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

Commons admin needed

It looks like we had a serial election maps hoaxer active earlier this year, User:The Empire of History. See this revision of their talk page for some of what got caught earlier. Basically, their M.O. is to create hoax maps of election articles, showing incorrect results (note, the site they seem to be making these on, US Election Atlas, does use nonstandard red/blue alignment for the US major political parties, so it's not just a color inversion thing). Rather, these results are fabricated. For instance, compare File:Georgia 2016, U.S. Election Atlas.png to the correct File:Georgia Presidential Election Results 2016.svg. I've been prodding these as I've found them, but some, including the Georgia one mentioned above, have apparently found their way onto Commons. Obviously, these need deleted ASAP as hoaxes, but it's fairly late where I am, and I don't have the alertness to go through the whole Commons deletion request bit for the Commons one, as I'm not particularly familiar with the Common setup. It's possible some of these are correct, so they'll all need checking, but every single one of the ones I've looked at so far is so error-ridden that it's either a hoax, made up by the user, or just poorly done. I can't stay up all night cleaning this up, so hopefully someone else can take a look, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The place to report this is Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I have batch nominated the images on commons (almost 450!) for deletion, see c:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_The_Empire_of_History (scroll down to the second nomination). I did not conduct an exhaustive search, but given my experience with this particular editor (creating fictional/alt-history election maps), I have little faith that any are worth keeping. I have also blocked The Empire of History as NOTHERE since they've apparently continued playing their history games in their sandbox since I last deleted it...you can't tell from xtools, but they have made 3600 edits, and over half of those are in the deleted sandbox history. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that appears to have caught most of them. I've been hunting down the last few survivors. They were quite ... prolific ... Hog Farm _Bacon 20:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe want to speedy or bulk-XFD the ones here instead of PROD? That will get it done either "faster" or "with centralized record", so we can remember to revisit in a few days and check if any got missed. Same goes for after the suite of commons files get deleted. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll deal with this tomorrow if no one gets to it by then. --Minorax (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Mirhasanov

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

---

Dear Admins. It appears to me that Mirhasanov who is very active on the talkpage Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, commenting virtually under every topic, is not here to help to build the encyclopedia, but to create an alternative view of the history of the subject and to advance the official views of Azerbaijani government. He tries to create illusion that no changes to article could me made without (his) consensus. He claims his aim is to make the article "less biased" and "clean it from pro-Armenian propaganda", although it feels the contrary. He constantly bothers an involved administrator asking for solidarity. Unsurprisingly, he denies the Armenian Genocide in the same talkpage, saying The "Armenian Genocide" term itself is still disputed as Armenians rejects to create common investigation bodies with Turkish officials to investigate what happened on those days. It as multiple times offered by turkish officials and free access to Armenians to Ottoman Archives were guaranteed. - a standard denial trick. Here is a list of his contributions, I can see there were issues with behaviour before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mirhasanov&offset=&limit=500&target=Mirhasanov

Even your complain content is your own opinion and you can't back up with facts about me disturbing or doing any revert war. Silence is an answer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Solavirum%27s_edits_-_removing_Putin%27s_reference_to_Sumgait - Where my purposal also accepted by admin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#IAGS_open_letter - Where I refer IAGS official letter that I have but you refer to Armenian site to include the content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Genocide_Watch - Were I insist the site is not reliable. Site already proved what I said, by deleting all relevant content from the site published previously. genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh - the content was deleted.

I am doing research here and try to reach consensus first to avoid any one sided content to be published. An all my activities are clear demonstration of it. Mirhasanov (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here are just some of the Mirhasanov's edits that are worth of administrative attention, but as I said earlier, the whole behaviour and skewing the sentences rather than separate edits are suggestive of agenda / POV-advancing.

• Here and here he tries hard to a modify Putin’s statement about Sumgait pogrom against Armenians starting this war into a revisionist conclusion that Sumgait pogroms were preceded by “ethnic crimes” by Armenians, and then “pogroms against each other” happened, then refuses to bring any sources apart from his own POV, accusing me of serving the “propaganda machine”.
• Here and here, he makes every effort to put Genocide Watch organisation under a dark light only because their statement contained accusation of Azerbaijan of genocide The chair is known for his pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statements (stating that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians is a pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statement in the editor’s understanding). He expresses his POV denying each of “10 stages of genocide” without sources, going as far as denying Armenian Genocide himself.
• Here he claims he had “an email from IAGS” that rejects the ownership of their letter” and wants his words to serve as evidence.
• Here he offers getting in touch outside Wikipedia with two user both of which were recently blocked / banned from editing the article. I suspect those out-of-wikipedia online meetings are advancing of Azerbaijani POV as a group.
• Here, an involved admin confesses that he is getting tired of the user constantly pinging him to every little issue on this page, particularly ones where it's not clear what is he expected to do.Armatura (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one incredibly uncomfortable with anyone who denies the Armenian genocide being allowed anywhere near articles which deal with Armenia in any way (including anything relating to the current war)? Is denial of the Armenian genocide so widespread among Turkish and Azerbaijan editors that we'd cut off most of them if topic banned them? Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Turkey and Azerbaijan are the only countries in the world that (unsurprisingly) officially deny that there was an Armenian genocide.Armatura (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Having worked on the article in question since the outbreak of war in late September and reviewing contributions, I'm of the opinion to support a topic ban against Mirhasanov from WP:AA2 topics. While I think that some of the evidence provided by Armatura is not as bad as it's made out to be (mostly the objections to Genocide Watch, a source which has received a mixed response in a recent RSN discussion and which was sharply denounced since then, from an Armenian POV no less, in an open letter by the president of the IAGS [1]; I think that the comments regarding the inclusion of content about ethnic violence the Background section also fall below the level of requiring sanctions when reviewed in the context of that discussion as a whole). However, the apparent engagement in offsite coordination with other pro-Azerbaijan editors is very concerning, and trying to use (alleged) private correspondence in a discussion is just plain bad editing. I'm honestly unsure what to do about the Armenian genocide denial in abstract; I abhor it, but also recognize that it is genuinely a (the?) predominant perspective in Turkey in Azerbaijan. Ultimately, I think that having Mirhasanov editing these articles (or more accurately, their talk pages as he has not yet received ECP) is a net negative. Unlike other editors that could be accused of POV-pushing a 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Mirhasanov has largely failed to make any constructive, proactive contributions in discussions. At best, he's echoed good suggestions made by other editors when they happen to coincide with a pro-Azerbaijan POV. His attempts to ping me in like an attack dog whenever he sees something he doesn't like are genuinely a waste of my time, and I'm mildly horrified that as much as I already feel over-pinged, probably a full half of the times he's attempted to ping me have failed because he didn't sign the original message properly (for the record, several other editors working on this article, particularly those who appear to have pro-Azerbaijan sympathies, have also been pinging me quite a bit, some of them more than they should. Mirhasanov nonetheless stands ahead of the pack in this regard, at least as far as the last two weeks are concerned). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Rosguill:, would you be happy to go ahead and impose the topic ban you supported? This topic was archived by a bot, which means other admins won't see it on noticeboard anymore. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: you decision is not clear for me. Could you please be more clear where I went against wikipedia rules? The basis you are stating and me using you as an attack dog also looks me that you have some personal issues with me. All topics that I involved proved that I was right and if you would check the article that points as already been removed including GW discussion. Regarding IAGS letter I officially have email from the organization that says we haven't issued any such letter. Can I understand what is problem? Mirhasanov (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain me what wrong I did here where you also was involved to the discussion? You advised sentence and I make it based on your advice, however our armenian writers refused all what been agreed and changed the article as they wish. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=986899581 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=986671476.

Regarding GW which this link show to prove someting about my acton https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=986496279. The report already was deleted by GW itself. I proved to be right as the issued report was unprofessional and didn't reflect truth. Again could you please explain me what wikipedia rules I broke?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=987142838 - I dont' claim, I have an official letter. Please let me to know how I can share it with you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solavirum&diff=prev&oldid=985575734 - What is the problem connecting with these guys? Is it against rules?

Denial of so called Armenian genocide has nothing to do with this topic. For you information this genocide only accepted by 32 countries what has political hostility with Turkey. Shall we avoid users out of these 32 countries not edit the topic?

Again I want to underpin that all what provided here as evidence are discussions in TALK page. There is nothing that proves that I went against Wikipedia Rules. I would ask administrators to take time and investigate links that supposed to be prove what Armatura claims here. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: this thread was auto-archived and Armatura and Mirhasanov posted the above to the archive 1051 page. I restored this thread from the archives so discussion can continue. FYI ping Rosguill, Armatura, and Mirhasanov. Lev¡vich 07:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I believe I explained my overall rationale above, but I'll rephrase it. While no single thing you have done breaks a red line rule (although the off-site coordination on a POV basis is quite bad), it's readily apparent from your participation on talk pages that you are here to push a POV, and after several weeks of rather active participation, you have yet to make much in the way of constructive contribution. While there are other editors involved in the subject area that also have clear POVs, for the most part they have been more proactive about contributing prose that suggests good faith efforts at neutrality (and if anyone else falls short of that mark after having been given several chances, I would support a tban against them as well). Your general POV is also well-represented among other editors that have been much more constructive, so I'm not particularly concerned that this will tip a balance as far as disputes about AA2 are concerned. If another admin thinks that this matter requires more discussion before any bans are implemented, I have no objection to them undoing the sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill One example to what you have said. Please see this lin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Solavirum's_edits_-_removing_Putin's_reference_to_Sumgait , where I proposed constructive approach. That was rejected by por-Armenian users and they conducted thir edits as they wish, the even discuss how make it better and more pro-Armenian by shedding facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Remove_Gugark_and_Stepanakert_%22pogroms%22_from_the_background_section

Do you think these users pushes their POV's less or their approach to push POV is more balanced and organized? Regarding me pinging you, as I mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#CuriousGolden_edit_(removal_of_the_bulk_of_human_rights_organizations_reactions_and_artificial_equalisations_of_the_reactions) it was because your health view to the topic. Since you showing your annoyment did I ever ping you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Remove_Gugark_and_Stepanakert_%22pogroms%22_from_the_background_section - Do you think this is more constructive where two pro-Armenian users discuss the topic, agree with each other and then conduct their edits, but when I join and question things it considered bad faith? or do you think Armatura here is acting more balanced to push his POV than I do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#improper_quotes. If yes, then why to ban me, I am just less experienced than him/her, moreover I even don't have any edit privilege under this topic.

We had discussion with you regarding this topic and I raised my concerns about the article being more pro-Armenian where you have also agreed. You have blocked CuriousGolden now trying to block me, then let me guess it will be Solavirum and eventually Beshogur and others that with your word unfortunately pushes their POVs less balanced way than those pro-Armenian POV. What will be then? Leaving the field only for pro-Armenian writers because they are good in complaining to admins? Can we be objective? Mirhasanov (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that all of the other editors you mention have shown clear POVs, but have made more substantial attempts to contribute constructively. I haven't blocked CuriousGolden, so I'm not sure what that accusation is about. The topic ban I implemented is indefinite, not infinite: even if the ban is upheld for now, there's always the opportunity for you to appeal down the road. You can build up your experience as an editor by editing less controversial subjects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't banned. I chose to avoid the said article because I had reverted over 3 times (at the time, I hadn't read WP:3RR in detail) for 2 weeks by my own will. And the 2 weeks has already expired anyway. To be fair, there's barely any user on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war page that doesn't show POV. Therefore I'd hope that there would be much stricter administrator presence in that article as the whole talk page is people with clear POVs going against each other for their own POVs. Which is largely one of the reasons I don't plan on being active on that talk page again. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Basically, what you are saying is, all people under [[2]] are pushing their POVs. Even though there is no single thing that Mirhasanov have done breaks a red line rule, I still support Mirhasanov's ban because I am unconscious bias against him due to his attitude pinging me in the past. Moreover, Mirhasanov should stop discussion under TALK page of [[3]] and not disturb pro-Armenian writers to push their own POVs as they are doing it in more constructive and better way. Do you think it is fair decision? Mirhasanov (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, Rosguill has explained their reasoning above more than once. Nowhere did they say that they have an unconscious bias against you, nowhere did they say your pings were the a factor in their decision, nowhere did they say that pro-Armenian writes should be left undisturbed. Your attempts to mischaracterise their words in this way is insulting to them, and is not going to sway anyone to see things from your perspective; indeed, your attitude here is enough to convince me that their decision is sound. I strongly suggest that you reflect on what Rosguill has said, and on your own actions, then go edit a different area. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I don't see any clear justification for ban. What explained above is opinions like yours. Please provide one evience where I went against Wikipedia rules. Can you? If not, the decision banning me is not more than your biased approach to shut one side and let other side do whatever they want in order to avoid reviews to multiple complains and pings giving you stress or horrification like it was mentioned above. I can enlist here multiple evidences where Armatura went against wikipedia rules and involved to conflict with admin.[[4]]. Mirhasanov (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, that does not follow. You are arguing that because you do not understand someone else's judgment, it must therefore be due to bias on their part. The statements you have made are outrageous mischaracterisations of what Rosguill has said; you need to back away from that stance and make a genuine effort to understand their position. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I understand the position of Rosguill. He/she tries act as neutral. He/she has punished Armatura, but Armatura accusing him not being neutral, he is punishing me to balance the situation. However, I can't understand the position of Armatura because he/she left below message to me, which clearly reflects his/her intention:

Mirhasanov, I am not happy with the overall content of your discussions on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war page.

He is not happy because I think so called armenian genocide doesn't proved yet. He may get offended, as I do get when he and pro-Armenian writer add unbalanced text and information to show Azeris as an evil. Hence, I do believe that it shouldn't be part of discussion or factor for decision making to ban me.

Anyway, I don't ask here not ban me, as I never had any privilege to do edits under this topic. For sake of fair arbitration, I need a single evidence to show me where I did break the rule. Rosguill him/herself proved that I didn't pass any redlines in his above statement. Moreover, all links provided to prove my guitiness proves that I conducted rational approach and in the end I was right. All this edits were removed from the article as it proved be unreliable. I just don't understand what is accusation here? My support to pro-Azeri topics? or me creating challenge to pro-Armenian authors?

Mirhasanov, just FYI, pings don't work if you don't sign your posts.

I believe that Rosguill explained their rationale for instating the TBan above, more than once. You were advised earlier this year that this topic area was covered by discretionary sanctions; an uninvolved admin is empowered to impose a ban if they conclude that your editing within the area is not a net positive for the project. They have indicated that they are happy for another admin to rescind the ban if they feel it's unnecessary - having seen your comments in this thread, I am not minded to do that. My advice to you at the moment is to demonstrate that you can edit collaboratively in an area that you are less passionately about, then perhaps in six months with a good track record of positive contributions, ask that it be rescinded. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit How I can be guilty in something, if I didn't change or revert anything in [[5]] and all conversations I was involved in talk page resulted with deletion of what I purposed, because again I would like to reiterate that, "I was right with my challenges". Please again check that I never had rights to edit the page. My discussion in talk page was rational and unbiased. Even though you can't provide proofs, me breaking Wikipedia rules, let me bring evidences that I conducted rational discussion:

Case 1: Here [[6]] two pro-Armenian user that one of them is here who raised the case against me, tried add the below sentence:

I propose to change "Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991" to Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, with a series of massacres against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

I opposed that because this sentence was one sided and misdirecting the readers. After involving Rosguill we drafted more balanced sentence below:

Ethnic violence in the region began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities.

However, these users still edited the sentence as they wish and after while in order to make the sentence more balanced, someone finalized it as below, which was exactly what I purposed:

Ethnic violence began shortly thereafter with a series of pogroms between 1988 and 1990 against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku, and against Azerbaijanis in Gugark and Stepanakert.

However, these users are not happy and still want to change the sentence [[7]]

Case 2: here [[8]] pro-Armenian users claimed Azerbaijan conduction cultural genocide against Armenians referring some unknown site that publishes statement issued by IAGS. I raised my concern about reliability of the site. Eventually more people joined the point I made. I even write an email to IAGS and got an official response that, no such statement was issued by IAGS. However, pro-Armenian again insisted to insert this information by referring armenian site as a source, rejecting my official email. I am ready to share this email with all of you if you can advise, how I can do it. Thanks to my challenge the sentence was deleted from the article, by some independed user.

