone thinks means that I am unlikely to find the rest of the case convincing. a set of diffs setting out an allegation of trolling would be worth investigating, but it would be much much stronger without those two minuses. Taking this alleged accusation of racism. I disagree with the Colonel re the notability of Azerbaijani long service awards. Many organisations have ten year, fifteen year and twenty year long service awards. Wikipedia itself has a service award system, and I'm comfortable that it isn't mentioned in our article on Wikipedia. I suppose if I had taken part in that AFD I might have argued for merge rather than delete, if there were an article on Azerbaijani awards or perhaps to the article on the Azerbaijani government; but can't see myself !voting keep on that one. As for whether it is systematic bias or English language bias or indeed racism the Colonel himself doesn't as far as I can see presume to assume other people's motivation. There is a perfectly legitimate minority view among some in this community that our audience is the English speaking world, and that a topic like this might belong on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but it doesn't really belong here. I don't share that view, not least because there are English speakers practically everywhere but also because our remit is to cover the sum of all knowledge and I'm aware that many of our readers do so via translation tools - our reach is beyond the English speaking world. However I wouldn't assume that someone holding that view was institutionally biased or indeed racist; let alone someone who, like me, wasn't convinced that any organisation's long service award really merits its own article. The Colonel did say some fairly disparaging things about deletionists in that thread, comments that would sink an RFA if he were to run there. But I read him comments as being more polite or less incivil than the person who used the f word and called him a troll. In short I take racism very seriously, I am very sure that the colonel does as well. If he were to accuse someone of racism I am confident that he would do so with good evidence, I don't see him using the word "racism" in that diff. ϢereSpielChequers 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• So mentioning a "system bias" makes you a racist? He comments to someone from New Zealand [148] and someone from Poland [149] how they don't seem to mind if list of shopping malls in their countries don't have sources, but are willing to delete the list of those in Africa. Race was never mentioned nor implied. Just an accusation of a double standard for their own nations perhaps. Not assuming good faith though. Should've been worded differently. Dream Focus 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Dream Focus, Why did you conveniently leave out this diff, where Andrew, called another user (who nac'd an afd) a "presumptious (sic) non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place".

  I am speaking for myself here, but I wouldn't like to be talked in that tone ever. IRL or online. If someone called me a presumptuous guy who needed to be put in their place, I frankly wouldn't complain. But why mention a user's nationality? What was the intent there? Notice the mention of nationality after conjunction "and", as if to belittle someone. Am I reaching here? Or Is this the kind of way and tone to speak to someone? - hako9 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Hako9, actually Davidson is falsely attributing those hateful and racist views to someone else. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading tea leaves to assign motives or racist intent (I personally do not see it). Too often with written word, editors see what they want. Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, How would you classify that projection? Some kind of paternalistic prejudice, to be too polite? - hako9 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just looked at the diffs supplied by Reyk at the top of the thread and I'm utterly shocked, especially from someone who I have worked with in many positive ways to write and improve the encyclopedia over several years. Andrew, this comment is a personal attack and I'm pleased to see that fellow administrators agree that is completely unacceptable to insult fellow editors like this. Please do not do this again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Britney Spears is better than those wannabes

Some POV stuff about Britney Spears being better than other singers is being added to articles by two IPs from Massachusetts. Can we fix this? Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• 2600:1000:B026:D805:FCFE:8588:6FB6:B04F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1000:B016:1079:B55F:FE4B:6324:80CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I've blocked the most recent one for a few days as it's pretty unhelpful editing - but these seem to be fairly dynamic Verizon IPs covering most of the state; we would have to rangeblock a /42 just to cover the range these two are on. It's pretty harmless low-grade stuff so I doubt it's worth taking any drastic measures at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 20:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

May be worth asking at WP:RFPP for protection if they return to specific articles.--Hippeus (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive editing by Arglebargle79

Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor was recently sanctioned for persistent edit-warring. Since then, they made edits to 2021 United States presidential inauguration in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP, which were reverted by another editor. In previous discussions, they have accused me of "deliberate malice" and "vandalism" for supporting the use of this photo of Joe Biden. Today, they added WP:SYNTH to Timeline of protests against Donald Trump which I reverted and warned them about. They responded yet again with personal attacks, accusing me of "stalking" them and intentionally "triggering" them. I also found that they are currently appealing their WP:AE sanction; their appeal contains lies and personal attacks against me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79. They have persisted with this disruption for months on end and have shown no sign of stopping or any acknowledgement of their behavior being disruptive. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find any other explanation. It was @Tartan357's actions which started this whole sad business. I am the victim here, and if anyone should be sanctioned, it should be them.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a.personal thing between me and them. I asked them why they started this, but they immediately went here instead of discussing it in a civil manner...which begs he quesion, can a non-administrator use this symbol in someone's talk page? Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No comments on the validity of this complaint nor its rebuttal, but Arglebargle79, {{Uw-nor4}} is a standard template warning that can be used by anyone, if it's needed. And, {{ANI-notice}} is the required notice for ANI matters. You should have noticed the big, yellow warning in your edit window when you replied here. Notice the word, may. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, the "other explanation" is that there are perennial problems with your editing. Please stop accusing me of misconduct without evidence. What you wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79 was particularly frustrating. This has been going on for months, and at this point, it's harassment. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not examined this at all, so I'm not juding who is right or wrong, but "I cannot find any other explanation" exposes a logic flaw - the Holmesian fallacy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Which is why we are here. They could have explained to me why they did it on my talk page or the DNC page's talk page, but no. They came here to have me blocked.Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The chance someone is willing to explain why they did something tends to go way, way down when the way the person seeking an explanation asks is to accuse the editor of "stalking" and trying to "trigger" them, rather that just politely asking "hey, can you explain why you did X?" If that's your definition of discussing things in civil manner, I think that's a key part of the problem.Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that despite that, I have explained the reasoning behind my reverts every single time. As have all other editors involved. See User talk:Arglebargle79#September 2020 for the most recent example. Arglebargle79 simply refuses to see what's right in front of them, and has gone so far as to deny that they've written things that there is clear evidence of. It's WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is perhaps best exemplified by their relentless war against the Joe Biden photo. Despite being sanctioned by the community for warring over it, they still, months later, are claiming: There was no consensus about it and the other was far superior. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't. The first time, an offensive photo, to me, was replaced by a photo that was approved by everyone and is currently used by the campaign and its partners for the campaign. There was no harm no foul. The first thing done was to have me sanctioned. The last time, Tartan357...He KNEW about how I felt about the photo, The chart was created by me and I wasn't under any obligation to use it. But he, KNOWING how I would react, changed it to the offensive photo in question deliberately. The Community didn't sanction me, a single Administrator did after Tartan complained again, nobody else had any problem with the second photo, which was agreed for that page by consensus. It was a compromise. I accepted it and Tartan didn't. People change photos every day of the week here. Also, I asked him why he did AFTER he complained and started sanctions against me because he did so first. The second time, I asked again, and he said that it was the consensus picture, even though it wasn't. The warning about the Inaugural article was fictional and the march article was entirely links to other articles. There was no "original unpublished" research. Like I said above, it seems personal. I think I need an apology. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

How's this as a compromise: Except for the timeline, GE debates, and the general election article, there aren't any left that needs major revision. The people who are doing the GE debates are doing an excellent job, and there's no reason for me to interfere. The GE article itself, won't need any real revisions until Election day. and there's no real reason to go near there since it will be primarily be the tabulations of the popular results and their analysis. As to the inaugural article, I'll leave it alone for the time being, although I think it's a bad idea. If Trump accepts a Biden win (or vice versa) then there won't be any need for any revision at all. Tartan doesn't go after me and I won't complain about them. Live and let live. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please just stop harassing me with your endless, baseless accusations. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to @Tartan357's kind link, we have the letter of the law" on this particular subject I quote:

"Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."

A perfect example of this sort of thing is deliberately replacing pictures with ones All knew were objectionable to a certain party (me)

Another quote from the "letter of the law" on the subject:

A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page.

An example of this is very thread, albeit this isn't "numerous" yet. . Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: please provide evidence Tartan has ever given you a questionable warning. AFAICT, they have only given you 2 warnings both of which seem reasonable. One back in June for edit warring. Another a day or 2 ago for no original research. Both of these seem to have been reasonable warnings. Please also provide evidence that Tartan357 is changing images to target you. I don't give a flying flip how much you hate an image nor that Tartan is aware of your hate. What we need is evidence the change is an action targeted at you. Finally, I think you're missing my main point anyway. I wasn't really intending to comment on whether harassment had occurred initially. My point was that you couldn't have it both ways. Either you can accuse the editor of harassment and triggering you, or you can say the editor should have politely and civil discussion the reasons for the changes before coming to ANI. You can't accuse someone of harassment etc then turn it around and say but wait, they shouldn't have come here since they should have just politely discussed their changes despite my accusations. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I probably wouldn't have give you a NOR warning for the small number of edits Tartan357 reverted here [150]. As I articulated on your talk page, your editing was problematic since you provided no references so whether the inclusion of these items is justified is not something we can actually check from any sources since there are none. You cannot ask people to check out other articles. That said, removing the 2020 Republican National Convention protests from that list, even given a lack of direct citations, was a bit weird.

However while the specific example Tartan357 chose was perhaps not the best example to challenge you on NOR, you have had significant problems with OR in the past. This version of the 2021 United States presidential inauguration is an obvious example. Most of that content was introduced by you [151] [152]. Quite a few editors did indeed note the problems Talk:2021 United States presidential inauguration#What this article should be used for in the coming two months or so. (perma link) and [153] and [154]. While OR is not the only problem, it's definitely one of them.

I had an idea of your work there hence why I said that the NOR warning seemed justified. I don't think your going to get much sympathy for that singular warning, given the clear problems with your editing as well illustrated by the inauguration article, even if the timeline article perhaps wasn't the best example to concentrate on.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this whole sad mess is about ONE SINGLE PICTURE and that alone.

• The facts;
  • In June, I found the original consensus picture of Joe Biden changed to another one that I objected to. I found that the person had changed it to the objectionable picture pretty much throughout the series and that there was NO consensus, nor any discussion on the Same, so I changed it.
  • @Tartan357 (or someone else) changed it back. S/he insisted that it was consensus, and sent a formal complaint about me.
  • I contested the complaint and was given sanctions.
  • I tried and got a consensus on the use of a different photo in the Democratic convention page.
  • I posted a chart on that page using the consensus picture of Biden. I was under no obligation to use the objectionable picture. No one objected.
  • A week or so later, @Tartan357 changed the picture on the chart to the objectionable one. (see the above quote on harassment)
  • I changed it BACK.
  • @Tartan357 complained and succeeded in making further sanctions against me.

There was no reason for @Tartan357 to change the consensus (for that page) picture in the Chart. NONE. If s/he had decided to change it to another picture I almost certainly wouldn't have been triggered. I have asked Him/Her why s/he decided to use that particular picture and this thread is the result.

S/he also my saying that I found the picture to be personally very objectionable to attack me.

These are the facts as I see them. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, this really is not about the content dispute anymore; it's about your conduct. However, I will direct you yet again to my comments on the merits of the photo as you're insisting I've never provided any: Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. I and all other editors involved have explained ourselves well ad nauseam. Your statement that no one objected to your edit-warring is patently false: User talk:Arglebargle79#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion (2). In that discussion, you were also reminded by SecretName101 that you do not WP:OWN the content you create on Wikipedia. You created the table, but that does not mean you alone can edit it. Stop making things up. Nobody has wronged you; in fact, we've been very patient. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Patient? You immediately had me sanctioned!...The link was before your chamge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Stop. That is a lie. I first warned you over your edit-warring on June 12. Your sanction was applied on August 18. Two months is not "immediate". — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions were first imposed in June. then you did what you did, then more sanctions were imposed. then you sent us here. I am just as sick of this as you are, if not moreso. AS to disruptive editing, there were over two thousand (I think, don't hold me to that number) edits on the DNC page in a period of two weeks. It was in a state of chaos. It is clear that we remember things differently. It's about the picture, everything devolved from that. I don't want to fight with you and As I said before, the major issues with the series have pretty much been settled. I'm trying to defend myelf from what I consider to be false charges with what I firmly beleive to be the truth. that's all. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: I see no evidence sanctions were imposed in June. You escaped sanctions with a final warning based on your commitment to wait for a consensus before changing the picture again. Although you apparently quickly broke this commitment in June, you still escape sanction until August. It's probably fair to say that Tartan357 did try to have you sanctioned in June but this was understandable given your edit warring and the going against your commitment to stop.