Please let me to know, whether I should bring 3rd Case to prove my constructive discussion skills?Mirhasanov (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I'm not sure whether anything I can say here will satisfy you. You can be TBanned for disruption on a talk page, they are not restricted to disruption in article space. I have not reviewed the talk page discussions, and make no comment about whether the TBan was justified, merely that it was within Rosguill's discretion to have placed it. I originally commented on this thread because of your mischaracterisations of Rosguill's comments, and what I saw as disruptive comments from you right here, which you have still not withdrawn or even acknowledged. I am not inclined to review the TBan, and I stand by the advice which I have already given you. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I am sorry but you also making same mistake here. You judge me without assessing and reading my consensus discussions. I linked all my proof that I was not involved in destructive discussion. This is all I been involved under Nagorno Karabakh topic. Now you admins ( both) are judging being destructive but without an evidence showing me breaking rules. I did fact checking and source checking. I didn't offer or added anything that is not justified with an independen references. I strictly followed POV rules. What else should I do? Again my sensitivity is not because I am angry to you & :Rosguill , it is because I am accused for something that has no evidence, no proof. I just want you to ask yourself whether you are fair against me after all evidences I provide as a proof of my intention? If the answer still will be yes, I don't see any reason to continue and waste your and my time & nerves here. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I'm afraid I don't know how to make this any clearer for you: I am not making any judgement of what you said or did at the article talk page, my comments have been directed at your comments here, in this thread. Yes, I believe I have been fair to you - I didn't impose any sanctions on you, I just told you that I thought your comments were out of line, and I offered you some advice about what you should do next. If you don't want to engage with my comments or take that advice on board, that's up to you. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: Please let me to know how I can send you the letter from IAGS. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged as this topic has continuing discussions. I want to thank the admins expressing their thoughts here. I have nothing to add, apart from that justice should prevail over legalism at least in Wikipedia, and this is what I am witnessing, much appreciated. Armatura (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Dear thank you very much for your advice. Of course I consider your advices. I see the user who has opened this discussion is very satisfied and thinks the justice prevailed. If I were him I would be also satisfied with outcome ANI bocking my opponent, without me providing sufficient evidences and consolidating the basis of the notice.

Rosguill I still believe that your comment is not fair. I am ready to have constrictive discussion with you to prove that. You know that I already apologize pinging you all the time and said that the only reason pinging you was because of your healthy vision. I even didn't know that you are admin to be hones, but it doesn't change anything I believe, we are all here to make wikipedia unbiased and informative. I also would like remind you our discussion here [9] as a proof of my good will and I encouraged from this discussion.

I also apologize if I misinterpreted something here and want you also wear my shoes, where you got suddenly banned without doing anything wrong agains community rules. To be honest, I am not capable to edit things and this is the reason why I am not doing it. I usually check sources and try to challenge them if they are not from reliable body. Therefore, all consensuses I was involved concluded with edit not done by me but by other users. I think that is it, I tried be honest in this message and the ball is with you. If you still think that banning me was properly justified by Armatura against cases I wrote here, I am afraid I should have doubts about your neutrality as an admin and I am looking forward for your advices in order to raise this issue to others, who can constructively and objectively make a decision. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• As no one other than Mirhasanov has moved to overturn my action and Mirhasanov has continued to edit Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war in contravention of the sanction I imposed, I have partially blocked them indefinitely from editing that page. This measure should obviously be reversed if my decision to impose the original ban is found to be unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill so far it is only you protecting your decision and you are acting like you are the boss and your decision can't be changed. Your comments are your own POV and unjustified. Mirhasanov (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in further addressing Mirhasanov's concerns, as I believe that I have already addressed sufficient rounds of questions and accusations, and that any further dispute between us is a waste of time for both of us. I would appreciate it if you stop pinging me here. My previous comments about other editors intervening stand: any other admin can feel free to reverse my decisions to ban and then p-block if they find them to have been inappropriate, and I would consider appeals for reversal coming from non-admins other than Mirhasanov. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Could you please stop threatening me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosguill#Brilliant

(Non-administrator comment) An individual request has been made by the OP over at the main Administrators' noticeboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive POV edits from Belteshazzar on Bates Method and related articles suggest block or topic ban

Belteshazzar caused controversy on the Bates method article in March and May 2020, he still continues to edit this article and the talk-page. Many of his edits are pointy or violate NPOV and are usually reverted. If you check his block log or talk-page he was blocked in May for 31 hours and for 2 weeks in June for disruptive and POV edits on the Bates method article. The same user was also reported to this admin board [10] in July.

On 6 June 2020, I complained about Belteshazzar's disruptive edits [11] which were being made on a basis of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Basically this user started to edit the Bates Method article to remove criticisms or challenge the "ineffective" statement in the lead. His purpose on Wikipedia was to dispute the claim of the Bates Method being ineffective. After he lost, to make a point he went onto articles related to the Bates method and did the complete opposite, you can see some of those edits in the diff I list above. After being blocked, now he has gone back to challenging the ineffective statement again.

Belteshazzar does not appear to have a good understanding of what the scientific method is. Now there is nothing wrong with this but at least four different users have explained to Belteshazzar why anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, but he continues to ignore this. Instead he relies on anecdotal evidence for the claim that the Bates method is not ineffective. His flawed reasoning behind this is that if the Bates Method is ineffective then it couldn't have improved Aldous Huxley's eyesight. There has been a debate about that on the talk-page recently "ineffective", and I explained to him not to confuse anecdotal evidence with scientific studies with controls. If you check the talk-page itself, all we see is Belteshazzar, Belteshazzar and Belteshazzar. He's basically disrupted the article and talk-page for months. You can check the archives. He's been there since March 2020 creating countless sections [12] on the talk-page which pretty much all equate to the same agenda trying to get the term "ineffective" removed from the lead. This same user has caused problems on other articles related to the Bates method including Margaret Darst Corbett, The Art of Seeing etc.

As of 8 November 2020, Belteshazzar, is still editing the Bates Method and has recently said he wants to challenge the "ineffective" statement on Wikipedia regarding the Bates method [13]. We have been here many times before with this user. I believe this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. This user has been given many warnings and received blocks etc but never changes his behavior. A comment on his last block by an admin was "Last chance block for WP:POINTy behaviour". I believe this user has violated this. As others have requested before I believe this user should be topic banned from editing the Bates method or anything related to Ophthalmology. This user is lucky because he has received so many warnings and advice from many different editors, yet he ignores everyone. I personally think an outright block might be appropriate, the user in question is not acting in good faith. We need to ask ourselves what is going on here. It's disruption plain and simple, the user is not here to build or improve the project. His editing is agenda based to remove "ineffective" from the lead on the Bates method article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see my explanation for my post on my talk page. I don't intend to propose this myself, and I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented anyway, barring a surprising development. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent summary by PG, editer is an immense timesink, now just disruptive. Support outright block as proposed. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been idly following Talk:Bates method for some time, and I'm afraid I must also agree with Psychologist Guy, and advise anyone reading this to seriously just take a scroll through it and recent archives. It is not an exaggeration to say that Belteshazzar is very near to half of all the comments written on the talk page and archive pages 21 through 23, essentially all of them pushing pro-Bates POV and trying to remove "ineffective". Leijurv (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Much of it was me trying to better explain reasons the Bates method might seem to work, although the improvement may not be genuine or attributable to the Bates method. The initial discussion led to such explanations being removed from the article. Interestingly, sources from 1943 and 1957 are still used to source one such reason. [14] So there is some inconsistency regarding sources. I returned to "ineffective" when I realized that there is a known mechanism by which some aspects of the Bates method might genuinely work, although no valid source directly makes this connection. Also note that others have opposed "ineffective", but quickly given up. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• In my refined argument (which Psychologist Guy tried to link to here), I didn't bring up Huxley or any anecdotes. Psychologist Guy returned to what I previously said about that, however. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've not commented on Talk:Bates method since October 21, and for a while now my edits to the article have not concerned this aspect of the subject. The current situation was triggered by a comment I made on my own talk page, intended for possible future reference if the Bates method becomes less fringe. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• The July ANI report was made after I did something perfectly legitimate, as I explained here. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Here's a case where I fixed an actual pro-Bates pov: [15] Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• [16] [17] This was a minor point, but it illustrates my confusion over "pov-pushing". We currently have exactly one source which makes or even mentions that argument, so how can we say it is a "frequent criticism"? Yes, that point comes up frequently in casual discussions about the Bates method, but so does pseudomyopia, which isn't currently mentioned in the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• From June 2019 to February 2020, four different established users removed "ineffective": [18] [19] [20] [21] Belteshazzar (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Hipal reverted my edit simply because I "need to be banned or blocked". When I earlier cleaned up the problematic section I mentioned, giving clear explanations, he treated me rather badly. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  I removed it because of the continued problems you cause, of which that is an example as is your response here, for which you need to be blocked or banned. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  You "removed" what? I only moved something to a more relevant section, and your revert moved it back. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Today I flagged an updated source which now explains possible risks which are not yet mentioned in the Bates method article. While I offer this to show that I am not pov-pushing, I did not do this simply to prove that; a source which I had been checking regularly was very recently updated (it says September, but it must have only been posted within the last few days). Belteshazzar (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no self-reflection here. If we look at Archive 21, Archive 22 and Archive 23 you have been obsessing about this article since March and you have an axe to grind. Your above edits show you are still obsessed and you still talk about it on users talk-pages [22]. Nearly all of your edits on the Bates method have been reverted. You have abused the talk-page c'mon just look at the archives! You have created many sections nit-picking at things others disagree with. It's getting to the point of being tedious. If we look at your over-all contribution you are not improving the article, nor this website in anyway. You rarely edit other articles, you always come back to disrupting the Bates method. When users are suggesting you should be topic-banned that is not unreasonable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes people disagree because they misunderstand. For example, some editors seemed not to believe for a while that blur adaptation was even real. I acknowledge that I have sometimes misunderstood things also. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And if we're going to talk about my conversations on user talk pages, here's the talk page of an optometrist who believes in the Bates method: User_talk:Peaceful07. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes and that conversation proves you are a bates POV pusher. We need to bring this to a closure. An admin needs to look at this and take action. I am not further responding. I count six different users in total on the archives of the bates method and here that have requested for you to be topic banned. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I was fully intent on letting this go unless and until a new source emerges. You didn't need to create this thread in the first place, especially considering that the catalyst was a comment on my own talk page intended only for possible future reference if things change. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot

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

---

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

Pasdecomplot has been warned multiple times over months by multiple editors about making accusations of bad faith, both at talk pages and in edit summaries.

Editors who want to edit in contentious areas should expect pushback. They should expect to have to defend every edit, to have other editors push back, to have to talk and talk and talk before making even small edits. PDC makes sweeping edits to an extremely contentious area – Tibetan Buddhism and China – and if another editor disagrees with their edits, they immediately go to accusations of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, and hounding, both in posts and in edit summaries. I’ll note that I have only a general understanding of the subject, so I have no idea whether PDC’s edits are helpful or not. My concern is solely the unwillingness to assume good faith and focus on the edits rather than making accusations about the other editors’ motivations.

PDC now has nearly 2500 edits. They are no longer a newbie. They are ignoring our policies on assuming good faith, and they’re doing it flagrantly and unrepentantly and repeatedly. I hate to suggest they be topic banned from their clear area of highest interest, but I am at a loss, here. Personally all I want is to see them forbidden from making any accusation of bad faith of any kind against any other editor (broadly construed; that is, no referring to "bad faith edits") either on talk pages or in edit summaries.

Many editors have tried to help PDC understand this. These are just some of the more recent:

• Usedtobecool tried to explain Sept 21

• PDC continues to accuse others of bad faith editing September 30:1 2 3

• Message on PDC's talk from Cullen328, who on October 1 asks for an explanation. 4 PDC replies, including further accusations of bad faith in the reply and subsequent replies: 5

• Warning from me October 2, which included a plea for PDC to stop accusing any other editor of bad faith, noted as seen: 6

• Continuing to accuse others of bad faith edits, misrepresentation, and hounding October 19: 7 8 9 Warning about it seen and removed: 10 Warning given by Girth Summit October 21: 11

• November 7: 11 Warning at article talk seen: 12

• November 8: warning seen and removed with an edit summary accusing the editor leaving the warning of acting in bad faith: 13

—valereee (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The ANI is completely without merit as it's a coatrack of diffs crafted together with an alleged "concern" about good faith.

• Most recently, the involved admin, with a history of coordinating with an author of a blatant PA (see above), has stepped actively and aggressively into two requests for moves[23] and[24] in a topic area for which they admit (see above) to not having knowledge. The admin has previously been warned by El_C to either edit or admin pages, not both simultaneously. Then while again blending roles, the involved admin ignored a blatant PA, then mischaracterized edits as "edit waring" then doubled down to further mischaracterize the events as "disruptive editing", then tripled down to mischaracterize the complaint of the PA itself as a personal attack, then quadrupled down to bring it to ANI.

• Which makes the notice all the more curious since good faith is always assumed. But, PA's are not defined in policy as examples of "good faith", nor are repeated unfounded accusations of personal attacks and accusations of disruptive editing, nor are disturbing messages left by the involved admin on talk (02OCT on talk[25] then[26] then[27]. Then on another talk[28] then[29]).

• To detail why the ANI is especially inappropriate at this time, a blantant PA was found on a request for move (that also totally mischaracterized posting of diffs showing work by the editor responsible for moving the page without CON). The PA was deleted, per policy[30]. The author of the PA posts the same PA again, and deletes the text citing reasons the PA was deleted[31]. The reposting of blatant PA was again deleted per policy[32]. The author of the PA posts same PA for the third time[33]. The very involved admin then mischaracterizes the policy-approved deletion of PA as "edit waring"[34]. The failure to cite the blatant PA by the involved admin is made[35], and the complaint of the PA, which was deleted by the author of the PA, was posted here[36] and on the talk where it was first posted[37]. The admin further mischaracterizes quotes of PA as a personal attack from me[38] and both involved admin and author of blatant PA accuse me of disruptive editing and personal attacks on my user talk[39].
• An ANI citing "concerns" for good faith is not in any way appropriate, and especially not appropriate for these repeated unaddressed blatant PA's by another editor, nor for escalating mischaracterizations by both the involved admin and the author of the repeated blatant PA's. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• PDC, as I said at the article talk in question, I warned the other editor on their talk, just like I did on yours. Also as I said there, twice, I am acting only as an editor w/re that article and have not done anything administrative. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  PDC's response here may well also illustrate the issue you describe (which may require administrative correction), but you can't exactly blame him for not placing much trust in your warnings. I mean (if I remember the old ANI correctly) you did once upon a time block him, an exclusively mobile user, for not formatting his talk page posts correctly. For the record, that ANI was closed without finding your block inappropriate, and you conversed with him fairly in the linked discussion now, but my point is that it's not unreasonable for the editor to now think you don't have his best interests at heart (even if this isn't true), and so refuse to trust/follow your advice. For better or worse, the snarky edit summary in diff 13 is pretty much what the avg established editor would also write in such a situation (ime). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, disregard warnings and the result is on you. That's the main reason blocks and other sanctions occur; individuals, for whatever reason, disregard warnings/advice. If one has a problem dispassionately assessing what they're being told they will have a difficult time here. Tiderolls 17:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I don't blame PDC for not thinking I have their best interests at heart, either, lol. What I have at heart is our policy on assuming good faith. Really, that's all. If PDC would just stop talking about other editors and instead talk about edits (without referring to them as "bad faith edits", though), we wouldn't be here. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I don't think it's quite so straight forward in the abstract. Look at my ANI case above, where I was "warned" by administrators. There can be some validity in an editor feeling a warning is not coming from the right place. In such cases, it helps to have an uninvolved, totally objective admin assess the situation and issue appropriate guidance. Of course, in this case that was Girth on 21 October (who provided some excellent, objective advice). But I'm just saying, the point of a warning isn't a checkbox towards a block/ban, it should come from a position of total objectivity & trust as advice to rectify conduct, otherwise it'll be ineffective. As it relates to Pasdecomplot, as someone who saw the last two ANIs on this editor, I don't think they're intentionally trying to be disruptive (not that intent is the end-all when it's disruption). But I think they think everyone is out to get them. And to be fair, sometimes they are baited. There's obviously things that need rectifying here, but (if it's at all possible) I think it'd be nice to see that happen without permanent/long sanctions. How exactly, I don't know. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, and by Cullen at his talk, and by EI_C at both their talk and PDC's, and massive advice from UTBC at UTBC's talk. This isn't something new. This has been going on for months. The amount of time other editors have spent trying to help PDC understand what 'assume good faith' means is very large. I've literally been trying for months to avoid bringing this to ANI; I'd always prefer to deal with issues anywhere else. The point of warnings is to get someone's attention in hopes they'll take the policy behind it onboard, and to let other editors see the issue has been raised with the person before. —valereee (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  A discussion on whether to restore this report from the archive happened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#discussion archived unclosed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: PdC doubled down yesterday on the verbiage against Rigley (initial post here), despite the discussion centering around a Requested Move. Even though PdC removed the explicit mention of Rigley's name from that Note to closer comment, their attempt to introduce irrelevant material still stands. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested admin action Block proposed

• Unarchiving as this was never closed. I'd like to see some resolution here, if possible. I'm going to suggest a 1-week block, a ban on saying anything about any other editor in edit summaries or talk posts, a ban on describing edits as "bad faith" or "misleading" or "misrepresenting sources", with blocks of increasing length for further violations. —valereee (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  3rd one is too broad. Being unable to characterise particular edits as misleading in some way or another is a very broad range of vocabulary, which can be valid in situations. As this editor edits in niche areas, I can see that backfiring on their productivity. I'd possibly support a time-limited ban on accusing other editors of conduct issues for a while, except at ANI, automatically expiring after a month, solely in order to force the editor to discuss content not accusations of conduct in various content discussions. Hopefully that instills the habit for after the ban expires. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed this heading per advice at AN. Proposing one-month block with a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. This has already achieved a level of consensus in this discussion which was followed by a very clear final warning here that blocks of increasing length would follow the next incident. —valereee (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. —valereee (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support editing restriction, but I don't think a block is required at this point. My experience of interacting with PdC, and my review of their contributions, have led me to the conclusion that they themselves are here in good faith, but that they are far too quick to assume bad faith of others and to accuse people of it (or heavily imply it) in inappropriate ways such as edit summaries. PdC obviously needs a way to seek a remedy if they genuinely believe someone is acting in bad faith and have evidence to back that up, but I believe that they need to be restricted from commenting on other editors' motivations entirely in edit summaries and on article talk pages. They would be able to continue to edit, and to avoid any blocks at all, by simply focussing on content and not on contributors, as WP:NPA advises. I can get behind this being a six-month restriction, but my first choice would be that it be imposed indefinitely, with the opportunity to appeal after six months once they've shown they are willing to cut it out. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support one month block and indefinite editing restriction. This "assume bad faith" behavior justified by giant walls of text has gone on far too long. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support one month block and indefinite editing restriction per above. The indefinite editing restriction for the reasons Girth lays out. I support the block because the problems are ongoing: Special:Diff/988636704. Warnings have not brought about the desired change. Lev¡vich 19:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited restriction only, per Girth. Block seems unnecessary imv. After all, if the restriction remedies the situation, we're all good. If it doesn't, then the ban is enforced by blocks. Simple. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To add, I generally find indefinite restrictions inappropriate. It's too hard to get them removed, far harder than showing enough need to have them instated again at all. If conduct remains a problem, ask to have them reinstated. If it doesn't, great. Look at various appeals of restrictions (here or at ArbCom), people generally turn them down because they are doing their job and conduct was rectified, so seemingly few people want to risk removing the restriction, which creates an undue excessive burden. Yet the only way you can possibly evidence that you won't do it again is by not doing it while the ban was in place, but that's rarely enough for people to agree to remove the restriction. Plus, tbh, we don't need to tilt the burden even more in the favour of who can make an eloquent speech in front of ANI, and keep banned whoever cannot. If the conduct is rectified there's no need for restrictions. If it isn't, they'll be reinstated with ease. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Without commenting on the rest, I'm suspicious of how easy it is to restore restrictions. If valereee hadn't unarchived this thread, we wouldn't have even gotten consensus for restrictions in the first place, so getting them again (should they be needed) isn't exactly a guarantee. It may well be too hard to get restrictions removed, but I don't think re-imposing sanctions is as easy as you suggest either. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

      Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. And I acknowledge you folks may know better than me what will be (in)sufficient. I was thinking that having sanctions reimposed with a diff a week after expiry of the same conduct is easier/less time consuming for editors than evaluating this convoluted puzzle spread across many pages. Regardless, I'd like to believe that 6 months of being forced to find a new way to engage will be sufficient to create a permanent change for PDC, and further sanctions won't be necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  PR, if they can demonstrate on noticeboards an ability to properly supply diffs on others' conduct and in a reasonably restrained manner, that would be hard evidence to lift the restrictions. Indefinite ≠ infinite. However, separate from the conduct toward other editors, I was reminded of Cullen's comment here, and I had not even come around to clean up after this addition, which another established editor took up: note the source mentions the monks were returned within 2 months, but the heading PdC added was the distorted (and vague) Re-education camps: this is particularly egregious given that under the prior Re-education through labor system, detainees' sentences were 1 to 3 years. The un-attributed usage of the obvious advocacy site Freetibet.org in the first Nyingchi diff, despite multiple messages heeding against both at WP:RS/N and less central venues, reeks of WP:IDHT. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support block and editing restriction as repeated warnings have had no effect.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:عمرو بن كلثوم and Syrian Kurdistan

I believe User:عمرو بن كلثوم is editing tendentiously. The Talk page of the article Syrian Kurdistan is almost exclusively a complaints page from a wide variety of editors, over the past many months, about the behaviour of this user, and evident from the discussion is an obvious POV based on denialism, to whit: the user would rather the term Syrian Kurdistan did not exist, and is convinced (against all and repeatedly offered evidence) that the phrase is a neologism produced by expansionist Kurdish nationalists this century. The user would have the world believe there was never any such thing as a Syrian part of Kurdistan (i.e. within the 20th- and 21st-century Syrian Arab Republic); and the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy cooked up since the Syrian Civil War. The user has here embarked on an attempt to gain support for their POV here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_of_multiple_professors_stating_otherwise? and when another user sought assistance here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_book_by_the_PhD_candidate_Mustafa_Hamza_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_a_Syrian_Kurdistan? and will not take no for an answer. I suspect administrator action of some kind is needful. GPinkerton (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is really interesting. At the RSN, user Sixula suggested that it was not the right place for this debate so I quit following that page, but a few minutes ago I was notified of this complaint here. I revisited the NOPV noticeboard to find that user Pinkerton jumped out of nowhere and made conclusions for everybody, and then ran to report me here and accusing me of refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. There has been a discussion going on for days, we have provided enough evidence, including the all-important Treaty of Sevres map (for non-experts, that post-WWI treaty in 1920 shaped all Kurdish statehood claims) and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". We also provided sources showing the initial use of this term. For example, this report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads:

The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province).

This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users (at least) do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists during the Syrian Civil War. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. Finally, this is a content dispute, and I have not broken any rules. Actually, admin intervention in that page would really be welcome. May be at least provide protection for now. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Above, the user has illustrated succinctly the problem with their WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDHT attitude and refusal to accept reality. Below, one can see a long list of sources that very much do talk about Syrian Kurdistan, explicitly, and by name. As a synonym for Western Kurdistan it can be found in geographical research before the First World War. The claim of the all-importance of the Treaty of Sevres is a lie ignorant of history and wilfully oblivious to the sources editors may peruse below. This user's insistence on claiming that a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan" is exactly the kind of false narrative they have been bludgeoning people with for months (years?). Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. Some sort of admonition is surely required.

• In the Dispersion. World Zionist Organization, Organization Department, Research Section. 1962. This book tells the tale od the Kurdish Jews who lived in the one hundred and nintey towns in what is now Iraqi, Persian, Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan
• Ghassemlou, Abdul Rahman (1965). Kurdistan and the Kurds. Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. (i.e. the present-day Turkish, Iraqi and Syria Kurdistan)
• Chaliand, Gérard, ed. (1993) [1978]. Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan [A People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan]. Translated by Pallis, Michael. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-194-5. Are these three regions - Kurd-Dagh, Ain-Arab, and Northern Jezireh - part of Kurdistan? Do they form a Syrian Kurdistan, or are they merely region of Syria which happen to be populated with Kurds? ... Syrian Kurdistan has thus become a broken up territory and we would do better to talk about the Kurdish regions of Syria. What matters is that these people are being denied their legitimate right to have their own national and cultural identity.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1982). Self-determination in the Middle East. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-062408-7. While the Kurds in Turkish, Soviet, Syrian, and Persian Kurdistan were held in place with and iron fist, the Iraqi Kurds fought virtually alone throughout the 1960s.
• Bruinessen, Martin Van (1992). Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-018-4. The plains of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan are the granaries of Iraq and Syria, respectively.
• Izady, Mehrdad R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9. All of Syrian Kurdistan, half of central Kurdistan in Iraq, and about 15% of western Kurdistan is located in this warm zone. It contains the cities of Diyarbakir, Siirt, Mardin, Urfa, Qamishli, Afrin, Sanjar, Sulaymania, Arbil, Qasri Shirin, Ilam, Gelan, and Pahla.
• Kreyenbroek, Philip G.; Allison, Christine (1996). Kurdish Culture and Identity. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-329-1.
• Bruinessen, Martin van (1978). Agha, Shaikh and State: On the Social and Political Organization of Kurdistan. University of Utrecht. I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan. ... Most sources agree that there are approximately half a million Kurds in Syria.
• Mirawdeli, Kamal M. (1993). Kurdistan: Toward a Cultural-historical Definition. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies. Turkish Kurdistan, an Iraqi Kurdistan, an Iranian Kurdistan, and a Syrian Kurdistan
• Bulloch, John; Morris, Harvey (1992). No Friends But the Mountains: The Tragic History of the Kurds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508075-9. The British and the French made it clear from the outset that they were unwilling to surrencder those parts of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan which fell under their control, and that an independent Kurdistan, if such an entity were to be created, would have to be in what was still Turkish territory.
• Jaff, Akram (1993). Economic Development in Kurdistan. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1995). Development, Environment, and Global Dysfunction: Toward Sustainable Recovery. Delray Beach, FL: St Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-57444-012-6. The situation in Turkish Kurdistan is consistent with that of Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan.
• Meho, Lokman I., ed. (1997). The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CN and London: Greewood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30397-5. The information the author gets concerning Syrian Kurdistan is abased on results from field research carried out in 1988 and 1990.
• Berberoglu, Berch (1999). Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4412-2. Then, in the 1920s, the Bedirkhan brothers introduced the Latin alphabet, which became standard in Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan.

GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We are debating a specific term. Can you provide the quotes showing that, instead of showing "Kurdistan" or Kurds in Syria, etc.? One more thing, we are about to reach consensus on the Syrian Kurdistan page. This shows that your claim of me refusing to compromise is false. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Check out this discussion out of many going on on that Talk page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, look at the sources yourself. Yours is the only voice on your side of this "debate". GPinkerton (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Actually me and other users also participated in the debate taking the same position as Amr. No on need to look at the sources themselves as the one who claims need to prove, so quotes and pages numbers should be presented. Finally, you can have tens of sources to support you but there are tens of them that support the other side and NPOV requires you not to ignore that. This complain is uncalled for and an attempt to force a measure from above to give one side of a long debate what they want! The users who are against Amr acts exactly like him, so if he is wrong, so are they. I am calling for an rfc to solve this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: All of what you're saying is not at all relevant. This is only about Amr's repeated attempt to prove the term "Syrian Kurdistan" does not exist or is a recent coinage, whereas in the real world it is a coinage many, many decades old. This is tendentiousness. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Im telling you Im an active part of the debate and you are deciding for me that I am not? Seriously? You are now part of this content dispute, so go to the article's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentThis has nothing to do with Amr. This is all Konli17's fault. That page has been quiet for months and then all of a sudden he comes back after a long break from editing and starts his POV pushing again. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Konli17 is the user that should be blocked because he’s not WP:HTBAE and is just here to push his agenda. You should really see his other edits before jumping to conclusions that it’s Amr's fault. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thepharoah17: if you want to make a report about an unrelated matter you need to do it elsewhere. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, per your request GPinkerton, I'll call on other people to weigh in on this. @Supreme Deliciousness:@HistoryofIran:@Al Ameer son:. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thepharoah17, The page was stable until Konli17 returned and pushed his pov points. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

See an example here (out of tens or hundreds) for yourselves how user konli17 changes the meanings by simple tweaking and removal of sensitive words to fake/change content and removing sensitive words (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc. Look at the long list of reverts and edit-warring in their edit history. Actually, they were blocked back in June for edit-warring. That is the user who needs to be disciplined here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This argumentation is obfuscation and unconvincing whataboutery. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you have obviously decided to take sides in the dispute at hand, bring on your evidence in the form of quotes from the links above you copied from user paradise chronicle! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: It's more than obvious you are unwilling to read. None of these sources were copy pasted from anywhere. I just did the most basic Goggle Books search, and provided you with hyperlinks so you can easily verify that each one discusses "Syrian Kurdistan". How many times? The quote is the same in every book listed: "Syrian Kurdistan"! GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My friend, you are the one making claims here. Bring me your evidence (e.g. quotes). It's not my role to prove your point, it's yours. Syrian + Kurdistan does not equal "Syrian Kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, it seems you are the one refusing to read since you failed to see in the Talk page in question how many editors were on each side. Regardless of the opinions presented here, you claimed that I am the ONLY one representing this side of the story. Now you are attacking the other editor sharing my opinion here. You are trying hard to push your POV, same as you did as the NPOV noticeboard, ironic. Obviously, you are not qualified to judge or point at others. And let's keep this professional without personal attacks like you did above accusing me of supporting Assad regime (with no evidence whatsoever)! And by the way, on this note the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (who declared Syrian Kurdistan) are allies of the Assad regime and there is plenty of evidence that I will keep for another time. So, better do your homework before throwing accusation around. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. GPinkerton (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There is nothing wrong with Amr ibn Kulthoums edits. "Syrian Kurdistan" is a lie and a fraud, there are editor at that page that are pushing kurdish nationalist propaganda lies and attempting to rewrite history. We should thank Amr ibn Kulthoum for standing up to the truth. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

More denialism. Just look at the sources! "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", all the way down! Your claim it is a lie and fruad is absurd. GPinkerton (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who is in denial here despite all the evidence. For the third time, I am asking you to provide actual quotes (SENTENCES) saying "Syrian Kurdistan" from before 2011. Good luck with that! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you read? Or do you only spew? Scroll up. Read. اقرأ GPinkerton (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to stop the personal attacks? What does that prove? You are always going to find some random authors (look at the author names) claiming things and naming things as they please. One of them is saying "I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan". The question is, is any of that reputable? Do you have an international map showing this, or do you have a respected paper/media outlet, international organization showing this from before 2011? Since you pick up languages so quickly, I'll challenge your French, why don't you read this article to update your history? The bottom line you are accusing me of pushing my POV but you are doing a lot worse. Cheers my friend. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure. Read an article that has little to do with the topic at hand and that will convince me that all these respected academic sources are somehow worthless. What planet is this editor living on? On earth, Syrian Kurdistan is a thing. The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology. GPinkerton (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP believes in sourced content and two sides to the story. More personal attacks. I don't think I need to respond to that. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes the two sides of the story: "Syrian Kurdistan has never been uttered before 2011" (fairyland, POV) vs "Evidence for the existence of the term long before عمرو بن كلثوم would evidently prefer." (Earth, NPOV). Somehow I think including the highly idiosyncratic and patently wrong POV you are pushing without a shred of evidence should be given short shrift in consideration of WP:DUE. How much credence can we give these uncited illusions? GPinkerton (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• See also this User_talk:Thepharoah17#تحياتي Canvassing. GPinkerton (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

After your old argument of my one-person opinion failed, you are using a new tactic. How is this canvassing? Look at the user contributions! This user is very moderate, and not involved in any edit-warring. They participate in the discussion very positively. Check out for yourself! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank GPinkerton for opening this debate and I hope an admin would step in. As the one who filed the first two discussions about Syria Kurdistan, I'd like to add that there were already numerous high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan even before GPinkerton brought his sources. Amr Ibn will very probably not abide by academic sources has even removed[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&diff=988047662&oldid=988045551&diffmode=source updated and new academic sources] before. To clarify: I have added high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan with no adaptions to the text, and Amr Ibn removed the sources. Amr Ibn doesn't seems to not like the fact that Kurds live in Syria and sees the Kurdish liberators from ISIS as occupiers. Other times he claimed that they are occupiers after they captured a town from ISIS is here, here. There are others as well. It would be similar if we'd portray the Greek or French Resistance fighting against NAZI Germany as occupiers of territory in France or Greece. I think this is a tough POV, as the vast majority of the media and probably all of the reliable academic sources view the areas liberated by from ISIS as liberated and not occupied. I seriously don't know, how this editor came through with this denialism of Syrian Kurdistan for so long with such an edit history.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, look who's speaking! An edit-warrior recently banned and who refused to abide by previous arbitration result by user Nightenbelle on a different page. Back to the page in question, we were reached a consensus before PC jumped in and started messing things up again. This prompted user Applodion, an editor on PC side of the story to remove part of PC's controversial edit there. Furthermore, user Sixula just chipped in and suggested an rfc. As a reminder, Sixula was helping with the NPOV case before user GPinkerton imposed themselves and jumped to conclusions. Again, I invite Admins to visit the Syrian Kurdistan page and Talk page (and other pages if they wish) to judge for themselves and see who the disruptive editor/s is/are. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And, ISIS has nothing to do with this. You are basically saying "you can either be with ISIS or PYD/YPG Kurdish militia". Well, I don't want to be with either of those. This is not focus of this discussion or any other discussion I am involved in. We have a content dispute about the origin and adoption of the name Syrian/Western Kurdistan. Here is another academic reference saying PYD created the name rojava (West Kurdistan) (PYD invented rojava. P276 last paragraph). In the summer of 2012, the PYD took control of some towns in northern Syria which are predominantly Kurdish-inhabited. Over the following three years, the party expanded its territory and established a structure of autonomous government and associated institutions which it calls “Rojava” (west Kurdistan). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Two of the editors who deny an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, user Amr Ibn and user Supreme Deliciousness wanted to move the page Syrian Kurdistan (Today called AANES) to Kurdish occupied regions in Syria in a move discussion in 2015.. Wanting to call Kobane Kurdish occupied in the midst of a siege of Kobane by ISIS... This might give you another insight into the mindset of the two editors. The edits of Amr Ibn are clearly tendentious and should have been seriously questioned by admins since years. For that an admin comes into the dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should you support either ISIS or the YPG? The YPG-linked PKK and ISIS are both classified as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Is one really different from the other? Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