Since sanctions were never actually imposed, it's incorrect to say "immediately had me sanctioned". A sanction imposed in August for something which started in June is not immediate by any reasonable definition. Precision and accurate summaries of what happened matters which is unfortunately a problem you seem to keep having.

Also I see no evidence presented above that Tartan357 is trying to "trigger" you. As I said, your personal dislike of the image is at this stage largely irrelevant both because you have failed to really articulate your reasons for dislike of the image and also because of your ridiculous behaviour e.g. persistent edit warring even after promises to stop and continued false accusations of vandalism and other false or misleading claims. If you want editor's to care about your personal aesthetics concerns, stop treating your fellow editors so poorly.

I don't entirely understand why Tartan357 is trying to change to that particular image, but at the same time your summaries have been so poor I see no reason to investigate further and perhaps there is merit in using the same image of Biden in most articles relating to his presidential bid.

To give another example of why you claims are unconvicing. You stated above "I tried and got a consensus on the use of a different photo", but AFAICT, there is no such consensus. As other editors have already told you, this discussion which you keep linking to Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's image, in the top infobox, died out with nothing even close to a consensus.

This discussion Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's photo (which for some reason you never seem to link to) is a little better since the only people involved seem to accept your suggestion, however it's nothing close to any real consensus. Especially since there were concurrent discussions elsewhere Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. At most, it could be taken as a reason to keep that specific image in that one location until there is agreement to change.

And of course it still wouldn't justify edit warring and especially not in other pages. Indeed you were subjected to the 1RR restriction/sanction in part because you claimed there was a consensus when non seems to exist.

P.S. I don't think you want to encourage people to look through your edit history e.g. [155]

P.P.S. To be clear, when I say location I mean the infobox which is what that discussion seemed to be about. It's insufficient justification to require that the image must be used elsewhere in the page. To be fair, there doesn't seem to be consensus to use any other image either, so it's bit of a crap shoot and first contributor's choice may be as good as anything. Frankly I think the reason those discussions are so poorly attended is because no one cares as all the images seem fine. And important point here. If instead of edit warring on the DNC page, you had opened a new talk page discussion, pointed to that previous discussion with the very weak agreement to use your preferred image, and I mean the right one, the Biden's photo one not the earlier discussion; and importantly not accused anyone of vandalism or trying to trigger you, the photos may have been returned to your preferred image. Because you handled this so poorly, the result isn't surprising.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Not that it matters, but I was not the one who chose the photo in question. That appears to be a figment of Arglebargle79's imagination, and I strongly suspect they have chosen to take out their frustrations on me because I'm the one who reported them to WP:ANEW. There were several others who were much more involved than me in the use of that photo. It had long been in use at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and still is, representing an implied consensus. It was aesthetically consistent with the other photos in that infobox, and with some general standards that had been discussed. I just reverted Arglebargle79's change and eventually took them to WP:ANEW. We're using that photo consistently across pages related to the primaries, but a consensus did develop to use a photo that Arglebargle79 likes in the infobox at 2020 Democratic National Convention. That is still up, and I did not try to change it. I changed the photo in the balloting table on that page to match the primary series, and other editors, including SecretName101, thought it was reasonable. It's still there. Arglebargle79 started warring over the photo in that table, claiming ownership over the table for having started it. That's what led to the second ANEW case and the August sanction against Arglebargle79. We're using Biden's official VP portrait at 2020 United States presidential election because it matches well with Trump's. Arglebargle79 likes that one, too. They only hate the one used at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and related pages. Throughout this dispute, they have made absurdly false claims in just about every comment. For example, they tried to argue that they hadn't changed the photo when they had, and even left an edit summary saying "it wasn't me". They've also repeatedly falsely claimed that they got a "clear consensus" for their preferred photo, and have falsely claimed that "no one objected" to their change, which they repeated above. Early on, they left this hate-filled message on my talk page: [156]. After the first ANEW case concluded, they created this talk page just to complain about the photo: [157]. During the August incident, they left this threatening message on my talk page: [158]. I could go on and on. Arglebargle79 seems determined to continue edit-warring and harassing me over this photo regardless of the consequences. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question was made by a certain DannyG15. [159], which interestingly, was the only contribution they made months. He had the right to put the picture there, although there was a discussion about it and there was a consensus to get rid of it (I wasn't the only person to find it objectionable). Thus it wasn't the consensus picture, and my getting rid of it in the other articles, in which I believe there were only three)

but wait! The Plot thickens!! on March [160] our good friend Tartan357 changed the picture from the "consensus" one used for the previous few months to the offending one.

The original change was done on March 8 by one User:Nick.mon, who changed it on the main infobox page and the template

Was Nick's making a massive change in the middle of one of those anarchic middle-of-an event moments 'illegal'? I don't think anyone really noticed. All but the Biden picture were pretty much innocuous. there had been heated discussions on pictures before about all the other candidates. But not here.

I was busy with the withdrawn/minor candidates "results section" at the time (as well as the GOP), and then there was the plague (did you know you can get the ′flu in April?) Tartan mistakenly thought that the photo was the official consensus one and he reverted my legal reversions in good faith, inadvertently starting the abovementioned edit war. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a spat with the editor-in-question two or so weeks ago at 2020 Democratic National Convention, concerning (IMHO) his overwhelming 'un-discussed' changes to that article. Arglebargle79 is without doubt 'highly' energetic, but I wonder if within that mix, there might be some WP:CIR issues. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

most of which are to some extent, still there. If someone improves my stuff, I don't object.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please learn to indent properly. Begin your posts with a capital letter & don't use misleading section links in your edit summery. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive/threatening IP, and possible socking or meatpuppetry

This IP 162.238.56.66 just reverted one of my edits at Amiram Nir without explanation [161], and looking at the IPs contributions, I can see that one of their very few edits includes threatening another editor, User:Hipal, with the edit summary, "WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE" [162].

Furthermore, the IP's revert of my edit [163] at Amiram Nir follows not long after the same revert from a different editor: User:Jaydoggmarco (notified of this discussion here). Just a few days before the IP threatened Hipal, Jaydoggmarco had sent Hipal messages that weren't threatening, but like the IP, claimed that Hipal had a conflict of interest [164].

It's weird that this IP has repeatedly now inserted itself into edit wars to support Jaydoggmarco, considering how few edits the IP has. For instance here [165] and here [166] Jaydoggmarco reverts User:Emir of Wikipedia, is reverted, and in the middle our IP 162.238.56.66 arrives to make the same revert as Jaydoggmarco [167].

Anyway, I apologize Jaydoggmarco if this is coincidence, but this is a little unusual. And at the least the IP's threat is out of line. -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging User:RexxS, since you notified [168] Jaydoggmarco that as of July, they are restricted from editing on topics related to American politics post-1932 for a period of six months... but just one month later, in August, they've been reverting [169] text related to possible CIA involvement in the 1984 killing of US DEA agent Kiki Camarena, and is arguing on the talk page there [170] (where you can see I'm also involved). Am I misunderstanding this restriction? -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is slander, The ip isn't me and that edit on Amiram Nir appears to be from weeks ago, Also Hipal has been accused by others of having a conflict of interest. [171] [172] The Kiki article doesn't have the discretionary sanctions alert that the Karlie Kloss one has. I find this grasping at straws to slander me instead debating on the sourcing repulsive. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

People in bad faith and without evidence accuse others of many things. Don't take the bait. It puts you in a very bad light. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The presence, or lack thereof, of the DS alert has nothing to do with your ability to edit the article. You are banned from any article in or relating to the topic area, period. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 13:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've declined to act in this instance, without prejudice to another admin taking action. I have left a serious warning, advising Jaydoggmarco not to test the boundaries of their topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Empty accounts thanking hundreds of times for contributing to controversial pages

User:Check-the-text and User:Check article here are thanking edits by any registered users in certain time frames to controversial articles. I've found blocks of revision histories for Michael Flynn, Christchurch mosque shootings, and various COVID-19 related articles where every editor was thanked. They're probably related to User:Looktheinfo, who was blocked as WP:NOTHERE. None of the accounts have any edits, just hundreds of thank-yous: [173] [174] [175].Citing (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

And add User:LookArticThis to the list [176].Citing (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This type of behavior is usually related to an editor's effort to get extended confirmed protection rights, so they can edit highly controversial articles subject to disruption, pushing some POV. Good faith new editors will make useful NPOV comments on the talk pages, and make useful, productive edits to other articles, even if closely related. But gaming the system by making rapid unproductive edits to get a user status is behavior that is not productive. Let's take a closer look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Just using the thank function without actually editing is unusual behavior but not unknown. It does not count toward ECP, as far as I know, but maybe it is an attempt to "buddy up" to editors in a certain topic area in advance, to soften scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The articles I'm certain of are Alicia Kozakiewicz (revisions immediately before 921924565 were thanked by User:LookArticThis), Anna Popova (all revisions thanked by User:Check-the-text), Michael Flynn (several chunks probably, e.g. the ~100 edits immediately before 955621374 were thanked by Check-the-text, maybe the others too). There's some overlap between the accounts being created/active and they seem to work in short bursts of a few minutes spread by a few days.Citing (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added those three articles to my watchlist and encourage other editors to do so. Burst of editing is commonplace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User Gwen Hope inserts/ maintains nationalistic content on Wikipedia

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

---

User Gwen Hope inserts and maintains content with nationalistic view in Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecanese.

I have tried to revert the changes multiple times and the user insists. Try to protect the neutrality and credibility of Wikipedia by removing nationalistic content and content that is supported by extremistic referencesFrankfedit (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Frankfedit, like I informed you on my talk page, you can't just go around saying a certain sourced paragraph is WP:BIASED and blank it. You need to have a discussion about it on the talk page or, if you have issues with source credibility, take it to WP:RSN.

Since you've brought it here, I will inform you that I've already reported you for vandalism to WP:AIV for your continued section blanking of Dodecanese, of which you've merely deleted with the edit summary saying it was nationalistic. I heavily recommend you read up on Wikipedia's policies on constructive editing.

(I would also like to inform you that you're required to notify a user about an ANI claim you bring against them on their talk page, which as of currently you haven't done.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also reporting me also to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Gwenhope is nothing but excessive and it's clear you didn't read the criteria for LTA at all. Please stop, honey. I don't want to see you dig a bigger hole for yourself. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Frankfedit: note that I'm not the only established user reverting your unconstructive edits. @Paisarepa and TimothyBlue: are doing so as well because what you're doing is vandalism. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked Frankfedit for revert-warring and disruptive editing (24 hours as a first block); speedied the bogus "long-term abuse" page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise,  Thank you very much! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

3rd ANI report

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

---

Ser-rod-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2 previous ANI reports, 2 prior blocks, 9 final warnings (I didn't bother adding another) and the unsourced edits continue. On top of that, no effort has been made to communicate with concerned editors on their talk page. It's really starting to look like they're not here to contribute constructively and a longer block may be needed. Robvanvee 17:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've indef's them for WP:NOTHERE. That's a long list of final warnings, multiple blocks already 2 this year in fact. Enough's enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly! Much appreciated RickinBaltimore. Robvanvee 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:10D3:41F:1083:6A82 and John Joubert (serial killer)

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

---

2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:10D3:41F:1083:6A82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on a rampage with the undo button on John Joubert (serial killer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Please can someone apply restraints? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the 3RR has been broken as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

All I did was restore huge chunks of information that had been removed from the article months ago and somehow went unnoticed by everyone who edits Wikipedia. - 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:10D3:41F:1083:6A82 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are violating the following, at least, WP:OVERLINK, WP:NOTUSA, WP:ENGVAR, WP:CATDEFINE, WP:EL, not to mention the edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked them, not interested in editing collaboratively or in following any of our policies. Lets move along. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually is there a socking/evasion issue here anyone? They're clearly not a new user. Canterbury Tail talk 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocklog for "2600:1702:31B0:9CE0::/64" would seem to indicate this is an IP sock, but I can't figure out who might be master. @Bagumba: do you remember? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/TyrusThomas4lyf.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and violation of WP:BRD and WP:AGF by User:The-Pope