One doesn't have to support any of the two, but one can try to portray commonsense=vast majority of the academic views or an ISIL/Turkey POV which as to me, is not supported in any reliable source. The YPG is supported by the Global Coalition against ISIS consisting of 83 countries and NOT viewed as a terrorist organization by any country other than Turkey which literally imprisons academics for demanding peace.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As Sixula told you on the NPOV page, "WP:COMMONSENSE is not viewed as a concrete argument, more as a "I believe my edit was common sense" but it is not something which you can repeat over and over, because if there is a lot of opposition clearly it isn't viewed as common sense." Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please ping me when discussing things I've said on a separate page, I like to see what is being said about both me and my comments. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 23:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Sixula, that was an oversight on my part. Thanks for your input. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC about Syrian Kurdistan going on at the Syrian Kurdistan article talk page. Amr Ibn wants to have it understood that if a source (Kurdish or/and Academic non-Kurdish) mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or Kurds in Syria or depicts a map with a Syrian part of Kurdistan it signifies that there exists no Syrian Kurdistan and therefore is an invention by Kurds. See here the diff of such an argument. There he refers to the sources presented by me and others. The ones added by me mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or depict a Syrian part of Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed action

Editors opposing the unqualified use of the term "Syrian Kurdistan" need to be warned in some way to drop it. The phrase is not just "a term used" or "by some", and neither is it a conspiracy. Failing that, the relentless POV-pushing needs to be quelled in some other way. GPinkerton (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

POWERFUL 245

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

---

For several days POWERFUL 245 (talk · contribs) has been modifying several tracklistings of Michael Jackson pages. Powerful has been reverted by multiple editors and has been warned multiple times. It seems now that instead of discussing the changes (which are unsourced, by the way), Powerful has decided to start edit-warring. For example, at Talk:Pipes_of_Peace#Edit_warring, @JG66: ask them about the changes to the main page. For example, he tried to replace 1991 Dangerous with the 2016's re-issue of Dangerous[40]; 1987's Bad with 2013's Bad 25[41] (despite the fact that Bad 25 has a page). Like these 2, the other pages are the same, unsourced tracklist/replacing the original tracklist with the remastered version. Powerful was blocked at Commons for persistently uploading copyrighted images that would replace our non-free ones. So, this is a case of WP:COMPETENCE and as Powerful is not answering, I have decided to move it here instead. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've also been confused by POWERFUL 25's behaviour. They've repeatedly made the same changes to track listings at Pipes of Peace (an album that Michael Jackson appears on), without including any explanation with the edits and then refusing to engage in any discussion. Not only is the change to a track listing template unnecessary, but they want to set the listing for the original (1983) release as if it's the 2015 "Archive Collection" reissue. I don't know what you do with this sort of disruptive editing: you end up violating 3RRR to correct their mistakes, and they just don't appear to acknowledge that anyone else exists on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

POWERFUL 245 has not edited in three days. It appears they have never made any talk space edits, and have received multiple warnings in the last few months on their UTP. They do not appear to be a mobile editor, so presumably they're seeing the notifications. If the mainspace editing problems and lack of communication continue when they return to editing, a communication-is-required block may be necessary. Lev¡vich 07:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Powerful returned today and continued reversing the removal of their unsourced [42] or (in this particular edit) incorrect [43] additions. For me, Powerful has no intention to discuss about it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Powerful is edit-warring for the seek of edit-warring.[44] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

USER:Toltol15 adding WP:OR and non WP:RS, and refusing to discuss [and other things]

Waiting for Toltol15 to reply.

I recently removed an addition by USER:Toltol15 to the Somalis page citing a non-peer-reviewed scientific preprint (thus not WP:RS) (which also did not directly concern the topic of the page) exaining my reasons in the edit notes. User:Toltol15 reverted me without engaging with my explanation. I reverted once more attempting to explain again and asked them not to edit war, and was again ignored by the user, reverted, and accused (confusingly) of POV (without explanation). To avoid edit warring, I have not reverted them a second time. I then posted on their personal page trying to explain again, asked them to engage/discuss (and perhaps self-revert) and warned them tbat I would report them if they did not discuss. They deleted my message and accused me of "personal page stalking". Since they have refused to engage with the topic (and seem to be behaving in an uncivil and dismissive way) I am filing a report here. Any help is appreciated.

Also, a discussion on the Talk page of History of archery with myself, Toltol15, and USER:Richard Keatinge concerning their (Toltol15's) addition of original research to that page and to Saharan rock art: [[45]]

I also removed some material Toltol15 had added to the San people page (with a detailed explanation in my edit note) and was reverted similarly dissmissively by them (there also, I have not reverted their edit/reinstatement, to avoid edit warring). My edit and note: [[46]] And the page's edit history with their reversion: [[47]]

And here is the edit history of Somalis for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Somalis

And the non-peer-reviewed source they have persistently added to it:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1 Skllagyook (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) At Talk:Capoid_race#Link_to_Boskop_Man_removed and Talk:Somalis#Arab_scholars I got the impression that they didn't want to understand what other editors told them about OR and RS. Maybe they are still learning how things work. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(another non - admin comment) Indeed, some urgent education is needed. Toltol15 doesn't seem to understand policy; more worryingly, they don't seem to understand their sources very well either. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Rsk6400, I see what you did and I thank you for it. Toltol15, you have the opportunity here, and now, to explain what you were doing--and to acknowledge, perhaps, that you may need to brush up on what count as reliable sources here. If you don't, you might find yourself blocked for disruptive editing, which here points at a lack of collaboration and communication, edit warring, and using unreliable sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:. It seems that Toltol15 has been active recently (has made a few recent edits, this past day I believe) but has still not responded, either to your warning on their page or to this report. I worry that they may begin to make problematic edits again without ever having replied here. About how much time will they be given to reply? Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Skllagyook, I see two edit where they're adding pictures, and gave edit summaries. I cannot in good conscience block someone for that, nor are we at a stage, I think, were we can just block for not responding in the first place. That can happen, and we have done that before, but really only in a scenario where for instance, after being warned in no uncertain terms, they make really problematic edits and refuse to acknowledge that. That hasn't happened yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drmies:, I understand. Thank you for your reply. If they begin to make disruptive edits at a later time, should I message you, or perhaps file another report (perhaps depending on when it occurs)? Skllagyook (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring and attempting to short circuit deletion discussion

User:WilliamJE is edit-warring and attempting to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. He has re-added a speedy deletion tag at Category:Basketball players from New York City three times in 9 minutes. He has refused to engage with me on the talk page and instead bombed my talk page with warning templates.--User:Namiba 14:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:G4 reads- This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. Oh and categories have been speedy deleted because of 10 year old CFDs before. Check here[48]. The original basketball players CFD can be found here[49]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The complaining editor raised the categorizing of sportspeople by US city less than 6 months ago at a talk page. The reception wasn't positive.[50] Plus there have been a half a dozen at least CFDs on similar categories. There is a strong consensus against....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk about a NYC sportspeople CFD, here's one for Rowers[51]. It took place in 2019....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Just start another CFD. This shouldn't need to be a federal flipping issue.
Namiba and you clearly disagree in good faith here. Cool? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Rowing and basketball in New York City are not the same. There has been ample evidence provided at the CfD to demonstrate that basketball in New York City has been covered in book-length coverage and is a strong defining characteristic; nothing like that is available for rowing in New York City. WilliamJE seems to be be so dead-set on deletion that any sense of respecting consensus has been lost. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Could use a second pair of eyes at 8chan

There are some IP editors making some legal threats regarding the inclusion of a link to the 8chan website on the page about 8chan. I can see their argument that we shouldn't include the external link, but an uninvolved admin to help out with the edit war and legal threats would be appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not make a legal threat; I removed a link to Child Pornography from Wikipedia that violates US Law and Wikipedia Policy. I was trying to get you to understand the situation and defer to legal staff at Wikipedia to make a determination. Wikipedia should not be linking to Child Pornography Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also creating a liability for people such as myself who have used Wikipedia in good faith and INADVERTANTLY (and because of Wikipedia) landed on a link distributing Child Pornography. This is an extremely serious issue and concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that 71.203.10.104 has opened a discussion at WP:DRN#8chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That discussion has now been closed under the reasoning of WP:NLT and because this particular discussion is also taking place here at WP:HAPPYPLACE.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For now, I think we should just leave that link out until we reach a consensus on the matter. No harm can come of that. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Second that as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

None of us are lawyers (and those who are are not on the job). Pending a potential WP:OFFICE action (they might be interested in the subject), I don't think the legal argument is a good one. That being said, a link to 8chan doesn't provide any value whatsoever. -- Luk ^talk 00:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not lawyers, but it's well within our capabilities to decide not to link to a site where we may inadvertently direct our readers to such content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite denying they are making legal threats above, I can't see how their latest comment saying "A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Wikipedia Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution." is anything but. I agree that the link probably ought to be omitted from the article, but the WP:NLT need to stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone who wants to go to 8chan, out of curiosity or whatever, needs a link from us to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that linking to a site that ALSO hosts child pornography (or copyvio material, or whatever illegal stuff) EQUALS 'linking to child pornography'. That being said, IMHO this site would qualify for wholesale blacklisting because there is material on the site that we should not be linking to (and we should do our utmost best to make sure that it does not get linked), but a whitelist rule should be instated to a 'neutral landing page'. Although on a different level, we can link to sci-hub, we cannot link to a lot of the material hosted on sci-hub, thus the website is blacklisted, the root is whitelisted. For that, I think the IP was wrong here, as is removal of the root link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how this user is making legal threats. They are pointing out (correctly) that merely visiting a site like that can cache illegal images to one's device and thus meet the threshold for being prosecuted in the US. It's a no-brainer to omit a link to this site from Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, their latest comment (linked above by GW) was probably okay until they ended with I was obligated to report this matter via the process established by the US DOJ and I copied the Wikimedia Foundation as a courtesy. Up until then they'd been on the right side of the line, IMO. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ჯეო

On 2 June 2019, ჯეო was indefinitely blocked (not by me) on the Commons for repeated copyright violations. After a series of unresponsive/IDHT unblock requests, I removed talk page access there. Since that time, ჯეო has made numerous comments on my talk page here on en.wiki relating to that issue ([52][53] [54][55][56]), including what now appears to be monthly (22 September 2020, 13 October 2020‎, 13 November 2020.) The Commons issues have been clearly explained to them there (their talk page access was even conditionally restored in September, which they promptly violated). ჯეო has also been emailing me; I've asked them to desist in response. Although the content is banal, the inappropriate venue; the IDHT regarding the issues and venue; the failure to honour requests to stop; and especially the frequency, which now appears monthly (and is not limited to en.wiki, e.g., [57][58][59]), cause me to consider this as having moved beyond inappropriate and into harassment--whatever its motivation. I might suggest an interaction ban, but am open to any other remedy/sanction that would result in ჯეო's desistance. Эlcobbola _talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's do this:

• I'll block them from your talk page.  Done
• You turn off notifications from them in your preferences.
• If you haven't sent them email yet: Don't! And turn off email from them in your preferences as well.
• If you have sent them email before: we can't prevent them directly emailing you, but if they keep doing it, you should be able to forward the email to someone with authority at WMF (not 100% sure how it works, hopefully won't need to research) and they will likely be WMF banned.
• I make it clear to them that if they contact you anymore about a Commons-related issue, they will be blocked indef from en.wiki as well. Hopefully that will be sufficient deterrent.

@ჯეო: Leave. Elcobbola. Alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I should add that we can't do anything about pestering you on other projects. You'd have to either talk to admins there, or try to get their account globally locked. @ჯეო:, is this what you want to happen? If not, then stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I just wanted to get unblocked on Commons, because I think I can start work and I can help this project, I was trying to explain it--ჯეო4WIKI (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@ჯეო: You won't be able to get assistance from any of us here on English Wikipedia. And ANI is not the place to do it. Sorry. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Better policy about self promotion

We have come across a few editors over the years that are from other projects claiming they were asked to add content here as there job. Latest example was by User talk:Thehumantwig01 from Wikitongues who said I am an intern and it's my job to try to add these videos on as many pages..... Wondering if we should nip this type of stuff in the butt before it becomes even more common...with a better policy then we currently have. As in one geared to banning a site that does this type of actions related to paid editing to promote their own site.--Moxy 🍁 13:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure ANI is the best place to post this, but I agree. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An intern eh? Are we getting into WP:PAID territory? Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's not paid, it's certainly a WP:COI violation. Every edit is adding "for Wikitongues" to the caption. For example, 1, 2, and 3 are their most recent edits. Woodroar (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thehumantwig01, can you explain a little more about this internship? Is there someone at Wikitongues coordinating the intern efforts that maybe we could discuss this with? I believe you're working in good faith, but we work by WP:CONSENSUS here, and if other editors are disagreeing with you about whether a language video belongs in articles that aren't about that language, you'll have to accept that or risk not being allowed to edit here. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia logged me out so I didn't see these messages sooner. I am an unpaid volunteer intern with Wikitongues and I have been adding the videos of language speakers that they collect onto language pages and pages that I believe are related (such as adding language videos to the "language" portion of Wikipedia pages about people who speak the language or countries who have that language declared as an official language). If other users have an issue with me posting the video on non-language pages, I will stop. My issue was that very few people had issues until one user came and reverted 46 of my edits that nobody had messaged me about or had any issues with, which I didn't think was a "consensus" thing, and so I was trying to explain my case to him. I will stop posting them on language pages. As for adding Wikitongues' name for credit on the video, I wasn't doing that to try to like promote them or use Wikipedia as a way to raise money or anything for them, but in the videos I had seen on Wikipedia before beginning editing, the captions always cited the source they had gotten the video from, so that's what I did too. If I restrict the videos to only language pages from here on, can I continue editing? Thanks! Jessica Britt (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thehumantwig01, thanks for responding. IMO posting high-quality language videos to language pages is fine, although some videos may be less appropriate. I noticed one objection was to a video by a non-native speaker, another was to a video in which the multilingual speaker switched into English.

I personally am not sure I agree with Woodroar that this is necessarily a COI issue; that probably needs further discussion, possibly at WP:COIN instead of here. If it is, that doesn't mean you can't continue to do this work, only that instead of directly editing articles, you'd make edit requests on talk pages to get the videos added by another editor. It's an extra step, but the upside is that if that editor makes the edit, that shows at least one other editor thinks the addition is an improvement.