This dispute started when User:The-Pope violated WP:DTR by leaving a message meant for new editors on my talk page.diff He then proceeded to make edits to Damian Barrett, completely restructuring the page on the grounds that it did not adhere to WP:UNDUE diff. I disagreed with his changes and reverted him, though I still implemented some of the changes. He proceeded to revert the edit back, a violation of WP:BRD, and in the process also violated the rules around Rollback only being used in cases of vandalism or disruptive editing. diff I reverted him back, on the basis that per BRD he needed to gain consensus for the changes, and left a message on his talk page asking if we could work things out by discussing them.diff He then proceeded to reply by accusing me of vandalism, and failing to converse in any meaningful way, instead throwing around personal attacks and snarkily acting like he was superior to me diff. He then reverted me for a third time. diff. Quite frankly, I find the complete unwillingness to talk and the shocking pace at which he devolved into throwing out personal space to be concerning, given he is trusted with the Rollback tool. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In my outsider opinion, both of you could use a clue adjustment. I tend to agree with The-Pope that your version of the article was not balanced and improperly weighted negative assessments of Barrett's job performance. It was literally a majority of the article and half the lede; that's not the right balance. That being said, The-Pope's tone is way off base. Wikipedia policy explicitly makes it clear that NPOV contraventions are not vandalism. Repeatedly and dismissively reverting good-faith edits guaranteed that this would end up at an admin noticeboard. If both of you could drop the stick and figure something out on a talk page, it would probably save the admins some time here. Devonian Wombat, out of deference to the BLP policy, I recommend sticking with The-Pope's version for now, and if you feel strongly about your version, take it to a proper dispute resolution noticeboard. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. That wasn't a template; No annoying icon, no annoying "September 2020" header, no "Welcome to Wikipedia". It is too brusque, I'll grant, based on calling it a "hitpiece", but DTR doesn't apply just because some of the words were cribbed from {{uw-npov1}}.
  2. That wasn't an abuse of rollback (there was an edit summary). Non-issue.
  3. The "bold" part was when you (User:Devonian Wombat) added material. The "revert" part is when TP reverted it. The "discuss" part wasn't started by either one of you; the talk page is still blank except for Wikiproject templates. Invoking "BRD" doesn't mean you can write whatever you want, and anyone who removes it is being "bold".
  4. You're both edit warring. DW's self-revert after seeing Jprg's comment was a solid step in the right direction.
  5. It's kind of amazing how, after all these many years, people still throw around the term "vandalism" so loosely. User:The-Pope should really stop doing that.
  6. When there's a dispute regarding a BLP, we err on the side of caution. At first glance, DW was focusing pretty hard on the negative; and putting "The Voice of Treason" as an "other name" in the infobox was not good.
  7. It seems likely that if you both can get over your annoyance with each other and discuss it on the talk page, a better article will result than if either of you tried to create it alone. That's kind of the operating assumption around here.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• You can focus on the dispute, or you can focus on the BLP article as I found it, which, if WP:CSD#G10 didn't have an unsourced requirement, that would have been my first response to seeing it listed in NPP. It had a single neutral intro sentence, then nothing but attacks on the BLP subject. Sure, it had lots of references, but most of the criticism was sourced to tabloid style beat up articles. I was appalled. I modified the standard LEVEL 1 warning and left it on the article's creator's user talk page as I started to clean it up. During my clean up, in which I removed the worst of the opinion and borderline defamatory stuff and actually added an actual summary of his actual career including his many awards, not just a laundry list of feuds and criticism, I had a few edit conflicts. Was very surprised when the other editor kept removing the actual neutral article content. So, I make no apologies for improving the article from an absolute hit piece more suited to a forum/facebook post than an article here, which, I still maintain is a sneaky form of vandalism - which did last for almost a month without anyone else noticing. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think I dropped the ball here. Aside from The-Pope's inability to understand the word "vandalism", he's right about basically everything else. In retrospect, "hit piece" was not hyperbole. And while initially saying DW's version was too negative, I under-reacted to how appalling that initial version was. @Devonian Wombat:, if that kind of thing continues, you may find yourself subject to a WP:BLP-related discretionary sanction. Once I figure out the byzantine system for leaving DS alerts, I'll post one to DW's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  I see User:Woodroar already left him one on 16 August, after the initial creation of the substandard article, but before all the edit warring. Not sure if sanctions should be considered now, or (I think my preference) if this should be considered a final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  In case it matters, I left the DS warning because of this edit, where Devonian Wombat moved (but retained) a court document and added a self-published source on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  If a deliberate and egregious BLP violation isn't the worst type of vandalism then what is? Cluebot can pick up someone adding "poopypants" to a name or changing their weight to 800 lbs. It can't detect this. I stand by my edits. The-Pope (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If no-one minds, I'd like to withdraw my complaint here and apologise. After having a little while to think it over, I do agree that The-Pope's version is better. I still maintain that the accusation of vandalism was uncalled for, but I can certainly see the WP:BLP problem with a good degree of the old version, and I admit I should not have reverted it, so sorry about that The-Pope. In my defense, the revert thing happened around 11pm and I posted this here around 6am, so I think I just was groggy and wasn't thinking straight. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

IP Making Legal Threat at DRN

This rant at DRN by User:217.138.33.132 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=976634989&oldid=976604525&diffmode=source ends in a legal threat, "Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received. " Please block the IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Warned user about making legal threats. An admin can take care of this beyond this point. Goose^(Talk!) 04:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User Arunjithp and AfD's

On this day, Arunjithp has made 24 AfD nominations with no reason for nomination. I have left a complaint on his page earlier, but now find he has made 24 nominations with no reason therefore. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of few living persons without adequate support for references have been marked for deletion. The specific reason (reply to complaint left on my page) for above query will be given on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've just had a look at these - none of them have rationales for deletion, and the first couple I looked at were clearly notable, including one that was a full international footballer. I'm going to be AFK for half an hour, but when I get back I will close them all as invalid unless anyone objects. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it highly disruptive, a good few when I looked are international footballer articles, that's going to be a bit of maintenance to cleanup. Although somewhat thin, the sources do indicate that a lot of these articles can be supported by the sources, so your assumption for deletion seems very floored. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of the AFDs are valid, some are blatantly wrong. But the mass nomination and the lack of deletion rationale are disruptive. GiantSnowman 11:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have seen 4 or 5 of these, and they are all international footballers for Trinidad, so meet WP:NFOOTY. Either way, AfDs without a rationale given should be speedy kept. And if you're going to try and nominate 24 articles about footballers, maybe start a discussion on WT:FOOTY first. And so far as I can see, most or all of the text in the articles is sourced, and no WP:BEFORE seems to have been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, Govvy, GiantSnowman & Joseph2302, they appear to have been questioned & warned about this by OP & also by Fram here but didn’t respond, I was about to say this was probably a new comer with competency issues but I realized they have been here for 13 years. If this is a new pattern of behavior from that user is it possible their account might be compromised or perhaps their editing device might be faulty? At this rate, yes, it is becoming disruptive. Celestina007 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

15 nominations, not 24. But yes, this method of rapid-fire AfDs without any rationale is disruptive, and they should all be speedy closed as keep. If any individual ones have potential merit, they can be re-nominated with an actual good reason (and Arunjithp, simply looking at the sources in the article is not sufficient, you need to do a good -faith search for better sources through e.g. Google (News and Books) or whichever search mechanism you prefer). Fram (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree to speedy keep all of them; some (a minority) appear to be about non-notable individuals. I suggest we speedy keep the ones that are clearly notable (about players who have played at international level) and leave the others open for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 11:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominating at AfD at a rate of 1-2 nominations every minute is evidence of lack of preparations and study of the articles nominated.--Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have closed all of Arunjithp's recent AfDs as "speedy keep" except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaiah Hudson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Peltier which have been endorsed by other editors. I would recommend that Arunjithp studies the advice Fram has given them carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Will be adhering to advice given by Fram Arunjithp (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Arunjithp, there seem to be other issues with some of your recent edits, for example this edit introduced two factual errors (Danger Man was not a “movie” but a 39 episode TV series, in which the subject of the article appeared in only one, and the second film was based on a novel by a different Tom Gill); this one made the meaning less clear. Please be more careful. Also, there’s no need to tag leads with “citation needed” where the information is sourced in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the information in the body. Brunton (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

TySoltaur, WP:EW, adding unref'd content

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

Adding unref'd content to Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show), failing to meet WP:BURDEN. WP:EW behavior repeatedly re-adding unref'd content after reversion. WP:BATTLE attitude based upon edit summary in this revert. Blocked five times for 3RR and edit warring. AldezD (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 2 weeks, in particular, after this gem.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

TPA removal

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

---

Hello, Please remove the tpa of YouNeedToCleanYourEars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Seems to be some sort of LTA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• YNTCYE's one mainspace edit, way back in July 2017 (link), suggests a close connection to User:SoapSoapWhatIsSoap (indeffed May 2017; link), a suspected sock of User:WhenDatHotlineBling. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Nursultan12 - repeatedly recreating article deleted at AfD

The article Faysal Traoré was created by Nursultan12 on 21 August 2020 and deleted by AfD on 29 August. Nursultan12 has subsequently re-created the article on 30 August, 1 September and 4 September.[177] The recreated articles are essentially the same as the article that was deleted at AfD. --John B123 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted and SALTed, which solves the issue short-term. However, there are deeper issues here that need resolving - in short, Nursultan12 is a problematic editor, has a history of creating non-notable articles, removing AFD tags, re-creating deleted articles etc. etc. I suggest a CIR indef block until they start communicating. GiantSnowman 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also socking as Нурсултан Андакулов (talk · contribs) (identical userpage), with overlapping edits on 2020 Uzbekistan Super League. I'll handle this as an SPI. Cabayi (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nursultan12 - both accounts indeffed. Cabayi (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good spot/block! GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Casperti violating topic ban

@El C: Casperti is violating the topic ban from Afghanistan, India and Pakistan,[178] even after being warned earlier about it.[179]

• 4 September[180]: Greets about Afghan Independence Day.
• 27 August[181]: Removes "Northwest Pakistan"
• 25 August[182]: Mentions "Northwest Pakistan"

I would support extending topic ban over a block. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 23:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wabulton

Wabulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to not be here to build an encyclopedia.

• [183] on South Yorkshire Police changed motto from "Justice with courage"to "Justice with courage. Except when our incompetent match commander opens the gates."
• [184] Edit warring to re-insert above.
• [185] Added "Surprisingly, despite these prestigious positions, she had absolutely no idea what a 'woman' was" to a BLP, citing opinions pieces in two UK tabloids.
• [186]Anotrher BLP violation: "The current mayor is Ted Wheeler], a catastrophically weak man who has proved incapable of implementing law and order in Portland."
• [187] And another: "The current mayor is Ted Wheeler, who has served since 2017, and was elected in the 2016 Portland, Oregon mayoral election|2016 election with huge support from his wife's boyfriends."
• [188] Added dubious material about Prince Harry sourced to a UK tabloid.
• [189] Edit warring to keep it in.
• [190] More edit warring.

User warnings:[191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

PeacePeace

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

Looking at roughly their past 500 edits (about a year for them), we have a variety of problematic edits from PeacePeace:

• Suggesting that we should say "QAnon postulates a conspiracy" instead of pointing out that QAnon is a collection of (moonbatshit insane) conspiracy theories
• Whitewashing the OANN article to say that the conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich are not conspiracy theories and to cover up the allegations about Roy Moore
• Whitewashing the OANN article again to pretend that it nobody says it spreads conspiracy theories
• Pretending the Nazis murdering gay men wasn't relevant to an article about gay Neo-Nazis ("but it was unsourced!" -- it was part of the plot summary)
• "the MSM is not a reliable source"
• willfully false information apparently isn't lying, dismissing someone as living "in that hut in Kenya" is somehow not racist
• assuming anti-Trump sources aren't trustworthy and need attribution
• allegedly alleging that alleged allegations were only alleged in defense of the known phenomena of police brutality
• So it's OK to take at face value right-wing claims from OANN, but those on the left can only allegedly claim to want justice?
• Wanting us to remove the well documented (and adequately sourced) point that Ghislaine Maxwell hung out a lot with Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz. (sarcasm)I'm sure it's Clinton's reputation he's concerned about(/sarcasm)
• defending the reputation of Zero Hedge
• allegedly alleging that alleged indictments are only alleged allegations regarding Steve Bannon's co-conspirator in the Wall fraud scheme
• "SPLC is not a reliable source, but an opponent in the cultural war"
• all kinds of whitewashing at the Sean Hannity article: pretending that Birtherism, the idea the DNC may have murdered Seth Rich, and that Hillary Clinton is secretly an alcoholic epileptic aren't all conspiracy theories
• Granted in an edit summary, but putting mass shootings in scare quotes is rather poor form.
• Trying to justify the murder of a child with the argument that the child was wielding a sidewalk as a weapon (I guess the man who approached him with a gun was just defending himself).
• A single article from the Washington Times (which is somehow multiple sources) trumps multiple sources from the Daily Beast, WaPo, and the Hill that address the denial claim make the Times piece is used to push for
• And then there's this bit of dame-smacking chauvinism.