I also disagree that linking Wikitongues in captions is necessarily problematic. That would be something to get consensus on at articles; what I'd suggest is that if you add it in an article and other editors object, you accept that for that article, consensus is against you. If as time goes on you discover that you're getting pushback on it pretty much every time, I'd accept that as a general consensus. —valereee (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But we're not talking about an intern with the Associated Press replacing citation needed tags with sources, something that's questionable COI-wise but almost definitely good for the project. Wikitongues has never been vetted by the community. It's not listed at WP:RSP, has never been discussed at WP:RSN, and doesn't appear to be widely cited by reliable sources. Plus their licenses may not be compatible with ours. I've seen plenty of artists and photographers blocked for spamming their content in articles, so we really shouldn't have different rules for non-profits. There really needs to be community buy-in for editing like this, at COIN—as you mentioned—and RSN, but possibly other noticeboards/projects depending on the circumstances. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Woodroar this is basically an RS-issue. I have commented on @Thehumantwig01's talk page on 12 Nov 2020: The addition of Wikitongues videos should be restricted to the page about the language featured in the video, and with maximal oversight with regards to its illustrative value. There are cases where speakers are non-native speakers, or native semi-speakers; further, there are many videos which contain introductory portions in other languages (usually the dominant standard language of the region), which is misleading for the casual listener. Don't leave this oversight to others. If you are not in the position to judge whether a video portrays the featured language in an authentic and illustrative manner, don't add it. Per default, Wikitongues is not a WP:reliable source. Given that at least four videos were removed because of such issues, I agree with the procedure suggested by Valereee above (edit requests on talk pages), as long as Wikitongues has not been community-vetted on WP:RSN. –Austronesier (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser

Recently, my WP:BOLD edit on Template:Jews and Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was reverted with no reason provided by a long-time edit-warrior with long history of blocks Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After edit-warring, I explained my edit on the talk page and asked him to self-revert. In response, he called me a liar, didn't undone his revert, and still demands that I explain my edit, without himself explaining why he's reverting it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Please reread the diff you liked to, where you accused Debresser of calling you a liar. The first sentence of that is an explanation for the revert. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An explanation is when someone says which links should not be removed and why. He didn't do that and he calls me a liar later in the diff I provided: "Oh, and you are a liar as well". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: I disagree. Debresser did explain, although they would be better advised to engage in expanded discussion at the template talk page than to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to have a content dispute at its heart, with the only behavioural issues being that Triggerhippie4 should not have re-reverted, and Debresser should not have used the word "liar". I don't believe that either of those is at the level where admin action is warranted, so why not just discuss this on the template talk page? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute and is being discussed on the template talk page. Debresser replied to Triggerhippie4's inquiries a full hour before this complaint was initiated. Debresser characterized Triggerhippie4's calling attention to their block log as "poisoning the well", and they were right, it was an unnecessary ad hominem. Debresser responding in kind is really not actionable. Everyone here needs to remember that assume good faith is a policy. Nothing for admins to do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger and Ivanvector: This isn't a content dispute because Debresser doesn't dispute the content. In his reply on the talk page he admit that he has no arguments against the substance of my edits. He then ask me to explain minor, obvious part of my edit, but he never himself explained why it shouldn't be made. He could restore that part only, but he just revert everything against WP:GOODFAITH and then making up excuses why he did that. It does not help improving Wikipedia. I'm pointing out his block history because this is a continuation of his disruptive behavior of WP:OWN and edit-warring. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Phil Bridger that Triggerhippie4 should have discussed and not re-reverted. I also agree with Ivanvector that Triggerhippie4 was unnecessarily poisoning the well. I would also like to point out that Triggerhippie4's edit summary "The last time this template was discussed, it was me who made it what it is today without objection or participation."[60] IMHO confirms that Triggerhippie4 has a WP:OWN issue here. There is active discussion on the talkpage. I was sincerely surprised when I saw the WP:ANI notification on my talkpage, and think that this is unnecessary drama. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Mike Novikoff

I'm sorry if this not the right place to discuss this (if this is the case, please move my message to a more appropriate location), but I have found myself in a fight with a user named Mike Novikoff. I saw him removing stress (accent) marks from names in the Cyrillic script (enclosed in a {{lang-ru}} template) and I've tried to stop him, but he continues. I have pointed him to WP:BRD and suggested that he starts a serious discussion of the issue on the Russian project talk page before continuing, but he doesn't want to listen. There's also another user that helped him.

Mike Novikoff even wrote an essay about the necessity to remove stress marks from Russian names (WP:RUSTRESS), which he promotes by including a link to it in his edit summaries. I've tried to move the essay to his user space, but he moved it back. (By the way, the essay is badly written, and it looks like an attack page against the Russian Wikipedia where Mike Novikoff is currently blocked.)

I don't really want to fight and I don't care much about the Navalny and Lenin pages where Mike Novikoff reverted me 3 times or so already, but I'm afraid that he starts to remove stress marks en masse. I'm concerned about the articles that don't have Russian-language versions. (There are many, cause the Russian Wikipedia has stricter notability rules.) And if there isn't a Russian version, there will be nowhere to go for the information on correct pronunciation, the information will be completely lost.

By the way, Mike Novikoff's essay says that an IPA transcription "is already present in most of the articles that need it", but that is simply not true. And Mike No\vikoff has already removed stress marks from some articles that didn't have an IPA transcription. Examples: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are links to previous discussions:

• User talk:Mike Novikoff#WP:Stress marks in Russian words
• User talk:Retimuko#Alexei Navalny

As you can see, I've tried to explain to Mike Novikoff and Retimuko that most (if not all) Russian encyclopedias and dictionaries mark stresses. And that if they wanted to remove stress marks, a wide and thorough discussion would be necessary. But they don't seem to understand. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, I've found that the best thing to do when you are in a dispute with another editor is to get more, knowledgeable editors involved in the discussion so it evolves out of a "me vs. you" tug of war to a "how can we improve this?" discussion. So, I was going to recommend you bringing this subject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia but it looks like most talk page messages there get zero responses. Are there places in Wikipedia, maybe Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages involving language, accents, stress marks and the like where some other editors could weigh in on this matter? I think you need to broaden the discussion beyond just the two of you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia is essentially dead. Probably WT:MOS could be the best place to discuss the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, having a clear statement on this matter included in MoS would be the best of the options. I just hadn't aimed that high yet. Generally, I am removing these stress marks from Russian words (not only names) for a couple of years already, for the sake of the correct spelling, and such edits were never reverted until recently, so I dare say there is a kind of silent consensus on that. Only once I've been asked a question by a user (who didn't revert, just asked), then a user suggested that I write a more detailed description, hence I wrote WP:RUSTRESS and continued to happily edit using the shortcut instead of wordy summaries.

All of a sudden, Moscow Connection came down like a ton of bricks on me, and despite all the conversations I'm feeling a constant pressure from him for almost a month now. Did he mention that he moved my essay away twice, until having been stopped by an admin? Then he proceeded to constantly watch and revert my edits, including weird reversions, and he continues to do so. And he had put {{uw-3rr}} on my talk page thrice, despite it being a single-issue template, despite WP:Don't template the regulars and despite my request to stop it after the first one. He acts as if I'm doing something really disruptive and he has to stop me by all means, he even said this explicitly: "I can't allow him to do it". It looks like WP:HOUNDING (he really does inhibit my work), I'm sick and tired of this, so can you please tell him to slow down a bit? While we don't currently have a rule to remove the stress marks, we don't have one to put and keep them either, so Moscow Connection's behavior shouldn't be so aggressive.

there will be nowhere to go for the information on correct pronunciation, the information will be completely lost
A typical fallacy of an inexperienced editor (even though Moscow Connection doesn't look like one). If a research is so unique and original that it "will be completely lost", it definitely has no place in Wikipedia, that's what WP:OR is all about. — Mike Novikoff 02:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusation of sock puppetry by No Great Shaker

No Great Shaker accuses me of being a sock puppet of Lazman321 [69] Sick of editors throwing around baseless accusations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

See the GAR and the baseless accusation of "bad faith". Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

File a case at WP:SPI if you think there's evidence of sock puppetry. Otherwise, you need to keep your suspicions to yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, No Great Shaker. Go ahead and list me in the Sockpuppet investigations list. Go ahead and have a reviewer use checkuser on me and Hawkeye7. Just ask yourself this. Why would an experienced editor with tons of featured, A-class, and good articles to his credit create a sockpuppet user a week after re-nominating Albert Kesselring and wait two months before having the sockpuppet user work on getting "Levels (Avicii song)" to GA status along with other edits before eventually reviewing Albert Kesselring and passing it. If you still believe that I am a sockpuppet user of Hawkeye7, then go ahead, No Great Shaker. Go ahead and list me in the Sockpuppet investigation list. Lazman321 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous accusation. Combined with the personal attack on the GAR page, this is an indication that NGS needs to take a break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67. This is not okay behavior. No Great Shaker, you either need to file a report at SPI and with evidence and diffs to support your accusation, or you need to not say anything at all. Throwing accusations of sock puppetry at other editors like that is uncivil, and it yields absolutely no benefit to the community when you do this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Update: No Great Shaker has announced their retirement. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Insistent SPA engaging in disruptive behaviour

User:WikiCorrection0283 is a single-purpose account, whose only activity to date has been composed of adding heavy WP:OR and WP:POV violations to the article List of massacres in Cyprus, e.g. [70]. This has been going on for a couple of months really but has really recently escalated. The content is a collage of content copied and pasted from other articles (content that I myself wrote), random references that have little or no relevance to the topic and pure original research without any sources. Despite attempts at communication and clear previous consensus amongst editors on what to include, the user insists on making these mass additions and responds with walls of texts on Talk:List of massacres in Cyprus, replete with personal attacks against me, which is frankly in harassment territory by now, taking into consideration their edit summaries too. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Pinging other users involved: Beshogur, Mr.User200. --GGT (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:GGT you should have waited for my response and of other fellow editors on the article talk page, also this by your part is really not helping, it never helps. User:WikiCorrection0283 was a Anon IP before October 2020, seems he tries to help in Wikipedia at his particular way. I hope more can be achieved in the talk page that apealing to warns and reverts. I propose that WikiCorrection0283 use his draft space to propose a version for the article and make the observations opinions on it.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my original conclusion - the user is a clear SPA as any third-party editor will be able to see from their contributions and the walls of text, personal attacks and mass manipulations of references are clear red flag signs that the user is not here to build an encyclopaedia. --GGT (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User Wikicorrection0283 shows particular interest on that article, during a short period of time, likely a SPA. User:GGT also edit several Cyprus related articles too, but have more time editing. Maybe a concensus could be achieved.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in fact they only show interest in that article. That's why they're called an SPA. I've worked on these articles for years and I know a POV-pushing SPA when I see one. The reason I'm calling for administrative attention is because all the red flag signs are clearly there. --GGT (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Being an SPA is not a violation of policy. Most editors start out their editing careers as SPAs. It's the WP:OR that I'm more concerned about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I looked like one: created account, made 12 edits, then created a bio on someone whose first name was Valerie. Hahaha... Agree with Liz, the simple fact it's an SPA isn't the problem. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That is true, but letting the SPA emphasis aside, that the single purpose here is OR is quite a problem. And the OR is quite insidious. I've been working on these articles for years and wouldn't be able to identify it if it wasn't for 1) the user copying content that I wrote myself 2) me having relatively easy access to a legal deposit library. Another editor could very easily overlook it. The user has been made fully aware, and has only responded with walls of texts and personal attacks. --GGT (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz and I have both posted to the user's talk, dealing with walls of text, personal attacks, and using typographics for emphasis. They've also been pointed at Teahouse. The OR issue can be a pretty steep learning curve for a lot of newer users; if WikiCorrection0283 refuses to try to learn that lesson, that would be evidence of being here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. WC0283, I recommend you read the information both at that link and at WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and if you feel you don't understand, go to Teahouse and ask for help. —valereee (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass unsourced edits or vandalism to university articles

Mainly enrollment and faculty numbers by 2600:1702:1190:2AA0:114C:DB72:AC1:7CD5 (talk · contribs), removing sourced content. Unless there's an indication that any of these are valid, a mass rollback seems necessary. And a block, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

They're not valid. None of the changes are sourced, and often there is removal of content, including citations, for no reason. I have reverted dozens of their edits. It's vandalism, pure and simple. Sundayclose (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sundayclose, especially for taking the time to revert the edits. I was hoping an admin would do that in one swoop and block the account. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the edits have already been reverted. Thanks for doing that, Sundayclose! Next time, you can ask me to do that if you don't wish to spend all that time doing so manually. :-) I've blocked the user for 36 hours for adding unsourced content to articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries by User:A.S. Brown are very problematic

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

---

Hello! I wanted to bring up a problem I noticed with a user's edit summaries. A.S. Brown is a prolific contributor, but I am concerned that some of his edit summaries may create an environment that is unfriendly to other users, reflect bias in a way that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and violate NPOV. I suspect a thorough examination of this user's extensive contribution history may reveal more problems, but here are diffs for a number of examples that stand out:

• On the Japanese
• On First Nations people
• Again on First Nations people
• On Afghans and Sikhs
• On Irish travellers
• On a BLP where, the subject's nature aside, bias is evident
• On women being whores
• On money and a sex life
• On an article about a woman who had multiple partners

I have found many other instances of bizarre or biased edit summaries, but in the interest of concision, I'll just leave those nine for now. In general, this user adds an immense amount of detail to articles, some of which may be helpful or useful from an encyclopedic point of view. Other times, though, it is difficult to see what interest, beyond prurient, a reader might have in some of this content. The whole article on Barbara Skelton is filled with so much unneeded detail on her sex life with King Farouk that it is obvious it serves no purpose except to titillate the reader with the exploits of the dead. Most of the same content can be found on the King's page as well.

This is my first time at ANI, and I have never called out another user like this before. I just thought that these edit summaries were beyond the pale and deserved attention from more experienced editors. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do beyond notifying the user in question on their talk page with the necessary template. Thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yikes. Some of these are outrageously offensive, and need to be revision deleted as serious BLP violations. A.S. Brown, is there anything that you can say to explain what was going on here - how can you justify referring to a named, living individuals as 'scumbags' (multiple times in the recent history of Satan's Choice Motorcycle Club), or your sweeping generalisations about various cultures, religions and nationalities? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) Whoa. You weren't exaggerating. A.S. Brown, what in the world? Please 1. explain if you possibly can and 2. stop. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I love a carefully crafted edsum as much as the next editor, but the examples provided show me that this chap doesn't belong here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wtf? Apparently it spreads into edits too, eg Special:Diff/986639301, which smells somewhat of POV. Some of these summaries are just completely inappropriate even if not BLP violations. What is going on here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• WTF indeed. more than 50k edits. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Two sense: (1) Wikipedia is so big, it's amazing how long some things can go on for before anyone notices. (2) These edit summaries read like they're coming from that guy at the bar: "Lemme (hic) lemmetellyasumthinbout Afghans and Sikhs..." Lev¡vich 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not just edit summaries. I just removed a sentence they added to the above-mentioned article, which asserted that Irish Travellers are a group of people who "make their living by criminality" - a sweeping, throwaway generalisation about an ethnic group that has no place being anywhere near article space. I'm worried at what a deeper look into their contribs would throw up - I was about to go block them, but Cullen328 beat me to it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I spent a fair amount of time looking at their contributions, and decided that an indefinite block is appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I want to commend Ganesha811 for bringing this matter to this noticeboard with a well-organized and convincing presentation. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

        Agreed - thanks, that was a necessary and we'll-put-together report. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, Cullen328, Valereee, and others - thank you for your prompt attention to this issue, and for taking action about it at once. I'm concerned, as you may be too, that given this user's extensive contribution history, other "bad" edits may exist. They have added a *ton* of content, and given what has been unearthed so far, it seems probable that some percentage of it is biased, unnecessarily prurient, accompanied by bigoted edit summaries, or possibly a BLP violation. They were also autopatrolled, so they have created many articles with little oversight. How can we go about making sure this content is reviewed, and, if appropriate, removed from Wikipedia? Ganesha811 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  Re autopatrolled: articles can be manually unpatrolled, or by script, to pop them back into queue. Also, a list can be seen here. Regarding other edits, no real way other than by taking a flick through contribs, but it'll undoubtedly take some work to carefully resolve everything that may need resolving. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should also delete their user pages. It's a mass ofexternal links. Some are just to articles, but an inordinate amount of them are links to Youtube videos that appear to be documentary series uploaded without the permission of the rights holder. So it's basically a collection of links to copyrighted material. Canterbury Tail talk 21:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I've gone ahead and deleted it. I looked into many of the videos and they were clearly recorded off TV. You can see "Play" indicators where they are playing the VCR, and watermarks for CityTV among others. I think it should be revdelled. (Well at least I told it to delete it, but the linkfarm is so huge it's taking the DB a while to do anything with it.) Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've just stumbled upon this. Nobody would dispute that the edit summaries are offensive, but they are not even personal attacks, as they are not directed at a fellow contributor, they are just insensitive and overall uncivil towards some groups of people. Which of course should not be allowed, but I think that an indef block of a contributor who in their 15 years here got only one other block, with no evidence of other warnings, or even a simple attempt to ask him to stop and reform, seems like a great overreaction. The correct process would be to tell him to stop making such uncivil comments. If he refuse or fails to reform himself, an escalating series of blocks for WP:CIV-violation could be imposed, but to jump straight into an indef seems rather ridiculous. I have always supported CIV being more strongly enforced, but this seems like bring a nuke to solve an issue that usually hardly gets an official warning given to an editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, someone with 15 years experience, pretty-much block free, should know better, and should not need a warning. If it was a one-off, then maybe, but not with the diffs presented above. The burden is now with them to explain their edits and why they will not repeat that pattern of behaviour if they log an unblock request. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

These aren't just violations of CIV. There are multiple egregious BLP violations, and multiple offensive generalisations about ethnicities, nationalities and religions - some in edit summaries, some in article space. A block was absolutely justified to ensure that this stops, immediately. You surely don't need a warning not to call people scumbags in edit summaries, not speculate on the size of people's genitals, or not to write in articles that '<insert ethnic group here> make their living through criminality'.

Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, but this editor will need to show that they understand the gravity of the situation, and that they are willing and able to rectify it, before they resume editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Rude and aggressive comments from User:Sailor Sam

The discourse can be seen here on my talk page. I nominated a page (Zappa (film)), which I thought non-notable, for deletion about 3 weeks ago. it was hastily declined. OK, whatever. But User:Sam Sailor seems to have taken exception to this, questioning, among other things, my knowledge of the Danish language, my editing history (which I stand fully behind), making (in my belief) unfounded accusations of disruptive editing, and generally communicating in an aggressive and generally uncivil manor towards myself.

Additionally, upon further inspection, he/she has made reverts of at least one edit I made in an unrelated article, Astronomy (song).

Also, the editor in question has made rude commentary about the incident on another editor's talk page.

I have also explicitly informed them not to contact me again.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@L1A1 FAL: First, you seem to have ignored the big warning telling you that you must notify any editor you bring up for discussion. I will do so for you, but please make sure to do so yourself in the future. Anyway, I don't see why this is at ANI. You asked the editor not to contact on your talk page. Fine. If they editor kept contacting you, I could understand an ANI thread, but that has happened yet. Reverting a single edit they saw in your edit history (I assume) is clearly not anywhere enough to count as WP:Hounding. Their discussion with Lugnuts seems to be just two editors exasperated at what they felt was a terrible nomination. The stuff on your talk page seems mostly fine. Asking you if you spoke Danish was reasonable under the circumstances. WP:BEFORE means you should generally look for sources before nominating and although it looks like a bunch of English sources were found, it's possible most sources for a Danish film will be in Danish, so if you didn't understand Danish, completing before would likely have been difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, remember that while you are allowed to ask editors not to contact you on your talk page, this doesn't mean you can escape responsibility for your edits. If there are problems with your AfDs and an editor has tried to help you but you've ignored them and told them not to contact you, they will be well within their rights to bring it ANI to have you sanctioned e.g. topic banned from AfD if the problem continues. The community is likely to accept that attempts to discuss the problem with you were limited by your refusal to discuss the matter, and that therefore sanctions may be warranted even with limited attempts to resolve the matter first. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The AFD was speedily declined, within 24 hours. I had minimal opportunity to respond to the matter. Offer help? Sam Sailor didn't even contact me until after the matter was closed. He contacted me over a matter that was, by that point, closed. I find that nonconstructive, to say the least.

The particular edit he reverted was a valid edit that I made, removing informtion not relevant to the target of the article. I believe he simply reverted it based on my edit summary, and their and my back-and-forth, rather than the actual matter of the edit, or having any knowledge of the subject themself.

I did not see the warning. That is on me. I am beyond exasperated with this editor, and just wanted this issue addressed.

And why should I be sanctioned? I didn't act in bad faith. The matter was over when he/she contacted me. I tried to engage them.. I've never had any issues about AFD before, so I believe that your understanding of this matter is incorrect. Their communication with me was unnecessary, given that the AFD was declined, and it was additionally, needlessly accusatory and WP:uncivil.

Additionally, they came at me today, after probably about a week of no communication. While they probably ultimately have good motives, there is no reason that the substance of their conduct should not be addressed.-L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again it's a single edit. Right or wrong, it's minor enough it's unreasonable to expect sanction over it, the same way it would be to sanction you over a poor AfD or not notifying them. If there is continued dispute over the edit, take it to Talk:Astronomy as always. There should be no reason why it needs to be at ANI. If there is a continued pattern of reverting your edits especially unnecessarily, or following you around, then sure sanction may be justified. But not over a single edit. Also substance of what conduct? What on earth are you talking about? Editors aren't required to use Wikipedia 24/7 nor are they required to respond to stuff straight away. You've told them you no longer welcome communication. Just leave it at that and stop wasting everyone's time. If you continue to make poor AfDs, that's on you, so please do seek feedback in appropriate venues if you're not willing to discuss the problems. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Looking more carefully, I see you did say "And unless you actually have something to discuss, please do not contact me again, or a complaint will be filed" and the editor responded. Them replying after you said this seems okay since they felt they did have something to discuss. The fact you didn't welcome their reply is unfortunate but it wasn't a clear request to stay away. Their reply could have been more polite, but yours could have been as well. Now that you've left a clear request to stay away, this should be respected and I've reminded them that they should do so. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw your comment on their page, and can't help but feel as though you have more-or less invited them to counter-report me. I find this unfortunate. I also had more to add, but it got caught in an edit conflict. I'm not retyping it, as I feel that this is going nowhere, and I have real-life matters to attend to. I would greatly appreciate it if you would address Sam's tone in his communication, but I can see you feel different than I. Good day.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Shakshak31

Shakshak31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since the eruption of the new Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, some new user/IPs have arrived to this site, including User:Shakshak31, who seemingly is not here to here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to be on a mission of Turkification.

Some of his diffs:

Personal attacks: speak properly dummy. I'm not sockpuppet of someone. I just didn't see the archive

Major lack of WP:CIR [71] [72]. Honestly this person is impossible to work with, admittingly I don't have the best patience for this kind of stuff, yet my point remains.

Removal/alteration of sourced information and edit warring in a GA article to push his own POV, completely ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and whatnot [73] [74] [75]

Some of these removals include cited stuff such as:

Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][11][12]

A scholarly hypothesis states that he was descended from Seneslau, a mid-13th-century Vlach lord.[4][5]

Changed the lede as well: Although his name is of Turkic origin, 14th-century sources unanimously state that he was a Vlach. -> There are multiple theories about his ethnicity.

Anti-Iranian behaviour or at least more disrespect from his side:

I'm deleting my own comment. because the iranian guy deleted my other comment.

== Persian chauvinism == Hello teacher, farsi editors on wikipedia are making Turkish history Iranian. They constantly write "Turco-persian, Turco-afghan, persianized" to Turkish states, but for example, they treat safevis whose origins are controversial as if they were purebred Kurds. Also, I added the posters to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries list. The guys watched all the articles about Turkish. If anything they don't want, they say unreliable source and delete it directly. I've never seen such a lousy site. These are the thieves of history. I will be glad if you can do something. I, too, that same farsi complained to someone I don't know called sockpuppeti and I will be banned soon. Come easy to you. You can delete the message after reading it.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained all my edits about Basarab on The talk page. [76]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I never deleted the sentence he was talking about. It's still there. I just cleared the page, made grammer edits, and deleted theories such as the theory that his name came from the dacio-thracian language. Because Dacian-thracian language died out almost a thousand years before Basarab's birth. [77]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also this translation sucks. what is "hello teacher"? Lol--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If User:Shakshak31 is responding here, can he explain his comment, "these are the thieves of history" (Google translated from Turkish). I am familiar with past disputes about the origins of the Safavid dynasty. Over the years, that page has had to be protected about 15 times, mostly to deter people who want to make the Safavids more Turkish and less Persian. Sources seem to agree that they were both. If Shakshak31 shows by his talk comments that he is unable to edit neutrally in this domain, some restrictions may be needed. Also, if you really think this is 'a lousy site' why wouldn't you take your efforts elsewhere? At present I'm not convinced that Shakshak31 is a sockpuppet, though socks are often known for their sudden arrival on Wikipedia with strong opinions that they make known immediately. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston It's not about the Safavids. I added the Afsharids to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries because they were Turkmens from the Afshar tribe. Also Nader Shah's mother tongue was Turkic and Nader Shah doesn't have any Iranian (as ethnicity) ancestry. But a Persian editor revert it. That's what that sentence was about. --Shakshak31 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Shakshak has made unacceptable statements in his edits as can be seen above, referring to other editors as "thieves of history", amongst others. When confronted with these edits, right here at ANI, he still refers to another editor as "a Persian editor",[78] a clear violation of WP:NPA. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that Shakshak31 is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Persian an insult?--Shakshak31 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You say it in demeaning way, you do realize we all have usernames? Do you refer people by their background instead of names irl too? Also, instead of asking questions, shouldn't u answer Ed already? This is exactly what I mean that this user is impossible to work with. He won't answer your questions / avoids them, and when he actually does, it's barely. HistoryofIran (talk)

• @Shakshak31: I will block you indefinitely if there are any further comments along the lines of "a Persian editor revert it" (diff above). Any similar terms that attempt to describe an editor are also totally unacceptable. At Wikipedia, what counts is the edit (the text that is displayed in an article). Any assumed characteristic of the editor making an edit is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass of unsourced content, added to possibly hundreds of figure skating articles

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

---

108.49.100.163 (talk · contribs). WP:BLP stuff. I'd prefer not to waste the next hour reverting everything, one by one. According to the user's talk page, they've received numerous warnings and plowed ahead with admirable disregard. Requesting administrative assistance for a quicker resolution. Thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I really hate the thought of being permanently blocked because I have a right to edit Wikipedia as much as everyone does. I will be very upset if I get in big trouble for trying to help by editing. Please do not block me at all. - Signed: Meaghan Brown, Holliston, MA

Meaghan, nobody has the right to disregard warnings and guidelines as completely as you have. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help because I have been finding information based on Google templates on search pages and mylife.com for American female single skaters. There are times when I do add sourced content, but I find the easiest website possible to add new information for other readers to learn about. I hate harsh criticism and threats to block or ban me from editing Wikipedia because I am trying to follow the guidelines that you all have been trying to teach me, and I'm just having a lot of trouble sourcing pages because they either come as errors or they're completely deleted. I need all your help, because there are things I am very new to.

The scope of unsourced edits is truly impressive. If you're genuine in your desire to continue here, I suggest you begin by deleting every piece of unsourced content you've added, rather than leaving it for other editors to sort through. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What unsourced content do I need to delete? Can you help me?

Everything you added without providing a source. Have you read the guidelines? Or the many messages left at your talk page? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines and many messages at my talk page but I have reached out to those who were harsh with me and threatened to block me. I just need to know if I need to delete unsourced birth dates, unsourced programs, etc.?

I have just started reverting the unsourced material to WP:BLP. I am very genuine about my desire to continue editing, but I don't want to make it out as if I am vandalizing or hurting pages like that. 108.49.100.163 (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Meaghan Brown (User talk:108.49.100.163)

I've reverted all of the last 500 of the user's edits (except for the ones where she self-reverted herself - those I can't roll back). It's clear that there's something going on here in regards to the user adding unsourced content, then making reverts to the same article... That being said, the user has appeared to cooperate fully and openly above. I'm open to allowing this user to remain unblocked so long as they listen and learn from the issues that they've been causing. I've made mistakes in my past, too. I'm not about to judge someone for the number of mistakes made so long as they stop the behavior now, they learn from them, and they commit to understanding policy and that they honor it. Any issues with the reverts I implemented or the thoughts I expressed here are completely open to input. Please ping me, as I have many pages on my watchlist. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

::Oshwah, the user responded to this report by attempting to remove most of the unsourced content they've added to hundreds of articles--you appear to have restored some of the unsourced content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The couple of edits that I looked at were correctly "undone". I've also seen these come by and I think I reverted one of them. The IP would do well to find serious, reliable sources for the information, after a thorough reading of WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at a few of the articles again, and though Oshwah may have restored content in a few instances, by and large he's done painstaking work in removing unsourced content that the IP neglected to remove. My thanks! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You bet. I did some spot-checking before I reverted the user's edits, and all of the ones I looked at were adding unreferenced content. Let me know if I can be of any more assistance. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

NorthBySouthBaranof

The editor NorthBySouthBaranof seems to revert politically contentious edits, edits intended to improve an article's neutrality, on articles that have serious left wing biases in certain places. This has been a problem for a while, starting with George Floyd's article, where I wanted to add more information on Mr. Floyd's medical examiner report. He reverted that edit, and claimed that reverting his revert was a blockable edit warring. Looking at his userpage, you can see many cases, and even more if you look in the talk page's edit history, of people complaining about him reverting edits intended to improve the representation of both sides in an article.

He has been a significant hindrance in me trying to improve the representation of all people, regardless of whether or not they are progressives or conservatives, in articles. It seems that I try to remove more liberal biases than conservative ones, but the fact of the matter is that there are more liberal biases than conservative ones.

Thanks, --JazzClam (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered the parable of The Mote and the Beam? Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @JazzClam: I strongly suggest providing WP:DIFFs that support your claim. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll echo what Tenryuu said. We can't possibly know what you're talking about, and thus make any determination as to whether there's actually a substantive behavioural issue, without a few illustrative examples. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and your subjective interpretation... Which obviously isn't fair to the editor being reported if we were to only rely on that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Op seems to be engaged in a content dispute on Ilhan Omar204.76.134.30 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Where it looks like a number of editors have reverted their "improvements" to the article. It seems that the PoV may be on the other foot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Beyond My Ken: Bravo! 👏204.76.134.30 (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think OP could benefit from discussing their edits on the affected articles' talk pages. Checking Talk:Ilhan Omar as an example they haven't engaged other editors as to why their edits are being reverted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My revert on Ilhan Omar is self-explanatory. Their edit removed the well-sourced description of Donald Trump's false, defamatory claims that Omar praised al-Qaida and smeared American soldiers. This is, of course, unacceptable - WP:BLP demands that we not falsely defame living people, and thus if we include notable false claims about a living person, we must be crystal clear that they are false. For that and other reasons, their edit was objectionable and I reverted it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, JazzClam posted a notice on your talk page 2 minutes after this report was submitted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And see the OP's talk page. I'm wondering if an AE sanction is need here. Doug Weller talk 06:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The OP's record here is not terribly impressive -- basically a run-of-the-mill POV pusher. They have also violated 1RR at Ilhan Omar. --JBL (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to stop at Ilhan Omar; JazzClam seems to have been trying to remove properly-sourced negative Trump statements from several articles, such as their thrice-reverted removals of content from Postal voting in the United States that described (with sources) Donald Trump's efforts to obstruct postal voting this year. There's also a copy of George Floyd's toxicology report that they pasted into Draft:Pyrotol (a completely unrelated title), which seems to be part of a plan to revisit their proposal to state, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead of the George Floyd article, that his death was the result of a fentanyl overdose and not from having a police officer kneel on his neck for nine minutes (example). What they describe here as "improving neutrality" is really glossing over or removing any reliably-sourced information they appear to disagree with, which has the effect of skewing these articles to a more pro-Trump point of view which is not supported by material published in reliable sources. I suggest a topic ban covering the scope of WP:ARBAP2 is probably in order. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to edit for political gain, that's it. I'm trying to improve the political neutrality of the encyclopedia. The fact of the matter simply is, that there are more typically liberal biases on this encyclopedia than typically conservative ones. I mostly remove politically contentious keywords and replace them with neutral ones. In the case of the Ilhan Omar article, I changed a line saying "Trump claimed without evidence" to "Trump claimed". That was it, the content of the line is still the same, a claim is a statement, whether or not it is true, in this case it was false, and the "without evidence" portion simply served to villainize (not saying i approved of what he said) him, that's it. All i do is remove or change keywords like that, things that detract from this encyclopedia's neutrality. I don't remove any facts, or add any competing ones, I just remove sketchy wording that makes articles seem more like an opinion piece rather than a neutral, irrefutably factual, article. JazzClam (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You grossly fail to understand NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam: On Wikipedia, WP:NEUTRAL means that we—as editors—must neutrally summarize what reliable sources say. It does not mean that Wikipedia needs to maintain a WP:FALSEBALANCE between left and right (or science and religion, or any other X vs. Y dispute). If more reliable sources favor one side, then we give WP:WEIGHT to that side, and we characterize the other side as a minority position. If most or all reliable sources favor one side, we may not even mention the other side at all. That's what NPOV means. Woodroar (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam:, Woodroar is right. I suggest you read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang sanctions against JazzClam