Some edits to religion articles have largely not yet been fixed due to lack of attention, but are problematic nonetheless:

• treating rather specifically Anabaptist views as almost the entirety of "non-RCC" views, arguably dismissing Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans (who disagree with those views as merely "professed Christians"
• asserting that one denomination holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith while another does not
• Citing a blog for their issue with Campus Crusade for Christ not including "Christ" in their shortened name "Cru"
• Apparently all Christians believe in the Rapture, which would suggest that those who do not maybe aren't
• See? Rapture theory dates back to the Church Fathers and that's not just a retroactive reading to justify that interpretation. Cites this mess to support this claim
• Apparently Catholics don't believe that Joseph's other kids were from a previous marriage (or is it that Papist views aren't worth mentioning?), Anglicans and Lutherans don't have saints (or are Anglicans and Lutherans Catholics now?), and fundamentalist blogs are reliable sources
• A single article from Journal of Evangelical Theological Society is completely equal to sources from Oxford and Blackwell
• Catholics are Mariolatrists
• Baptists aren't Protestants? See Baptist successionism for where this WP:FRINGE claim originates
• Trying to justify corporal punishment of children by dismissing researchers as mere "objectors"

They have some edits outside the topics of religion and politics that I'm not immediately spotting issue with, which is why I didn't just indef them. However, in the areas of politics and religion, we have a user who is not here to summarize mainstream sources but wage a culture war. By their own admission they don't accept the reliability of mainstream sources and their actions show they will choose to oppose such sources because of that user's own ideology. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I ran over to their earliest contribs. It would appear this behavior is not a recent trend. Climate change (and other known science that some politicians try to dismiss as political inconveniences) may be another problematic area. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I support a site ban on the basis of this compelling evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Thank you for marshaling the evidence. Neutrality^talk 04:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, site ban for this disruptive person. I was trying to figure out what MSM meant, relative to racist politician Steve King, and I finally realized it meand MainStream Media. So this person does not think mainstream media is a reliable source. WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The edits I have checked definitely do not look good. Site ban is an option, however, they have been here for several years and never got a single warning (in fact, they even got one personal invitation to comment in a discussion). Whereas it is quite possible that they perfectly know what they are doing, there is also a chance they do not understand out policies just because nobody cared to tell them that what they do is not in line with the policies. We can as well try topic ban on politics and religion, broadly construed, and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Here were some (newest first): Special:Diff/969200996 Special:Diff/956743440 Special:Diff/913686794 Special:Diff/913653296 Special:Diff/913598248 Special:Diff/894173638 Special:Diff/865793161 Special:Diff/846608661 Special:Diff/776608157 Special:Diff/736596854 —PaleoNeonate – 07:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I see, I was stupid enough not to check the talk page history. Well, we could still try a broad topic ban, but the fact that they have not listened to warnings makes me less motivated to oppose a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support siteban and/or topic ban from politics and religion, broadly construed. Honestly, there's significant enough WP:NOTHERE that I would not have too much concern of losing even a minimally productive longterm editor--insofar as they appear to have extremely low ratio of productive benefit relative to disruption, and I'm dubious they will move without complaint into other areas where they will be a more sedate and practical editor respecting our policies and neutral approach. All of that said, Ymblanter has a point about there being some benefit in general in attempting the most minimally effective sanction first. The caveat there is that it would be nice if the close made it clear that any admin enforcing the topic ban should feel encouraged to start answering violations of the ban with long-ish blocks (if not an indef from the first violation), so that we are not just kicking the can down the road if this user chooses not to respect the restrictions the community puts on them but instead ignores them, waiting out blocks in a serial fashion. Given what I am seeing above, I think there's better than even odds of that being the general response of this editor to a topic ban. But that skepticism not withstanding, I agree with another point of Ymblanter's observations above: our response should possibly be tempered by the fact that we have not, as a community, yet engaged with this editor about the shortcomings in their approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The user page is also interesting. —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban after checking a few of these, I conclude that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an accurate and NPOV encyclopedia. I do not support a topic ban because it would be difficult to enforce; edits (even problematic ones) to low-watchers religion articles are likely to go unnoticed, which makes them significantly more disruptive. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I'm a little uncomfortable over the lack of any warnings. But I've looked through most of the examples given above, and I'm seeing chronic perversion of Wikipedia to push a personal political and religious agenda. The political issues are possibly less of a problem, as they are more obvious and are easily reverted. But the religious changes are often avoiding detection and remaining for lengthy periods (I've reverted 2 or 3). Given the history and agenda, coupled with PeacePeace's apparent belief that they're an expert in deductive logic (see their user page for their approach to knowledge) and that "The God of the Bible exists; 2) The Bible is the Word of God" are "two self-evident axioms which open the door to knowledge"*, I think this is someone incapable of putting aside their own views when contributing. It's very rare that I'll support a site ban, especially as a first approach solution, but I can't see an effective lesser solution here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  *Clarification: It's not the belief that the Bible is the word of God that's the problem, the problem is the conviction that it's axiomatic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  No, scrap that, it doesn't really get over what I mean. It's the entire approach to knowledge as espoused on the user page that's the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Temperament and name call isues of Adityabill2001

So, this started with this revert [200] of mine at Kolkata Airport, which was perfectly inline with this discussion on the article's talk page here (although at that point I was unaware of the discussion) on August 21. Adityabill2001 comes to my talk page and repeatedly and calls me nepotist mafia . I did try to reason with them and tell them to take criticism (warnings/talk page discussions) in the right manner, continue editing and maintain civility but to no avail the user continued with the temperament and nepotist mafia name calls. I discussed the issue with my NPPS Instructor (Barkeep49) , on my course page. Barkeep gave suggestions on how to deal with a situation like this. I followed Barkeep's instructions and gave a calm reply to Adityabill2001 on my talk page, which went well and everything was over and the user and I had no further interaction until today, when I reverted this edit of Aditya [201] and left an edit summary why I did so , he came to my talk page (after reverting my edit) in decent manner, and I tried to reason with him again but he started saying things like "hope this satisfies you" and I explained to them that its not about satisfying me but policy/consistency and that they could bring it up on the articles talk. They reply you will understand nothing which prompted me to give one last reply before closing the discussion telling them to read policies and wished them happy editing. Before I could close it they reply Bhai, chor de iss baat ko. Tere se nahi hoga (translation hi: Dude, you leave it you can't comprehend this). Honestly, I did not want to bring this to ANI (as I mentioned to Barkeep on my course page) but this name calling business is probably going way too far. Bingobro (Chat) 08:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Just had to revert another edit. Earlier this year they also were edit warring and trying to change the main photo despite clear consensus on the talk page. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The user was blocked for being ignorant and edit warring. He was also rude to me, regarding the infobox image thing. Berrely informed me about this report and saw he went against the talkpage consensus oof the infobox image again. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha:, @Berrely: I just got this on my tak page [202], by another user who had been adding the flight on the CCU article. I and Prolix had AGF reverted the users edit. Strange thing is no interaction when I reverted it or when Prolix reverted it but as soon as Adityabill2001 is no longer editing, User:NilInfinite has gone to my talk page, Prolix's talk and Berrely's talk page too. A sock perhaps? Bingobro (Chat) 09:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Bingobro, yeah I was about to ask them that, quite likely, but there isn't sufficient evidence. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Improper and Harassing Behavior

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

I have just joined the community and am very concerned that edits are being made which are political in nature and do not reflect his communities own policies. I have made edits which include truthful content - with supporting citations - to the pages of Governor Gretchen Whitmer and to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Richard Bernstein. The information is neutral insofar as it it 100% accurate and truthful. Yet - on multiple occasions, two editors revised my content. This indicates a pro-Democrat political bias to for these editors and for Wikipedia. If that is the case, then Wikipedia is not fulfilling its mission as advertised in its own policies and terms. The editors were JohnFromPinckney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnFromPinckney and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muboshgu I need some assistance with restoring my edits and stopping these editors from harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaGuy (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC) MichaGuy

This user has left a legal threat on his own talk page in response to a warning. Esowteric+Talk 11:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

MichaGuy, can you explain how you missed the enormous When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ to do so. I'd also advise you read WP:BOOMERANG quick smart. Glen (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay I see I was too late. Blocked. Glen (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Block aside, it seems to be a content dispute. MichaGuy removing sourced content without explanation. Best discussed at talk pages of the relevant articles. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

MichaGuy seems to have withdrawn their legal threat, but the new block reason by User:ToBeFree is 'Using Wikipedia as a political WP:BATTLEGROUND'. This does appear to be an apt description of MichaGuy's behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the legal threat was just the tip of an iceberg. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of reasonable material & references on the Falkirk Triangle page by editor Denisarova

I have been trying to get the page for the Falkirk Triangle filled with some basic overview material on the history of the area with UFO's in Scotland. The page has been empty & threadbare for almost 2 years. Within about 30 seconds of me putting in a basic overview to start the page an editor came in and just deleted all of it. When i asked the editor to help me develop the page they just ignored the request. What can i do here? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.215 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You should read the warnings and suggestions on your user talk page at User talk:109.249.184.215 which explain the problems with your edit and tell you how to edit appropriately. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Continued harassment by HAL333

• HAL333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HAL333 was warned to stop pinging me at an RfC I disassociated myself from a couple of weeks ago. Today, at an AE case, linked to the RfC, they pinged me for a nonsensical reason. I told them, on their talk page, to stop harassing me. Despite this, HAL333 then "thanked" me for adjusting a spelling mistake in the comment they took umbrage at, ten minutes after I'd told them to stop harassing me. Not only that, this user then left me a barnstar, which I found to be both mocking and passive aggressive. This is a clear breach of WP:HARASSMENT and weaponises our wel-meaning barnstar and "thank" feature, which is being used to harass. Can somebody do something. There is an extensive history of this user harassing and stalking both myself and SchroCat, who because of such people, is no longer part of the project. Cassianto^Talk 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang Cassianto failed to mention that today's ping was prompted by this taunting statement in which he mocked several of us after an editor we had supported was CU-blocked. Because HAL used a ping while objecting to this, Cassianto ran to HAL's talk page to accuse him of harassment. The problem here is Cassianto, not HAL, and he is displaying a stunning lack of self-awareness by opening this thread. Moreover, it's ludicrous to suggest that HAL was harassing Cassianto by thanking him for making a change that HAL had requested. The barnstar may have been a poor decision (or it may have been a sincere attempt at an olive branch), but both myself and HAL have been repeatedly subjected to Cassianto's incivility without any effective measures being taken to bring him in line with WP:NPA. Also, because of such people is a personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, can you tell me how a comment that includes the Cambridge Dictionary recognised word for the pluralisation of a group of males is "a "personal attack"? Secondly, how is it justified, in any situation, for someone to then harass another after they've been specifically told to stop harassing the other person? I had no idea harassment had its boundaries. Thirdly, I didn't "run" anywhere. I'm sat on my settee, with a stunning bottle of red, in awe at such a desperate comment by yourself, simply said so you can to have your say. Desperate. Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Earlier today, Cassianto referred to me, LEPRICAVARK, and two administrators as "messers". I was not familiar with this term: Cassianto often uses British slang. According to Urban Dict, it is "Irish slang for a sloppy or messy person; someone who fails to take things seriously; a hopeless amateur, a gobdaw." Wiktionary defines it as "someone who messes". Accordingly, I respectfully asked Cassianto to strike through this personal attack. Cassianto was annoyed by my pinging him (which plenty of other people were doing at arbcom) and left a message claiming that I was harassing him. I responded courteously, without a ping. Cassianto then corrects the personal attack to "messrs", which, according to Google, is "used as a title to refer formally to more than one man simultaneously, or in names of companies." I found this a clever solution and it actually made me laugh. The barnstar of good humor was an expression of good faith. I was being genuine and met no ill will. I figured it would ease up tensions, but here we are.... ~ HAL333 18:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

If Cassianto doesn't want you to ping him, he shouldn't talk about you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the meaning of that specific word, your overall comment was a blatant, name-and-shame cheap shot in which you taunted several editors that you dislike because I-82-I had been CU-blocked. I believe that's called gravedancing. And if you're going to talk trash about us, you lose the right to complain when one of us pings you in response. A full examination of the evidence makes it clear that the harassment is coming from you, not the other way around. I can't imagine why you thought filing this report would be a good idea. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note I have previously given Cassianto a barnstar after a disagreement, and it seemed to have improved our relations. I was trying to do the same thing again and assumed he would respond similarly to last time. ~ HAL333 18:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• @HAL333 and Cassianto: would both of you agree to a voluntary interaction ban say for 6 months (the length is negociable)?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It Cassianto wants one, sure. How would it work? ~ HAL333 18:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, why dong you deal with the harassment? Cassianto^Talk 18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)