• JazzClam appears to be here for political reasons rather than for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE. The least response would be a post-1932 US politics topic ban. Otherwise an indefinite block. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• 1st choice, Indef block. 2nd choice TBAN post-1932.(derp) for JazzClam; I have little confidence in their desire to not propagandize or (in their eyes) RGW. That they spread the POV pushing to an area outside post 1932 US politics and that they bring a complaint to ANI when someone does not go along with their agenda makes clear they would not be able to contain themselves. They are NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBAN post-1932 - This user JazzClam has some constructive edits outside of political topics. But I saw a few red flags while browsing their contribs. They thought it okay to use a draft page to put together a table of the toxicology report for George Floyd ([79]) while pushing to include info about a "fatal" fentanyl level in his blood. Recently, nearly all their edits have been to keep "NPOV" by removing Trump-critical content, and even "China-centric" content ([80]). There is also this user page edit that is somewhat concerning. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, @Deepfriedokra and EvergreenFir: can you clarify if you mean you support a block/TBAN against NBSB or JazzClam? At a glance it appears to be the former, but I think you mean the latter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you for noticing that. I was referring to JazzClam. I will edit to clarify. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per my comment above I support AP2 topic ban, but oppose indef block. The user has constructive contributions outside of this scope, I haven't seen any evidence of WP:NOTHERE but whoever said WP:RGW hit the nail on the head (I was going to say WP:TE). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for JC -- the RGW stuff needs to stop, but I think it's worth exploring the possibility that they can contribute constructively in other areas. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam - an indef is not necessary at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam. The degree of their failure to understand NPOV is appalling, so they should stay away from controversial articles until they have learned to understand that policy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam. The area is sufficiently troubled without someone who totally misunderstands NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

2403:6200:8830:0:0:0:0:0/48

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

---

• 2403:6200:8830:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This Thailand-based IP range has done nothing but vandalize and disruptively edit various Wikipedia pages, which includes unsourced additions and nonsense additions in the IP's native Thai language. Warnings do not help the situation as the editor jumps to another IP in the same range and would attempt their edits multiple times on one article before jumping to another. Editor is not known to use any other IP outside of this range and given this is a /48 range, there does not appear to be a single IPv4 address associated with this IPv6 range. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

JalenFolf - 2403:6200:8830::/48 is a HUGE range. Are we sure that the edits from this range are all from this user? I only see two recent edits where Thai has been added to the edit summary... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I checked the range, and other than a very few exceptions there appear to be two users here: one who makes nothing but test edits in Thai and also visual editor tests (the code ''Italic text'' shows up in their contribs a lot), and a second who is often stopped by edit filters but when they do get their contribs into an article (always related to Thai TV and film) they revert-war relentlessly to keep their preferred version of things. Both could be blocked on their own for disruptive editing so I've blocked the range anon-only for three months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Thanks for taking a look at that in-depth. I didn't have a chance to, but I wanted to confirm first that the whole range needed blocking before I did... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I did check that too, but I couldn't isolate a narrower range. This one user is all over the /48. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Rylands Library Papyrus P52

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

---

This is about Talk:Rylands Library Papyrus P52#AD versus CE. An IP seems to spew paranoid rants that employing BCE/CE instead of BC/AD is lack of concern for their suffering ([82]), meaning the suffering of Christians who are/were persecuted in the Middle East. Would an admin close the discussion? Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• My argument is not that it causes harm, or that BCE/CE is intrinsically showing a lack of concern for Christian suffering by itself. My argument is that it does affect perception and it is kind of disrespectful given the points I was making and being on an article about a Christian historical artifact when an alternative traditionally used in and for Christian history is available. Things also got off track because frankly I felt mocked and belittled by some of the comments being made and when it was pointed out, no attempt was made to apologize or recognize that it was uncivil. I attempted to integrate them into my argument because it was pertinent to the line of discussion and I wanted to get to a point where more substantial arguments could be presented, but without throwing out any ground the opportunity of my interlocuter's jabs could have provided. We never got to that point and the whole thing melted down, I do admit I was part of that problem by pressing forward instead of redirecting things and arguing my points sloppily. The insensitivity and disrespect aspects of it came in when the first response on the propose was a jab at Christians. And then it continued down that line. That is why I want (and stated twice) to discuss this with other editors and labelled the section as polarized. The topic went down a track that it should not have, but I believe if it had been handled by both parties differently, an actual discussion of worth is possible for this topic. So I do not think that it should be closed. 71.47.11.146 (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While 71.47.11.146 had wandered somewhat away from reasonable arguments, their more recent comments do not meet a "paranoid rants" level. To be honest, this discussion looks like it would be tailor-made for a Third Opinion, rather than needing an ANI hammer. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, well, well, sources like [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89] were employed to hammer the point that there would be a link between Wikipedia employing BCE/CE and Christians getting persecuted in certain parts of the world. That is what I call paranoid. Those sources have nothing to do with BCE/CE and nothing to do with the papyrus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I had thought about using a call for a Third Opinion but I did not know how to do that and I did not want to do it wrongly and have it construed incorrectly. Also I agree that discussion became a train wreck so I really would rather have just started over but with someone else.71.47.11.146 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I suggest that in the future you should drop any mention of persecution, since arguing that there should be BC/AD instead BCE/CE, because persecution will never be a productive way of arguing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not have any desire to speak with you about those matters any further, please stop bringing them up. 71.47.11.146 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We seem to just rub badly in that area and I would rather not fight any more. I am sorry for doing a bad job making my arguments and for offending you. Thank you for attempting to have a discussion with me, I did learn some things about debating on the wiki(I've only had I think one previous talk page discussion and I don't even remember it.) and what to do and not to do, so thank you for helping me learn I appreciate that. But we conflict too much in these matters to keep it civil so I think it best we avoid speaking about them if we can help it. 71.47.11.146 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion on that talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

CyclonicallyDeranged and WP:AGF

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

---

In late October, a user in WikiProject Tropical cyclones called Jason Rees added some seasonal forecasts to the 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season article from two respected agencies that had been used for years. The next day, a user named CyclonicallyDeranged removed the forecasts of one agency because their forecast zone extended slightly outside the basin. On October 29, Jason Rees left CyclonicallyDeranged a message regarding the revert. CyclonicallyDeranged (I'll call him CD, and Jason Rees JR) left JR some very rude comments. Keeping calm, JR tried to explain once again why the agency's forecast zone included part of the South Pacific, and got more personal attacks. This continued until November 2, when CD was told to move the "discussion" to the season talk page, which he did.

Here CD began the discussion. JR quickly replied with his opinion, with the same results as before. JR also pinged a few users, including Hurricanehink, Weatherman27, and Destroyeraa. After CD called JR's edits "bogus", Destroyeraa stepped into the conversation. Now, Destroyeraa (D) had already been in several content disputes, but expressed "this is the hottest content dispute I've ever been in. Please calm down..." But CD did not calm down, and his personal attacks, despite multiple attempts from other editors, continued, getting worse and worse over the next week. JR decided to step out of the conversation, saying he needed to calm down.

An impatient CD abusively pinged JR, with no reply. D and another user, ThePelicanThing, suggested CD go on a wikibreak. CD refused, with more personal attacks. I entered the discussion, suggesting a note saying "This agency's scope includes some of the South Pacific. I ended my comment with "As a last note, @CyclonicallyDeranged: read WP:CIR and WP:CIVIL until you are able to comprehend how you have violated those policies towards Jason Rees". Since then, CD has been relentlessly trying to WP:BOOMERANG me. He refused to read the polices, so I copied the first sentence of them, word for word, for him to read (which ThePelicanThing thanked me for). CD replied, "Civility inapplicable when the other one in the dispute cannot assume good faith. Try a better argument next time." Then, I made a big mistake. I reverted bak to the both-agencies revision. CD went crazy, calling me a vandal and a troll, and an LTA. So I replied, "You're honestly a bit like Bedriczwaleta. If you try to interact with Bedriczwaleta, he'll shoot personal attacks back at you. So goodbye." I stepped out of the discussion, and opened this discussion.

Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And here are Jason Rees's remarks on the discussion:

User talk:Jason Rees/sandbox2

🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, I am not here to try to harm anyone. I am just trying to help make Wikipedia's article accurate, free from inaccuracies and confusion, and relevant. Meanwhile, these people insist that their version be put back. Quickly reading Chicdat's long discussion and I see many false claims already. I won't be reading further.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Destroyeraa

So from I know from the dispute, it started out with a nasty content dispute about a section of 2020-21 Australian region cyclone season. Both editors edit-warred, and was stopped by MelanieN, who fully protected the page. Then CyclonicallyDeranged (CD) and Jason Rees (JR) engaged with a rather rude discussion of CD's talk page. Melanie then encouraged them to debate it on the talk page of the disputed article. The responses the editors gave were pretty though-out and respectful. Weatherman27 and ThePelicanThing both wanted to help resolve the dispute. I tried to resolve the dispute with a DRN-style approach, but CD objected, stating I don't believe a DRN is required here as DRN is supposed to be for a dispute for many people (more than 2). I've already explained what I have objections for already higher up in this thread anyway. I'm taking off the space meant for dispute resolution. Won't help on the matter. Though I found the response quite rude, and I've been in a DRN discussion only involving 2 people, I let go of the matter.

The next few paragraphs and days were spent discussing the article and how to resolve it. Numerous editors gave their take, though CD wanted JR to respond too. JR told me off-wiki that he was going back into lockdown, and was stressed. CD waited four days, and was understandably getting impatient, and wrote Make that 4 days now with no comments. I may begin editing the section today since no one else has any objections. Then he went into the article and made the section into what he believes how it should be written. I then explained to CD that Jason was stressed. ThePelicanThing added it's one thing to see silence and act and it's another to achieve actual encyclopedic consensus, I hope the two parties can have a reasonable chat about this and give due consideration to the circumstances at hand., which was very wise. CD responded with Not until Jason Rees actually begins chatting. Also I strongly disagree, I prefer not to see conversation – it can get worse. I responded with No, conversation is required when resolving disputes of Wikipedia, and I do not intend to stir up more trouble. Both you and Jason should be calm, not use foul language, and provide evidence and reasoning when discussing. Cyclonically fired back with Well Jason Rees isn't doing that very well for a while (conversation). Also, where is the foul language? Also, what you are suggesting isn't resolving disputes of Wikipedia, you are suggesting resolving disputes between Wikipedians...Do you even read the discussion at all????? Because I think you are intending to provoke more trouble. I was taken aback greatly. I saw ThePelicanThing's response and I have to say that it summed up a lot of what I wanted to say. With all due respect, please see WP:CON notably that a lack of response on talk pages does not indicate consensus has been reached and the fact that consensus necessarily must be reached to end a dispute and that, as stated above quite well requires discussion. I, like all of I us think we can agree, do not want to stir up trouble, however suggesting Destroyeraa is not promoting dispute resolution and suggesting they are intending to provoke more trouble contravenes WP:AGF regarding their comments on this discussion, and frankly, in "Do you even read the discussion at all" is erring towards baiting a defensive response which is clearly discouraged per WP:CIV. I assume this was unintended and implore you to let this simmer out for a bit and discuss with Jason when appropriate. Be kind.

Two days later, Jason replied with While i can ignore the NIWA forecast being removed from the infobox, I feel that @CyclonicDerranged:'s recent edits make the section a lot poorer, as it gives way to much weight to the BoM forecast and poorly explains what La Nina is. It also removes a lot of the information from my edits that is relevant. Destroyeraa and ThePelicanThing: I am currently compiling a summary of the dispute from my perspective. Hurricanehink replied with What specifically makes the section poorer? The section mentions the water temperatures near the Australian basin, and that La Nina seasons tend to start earlier. The edits by CyclonicallyDeranged also add the percent chance of increased activity by each area. The only thing that's missing is the potential for a C5 cyclone, but that's possible in any year. I have to agree with the fact that JR saying that "CyclonicDerranged:'s recent edits make the section a lot poorer" isn't assuming good faith. CD fired back with I feel that Jason Rees wants to argue for the sake of arguing! yuck. I responded to CD that {{{1}}} CD responded with Couldn't disagree more – the above comment. The "poor editing" is true.

Later, Hurricanehink came back and added that everyone should just chill. I'd like to suggest that everyone on here just chill, and remember what we're doing. We're building an encyclopedia, in the midst of a global pandemic. We're all trying our best, but we need to remember that we are working with other people, who have valid feelings and opinions. We're all probably stressed because we can't do what we normally like to do. So let's do our best in writing this encyclopedia so future generations can look back on us, hopefully with pride, as we document this subset of weather topics in the midst of the greatest rapid change in Earth's climate. Let's leave the arguing and name calling to the climate change deniers and the politicians/corporations who can't seem to agree on doing anything. Thank you, Hink, for the humor. Later, Chicdat stepped in and this is where things got uncivilized. Chicdat said This discussion is going absolutely nowhere and is probably going to end up at ANI. I've been watching CD's talk page for days, and this is not a discussion, it's an argument with some ad hominem in it (it's the edits that matter, CyclonicallyDeranged; NOT the editor). And this NIWA business has peacefully been going on for years. Why not just add a note saying "This outlook also includes part of the South Pacific" and leave it there. As a last note, @CyclonicallyDeranged: read WP:CIR and WP:CIVIL until you are able to comprehend how you have violated those policies towards Jason Rees. I couldn't find anything wrong with Chicdat's response except maybe the "until you are able to comprehend how you have violated those policies towards Jason Rees." CD responded with Read WP:CIVIL and WP:CIR yourself. I'm not here to make friends, but to improve Wikipedia. You just don't like my edits and only want to have things done your way. You just violated those policies yourself. And as I have said a thousand times before, this is not the South Pacific. Chicdat said Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Chicdat then reverted to a revision before CD added his tastes into the article. Now CD becomes rude, saying Civility inapplicable when the other one in the dispute cannot assume good faith. Try a better argument next time. Reverting back to last good version. Do not revert because of your tastes – it is disruptive, could be edging on vandalism too... This response has many things wrong with it. CD is blatantly saying that he won't be civil. Then, he accuses Chicdat of vandalism, which is a baseless and hollow claim, as Chicdat clearly did not vandalize. Chicdat responded with If you think that that is vandalism, then you're just doing more ad hominem. I responded to CD saying that I don't want to be rude, but CyclonicallyDeranged I get very pissed when someone reverts a clearly non-vandalism edit claiming it's "vandalism" because you don't like it. So I suggest you redact "could be edging on vandalism too...". Thanks, and have fun editing. CD responded with Reverts without addressing all the writing that got changed back...definition of vandalism. This needs to stop. Seriously. CD, read WP:VANDALISM and stop making baseless claims. Chicdat, you compared CD to a LTA, which wasn't nice either. I can assure you that neither CD nor Chicdat are LTAs. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I acted in the way I did from the fact Jason Rees reverted the very first edit which I did not believe was in good faith. Just took away all the edits and left it with errors and confusion. I am trying to make the article better. That is it. Meanwhile, most of you insist on more drama. I do not want drama.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, not vandalism. More of disruptive editing, because there were other parts in the article that Chicdat probably didn't know were reverted back.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment I would just like to mention that the original discussion that was deemed "very rude" occurred on CD's talk page, not JR's. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 15:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

my mouse isn't working, so I'll wait to give my two cents till I'm home at 19:15 utc. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from CyclonicallyDeranged

• The only thing I'd like from this dispute is people talking about the article's content. So far people are merely focusing on people's behaviour – mainly mine. I'm being assertive on the issue here. It is due to this that people are only bringing their attention away from the article itself. I wish people stop blaming people's behaviour and focus on the article. That is all. If no one can talk about the article, I don't see how Wikipedia could succeed if its people merely tackle on each other. I should then avoid Wikipedia altogether and rely on other reliable sources that I can trust. I'm logging off for now.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Largely from which users have commented here, I am in the minority and those users are against me. I just hope that whoever reads this, I am doing it for the sake of truth, facts and credibility: writing according to the sources given, using reliable sources (which I have done), remaining relevant to the article, being clear and succinct. What a couple of users have done is putting back onto the article what they prefer to be shown – which is filled with inaccuracies, confusion, incomplete sentences, irrelevant information, and missing important information.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This page is about behavior, content disputes aside, we're talking about your behavior. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ThePelicanThing

I'll keep this brief, I largely concur with Destroyeraa and Chicdat, particularly the former regarding the nature of the dispute so won't waste time on common areas just differences. My main concern is adding the main comments CD has made addressing me in the dispute namely recently on the article talk page in question, after the comments I made outlined above by other users. I suggested CD stop WP:ABF of anyone with a different viewpoint by suggesting other cannot WP:AGF and by suggesting anyone not conforming to your edits is doing so based purely on taste which I admit might be a failure on my own part to WP:AGF on CD's behalf for which I can only apologise, I should in reality WP:STAYCOOL.

That being said, it was met with a response of The fact a lack of discussion about the article content and Wikipedia relies on a so-called consensus is why Wikipedia is failing so bad. Yes I had reason to revert based on article content. I am not waiting for anything, especially from someone who resorts to edit warring... and this is the start of the chain that lead to the comparison of CD to an LTA by Chicdat which is in my mind not appropriate and reflection of the renewed tension of the situation. This is exemplified by A new policy you're violating: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 15 times, to date from Chicdat, which lead to a retort Reflected on yourself from CD; the culmination of which is of course the comparison in question.

I like hurricanes has suggested parties just.. chill? maybe take sometime away from this article, as it is certainly causing problems for many editors. which is apt. Destroyeraa notes then Cyclonically, your arguments will be better accepted if you change your tone and your rudeness regarding CD's approach. ThePelicanThing (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Weatherman27

I have noticed that both summaries of what happened go into little detail of what happened on CD's talk page, except for the part were Chicdat put what JR said above. This was a major part of what would come later. As it was said before, there was a lot of back and forth between CD and JR as they were arguing about which version of the article was best to keep, and as such a large edit war had occurred. The discussion kept going to the point that I stepped in and told them both that they needed to come to a consensus and that they were most likely in violation of WP:3rr. They both acknowledge this, but the arguing continued. I am not the best person for describing what happened, but please see CD's talk page for the clearest view. When I came back, I responded to what they had said by saying that I knew that they were trying to figure it out, and that I just wanted to remind them because I personally did not want anyone to get blocked. This was followed by the continuation of the argument, with both editors claiming that the others reverts were sloppy, or that they were wrong. The final comment put on this first section was on November 1. The next section on CD's talk page started out from a warning for the edit warring, from MelanieN. CD then basically explained why it was happening, and that JR was making bad reverts and that he was in the wrong. This would spark another long argument, with the last comment in that section being on November 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CyclonicallyDeranged is where it all happened. I wish I could do a better summary, but I don't have as much time, nor do I have much experience with quoting people or linking subjects. Apologies for that. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 15:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

I can see only two options for resolving this, and @CyclonicallyDeranged: should choose which of them to go for:

1. CD promises not to make any more personal attacks and to assume good faith in all future dealings with other editors, with a block to be imposed without warning if he fails to keep to this. In return, other editors undertake to forget this incident and allow CD to start with a clean sheet.
2. CD gets an immediate short block to give him time to think over what has happened.

I don't see any reason to prolong this discussion. Deb (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Okay, I can avoid attacks and to assume good faith. One thing I hope you realise: the reason this problem started is because one user reverted my edit with no consideration at all and I doubted they assumed good faith. The rest was a chain reaction. It's very much it.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith after this. Thank you.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: I agree, I hope CD chooses number 1, for the sake of himself. I doubt he'll chose Number 2. We can allow CD a clean start. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deb:, since CyclonicallyDeranged has chose option #1, this discussion can be closed. Thank you CD for agreeing to a resolution. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

AfD nominations and at least one close by a sock

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

---

See [90]. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked, and I've fixed the AfDs. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: thanks. It's come as a surprise to me to see that the other editor who edited at the AfD the sock closed,[91] was a BKFIP sock who has over 12,000 edits and has been here 3 months. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Hoaxing from Pennsylvania range

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

---

I asked for a rangeblock at AIV but it was too complex a case for them to consider. Here's what I said:

• 2601:989:4300:BEA0:5D66:B11:77CB:A48B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On No Doubt discography (diff): vandalism after final warning. Fake album added to discography. Persistent hoaxing from Special:Contributions/2601:989:4300:BEA0:0:0:0:0/64, blocked for a week last April. This person was given a level 4 warning earlier today at User talk:2601:989:4300:BEA0:5914:5789:BF34:BEC1.

This person has been making lots of little date and fact changes, all of them suspect, because of the huge problem with adding hoax albums complete with false citations.[92][93] They have also named standard album tracks as false single releases.[94][95] Can we get another rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes sir. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Single-purpose account repetitively adding the same unsourced content

(previous entry about the same subject)

Cihangir751 (talk · contribs), already blocked 48 hours end september, is again here seemingly only to add dubious unsourced information on some obscure Ottoman character, erasing sourced content; deliberately ignores invitation to discuss on TP, claims to be a descendant of the subject, having therefore the right to deny other people to interfere. What other solution except long-term block or thema-ban? --Phso2 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from Raziye Sultan indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

IP-hopper stalks users and calls them Serbian propagandists. Should this be an LTA? Should he be community banned for harassment?

WP:HARASSMENT. This user is an IP-hopper that stalks a group of users's contribs and constantly reverts them, and calls them Serbian propagandists. Is there any solution to this? Examples: Special:Contributions/93.138.151.117 Special:Contributions/93.136.125.178 There are a lot more socks, but these two are the ones came to my head. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank I agree there is a bad problem here, which you have tried to find help for. These IPs, possibly rangers are prolific. I'm not an admin who can handle this, but you certainly need admin intervention in this situation. Whoever is behind the IP seems willing to keep the edit warring indefinitely. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

93.138.76.165 and Government of National Salvation

One looks at the talk page User talk:93.138.76.165 shows that this IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, and is now making personal attacks via edit summary [96]. Could someone please block them? I have protected the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Block me. Listen to the disguised great serbian propagandist. 93.138.76.165 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just wait until someone blocks you. Just wait. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the same as the IP mentioned above, so making this a subsection. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Can Hrvatska radiotelevizija be semi-protected? Look at the revision history. I was battling reversion with that disruptive IP. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be an LTA. This has been going on for months. Look at the socks. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Done. I have blocked this particular IP (93.138.76.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) for 48 hours. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:1C2:4E00:3DE:0:0:0:0/64

Can someone please revoke talk access for this CU-blocked range; edits coming from it are trolling on their own IP talk pages. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Home Lander -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler

Can I get some uninvolved admin eyes on User:Bus stop's behavior at Talk:Parler? It's getting absolutely ridiculous. I initially created the RfC in part because we were going in circles, but it doesn't appear to have helped. The user keeps WP:REHASHing the same arguments over and over and over again—claiming that people have not explained why the mention of antisemitic content on Parler ought to be included in the lead when they have (often more than once), and most often repeating the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument that "if it's not in the lead of Twitter, why should it be included here?". Multiple users have asked them to stop, but they are continuing. I don't know if they genuinely believe it's a legitimate argument or if their intent is to overwhelm and derail the discussions there, but the end result is the same. Talk:Parler#Description_of_this_service is the most recent example of the behavior, but it can be viewed up and down the talk page including in Talk:Parler#Heavy bias circumvents guidelines of conservative, dispassionate descriptions. Please remove subjective and unsubstantiated "antisemitism" claim and in the RfC. They began doing this on November 7 (see my comments then: [97], [98]) and have shown no sign of slowing.

Diffs of multiple editors explaining to them they need to stop, that their behavior is disruptive, and/or that discussion of Twitter should happen at Talk:Twitter:

• Myself: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]
• IHateAccounts: [107], [108], [109]
• Slatersteven: [110], [111]
• XOR'easter: [112], [113]
• Grayfell: [114], [115], [116]

I am also seeing that Bus stop has quite the history at ANI, including numerous discussions about disruption at articles related to Judaism that go quite far back. Not sure if anyone more familiar with their history could provide additional context.

Thanks in advance to whoever wades through that long talk page to try to sort this out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop is on a roll again--an AP2 topic ban would be a great help. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• This has happened many times at AP articles, often over minor issues or trivia, as at Donald Trump and Stefan Molyneux. [117] SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop's first comment in this mess, to the best of my knowledge, was their inserting language ranting about "social media oligarchs", specifically naming Twitter, in a response to a thread that an abusive user titled "User GorillaWarfare Twitter Troll" [118]. The abusive user in question vanished after GorillaWarfare asked for others to step in here [119]. It got more crazy when Bus stop jumped in to support the abusive user's illegitimate call for a "vote" [120] in which said user accused GorillaWarfare repeatedly of being a paid employee of Twitter, and then they went back to complaining about and trying to compare Parler to Twitter [121][122][123][124][125].

This has been going on for the better part of two weeks now and I have felt for several days that it had passed into the realm of Sealioning and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing behavior, but today's comment that started with "I am merely asking you for your reasoning, GorillaWarfare" and falsely accusing GorillaWarfare of being unwilling to defend her reasoning [126], followed by regurgitating once again "There is no reason this article should deviate from the Twitter article. Left-leaning politics is not a reason" [127], was definitive. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is standard operating procedure for Bus stop. Even when it is explained to Bus stop that they could easily get a consensus for their desired edit, Bus stop can't resist the opportunity to browbeat an editor instead of simply seeking an easy consensus. Here's my experience in which I explained to Bus stop that I would not oppose their attempt to change consensus. It seems that Bus stop relishes the bludgeoning process. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've warned Bus Stop multiple times about bludgeoning since July, including this one which referenced a commitment on their talk in September of 2019 to no more bludgeoning discussions. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked editor Abbas Kwarbai threatening Velella

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

I've been checking Abbas Kwarbai's talk page every once in a while, and while they've been incredibly frustrated with the circumstances of some of their articles being speedily deleted, there are some wildly inappropriate messages being left on their talk page being addressed to Velella.

Diffs

• A later additional comment in response to their denied unblock request. It already veers into WP:NPA territory, but Velella being referred to as an illiterate Wikipedia editor and having allegedly made an evil act are, all things considered, tame.
• A specific section dedicated to Velella. More attacks on Velella, saying [they] don't deserve to be admin because [they] are not neutral but full of selfish and blunders. At this point, I left a comment saying that they should lay off of the personal attacks.
• Threats of violence made. They claim they would use all possible ritual [sic] to brutally attack [Velella], and ends end their tirade with: I will follow you through your dream and kill [them] you.

Recommendation

No one deserves to receive that kind of abuse on here (even if the threats are being directed to a cnidarian). At this point I think a revocation of talk page access or a site ban would be needed. If admins see any possible redemption that will work, though with Abbas' ire that may need to be considered a long time from now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Many thanks Tenryuu for your report. I was about to report it here myself but you beat me to the draw. It quite made my little blue tentacles quiver. I think blocking of talk page access to all in this sock farm would be the appropriate solution.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access and removed the offending WP:NPA violations. Clearly that is the least that should happen here. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift action. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also revdeled the last of the diffs posted above along with this one. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cunard Afd Practices

Hi, I want to make a complaint about User:Cunard and they’re series of behaviours at Afd, specifically the mass dumping of reams of text. I don’t normally complain about an editor. I think this is my first time. I think I have reached my limit. This after two years looking at this. I stopped taking part any of Afds that Cunard has been at. About a year ago, they’re was a VPN article, which is a dog of a company. Now we have an article, that people will assume is good, even though they were at absolute bottom of the ranking, about 3500 down the list. That was the limit at the time. This is absolute limit. I think it is simply unacceptable to dump huge blocks of text in this manner. The most recent example I came across is a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zocdoc. I don’t think Cunard really cares of about Afd. I suspect his whole purpose is to ensure the article is kept, even at the expense of destroying the whole conversation. Looking at Zocdoc article.

advertisement.

It an advertisement. So they’re posting anything to stop the conversation, assuming folk are going to put off reading it because there is 16k of text here. That would take more than 10 hours of work if it was article being created. Instead he/she has copied it wholesale out of the website, which is itself a violation of copyright. Nobody wants to read this text. If is effectively a stop on the discussion. This is another example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok. Not a single one of these references are valid. More so, there is 39 of these hotels, so in effect this is an attempt to break the Afd. It has chilling effect on new Afd participants, who look at it, and crap out. I know that for a fact. It has a chilling effect on established editors, because it takes so long to work through the text and determine if it valid and often it is not. When the Afd is closed, the closer isn’t reading the text either, so it breaking the close function. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I too have found the gigantic walls of text to be offputting, and anyone habitually !voting delete with comments of such extreme length would have been blocked or topic banned ages ago. But is there anything stopping you from just ignoring it, scrolling to the bottom, and putting in a vote of your own? It's not like anyone is forcing you to read through it, and it's not as though you'd be missing anything of value by ignoring it. It's basically Wikipedia lorem ipsum. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the quote blocks from two open AfDs: having 10K of quotes is problematic for copyright reasons, and didn't really add anything. However, these were pre-hatted, so took up little space in reading mode (they were annoying in editing mode). The addition of lots of sources to AfDs is what we expect editors to do, so I see no problem there (assuming they are good sources, which I haven't checked). Fram (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

They never are though, that's the thing. It's inevitably just a grab-bag of advertisements, blog posts, press releases, and marketing churn. Good point about the excessive quotations being potentially a copyvio problem too. Reyk _YO! 11:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• July 2020 ANI for same issue —valereee (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Bizzare to see this complaint. For over 10 years I recall being stunned by the quality & quantity of hard to find RSs Cunnard brings to AfD's. As Fram says, it's expected from good editors, though none seem to do it quite as well as Cunnard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying he/she is not doing good work in other areas, but this is ridiculous and its errant behaviour and disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is the equivalent of reference-bombing an article to mask the overall weaknesses of the sources. I doubt many closing administrators take the text walls seriously. ValarianB (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Kudos to Cunard for their efforts. Consider the Zocdoc AfD, which is the basis of the complaint. First notice that the AfD had to be relisted because there were zero valid responses during the first round. Cunard then stepped up to do what no-one else would volunteer for and their input is outstanding. For example, they list an NYT source that seems to really hit the spot in demonstrating notability. And notice that they don't just give a raw URL which might hit the paywall but go the extra mile by providing an archive link. This is quality work and Cunard should be congratulated on their diligence.

The OP complains that they have to read this material. This is an absurd complaint because, per WP:BEFORE, a nominator is supposed to conduct such a detailed source search before they waste our time with an inaccurate nomination. If the OP is failing to do this work and can't even be bothered to look through the sources when they are presented on a plate, then they are not doing due diligence. A boomerang should be considered.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok and look at the !votes.

• 11:19 - User:scope_creep points out that most of the sources are press releases and similar.
• 11:44 - User:Andrew Davidson votes "Keep" for no reason other than someone quotes an essay. No rebuttal of the sources.
• 12:02 - User:FeydHuxtable votes "Keep", saying "highly notable hotel as ably demonstrated by Cunard".

• This nonsense is never going to end, is it? Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• What the nay-sayers seem to be saying is that, if you list sources it's bad, and if you don't list sources, it's bad too. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• No what the people who have deal with cunards wall of useless texts is that A)if you post sources to refute notability, they should be good, not a bunch of regurgitated PR crap scraped from a Google search. B)if you are going to just vote keep you should actually address the core concern, not rules lawyer over reference to essays, c)if you are going to vote 'keep as per list of crap' you should address the concerns with that crap. Since as black kite has demonstrated it is impossible to get editors to do this, ideally people closing the diacussion would rightly disregard such arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) AFAICT, no one is saying that. What they are saying is that listing bad or crap sources is bad. Note I make no personal comment on whether any of the sources are bad/crap sources. I simply read what others said and tried understand what they were saying. Editors may disagree, perhaps strongly, on whether the sources are bad or crap, while still understanding (and probably agreeing) on the overall point. (I.E. that just because someone listed URLs doesn't mean these are useful reliable secondary sources that demonstrate meeting WP:GNG.) I can see why there may be a problem if you couldn't understand the point Black Kite and others seemed to be making, rather than simply disagreeing with their view of the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Christ. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of technobabble. Nothing actionable about it, unfortunately, but I certainly don't agree with Andrew on a boomerang. Seriously, we need to stop throwing rocks at people for bringing legitimate concerns up to ANI.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with WaltCip that this is a valid issue to bring up at ANI. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be actionable in the (looks to be unlikely) case we were able to develop consensus; the most productive editor can also be very disruptive. Anything that other experienced, well-intentioned editors are finding disruptive enough to bring two cases to ANI in four months is maybe at least worth making clear to Cunard that this is being seen as disruptive and they should try to avoid 1. posting walls of text 2. quoting carelessly collected sources 3. including copyvio to AfDs. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Cunard does legwork that we want people to do for an AfD, finding what sources exist. It was a problem when he took up a massive amount of space in the discussion. Now that nearly all of the content is hatted, I have no issue whatsoever with the practice. Yes, Cunard always goes for keep ... and is about the only one of the always-keepers that actually backs up that opinion with sourcing. Sometimes those sources are misguided, but often they're not. Looking at ZocDoc AfD, I see NY Times, Wall Street Journal, journal articles, etc. Those aren't garbage. Yes, you're free to respond/challenge those sources and it's entirely possible they don't constitute notability (I haven't looked closely at them yet), but these aren't self-published press releases/spam. They're the kind of thing that anyone would find if they set out looking for sourcing, and which you should expect to have to counter if you're arguing to delete. We have plenty of people who fill AfD with baseless keep (or delete) !votes based on handwaves to sources or personal interpretations of notability with no effort whatsoever. The problem is not someone who does the research. The copyvio claim is IMO a big stretch, and I'm surprised anyone is willing to act on it without finding consensus that including a limited quote, with attribution, is a copyright violation (or that including multiple quotes from multiple sources for some reason makes it worse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't call e.g. a 268 word quote a "limited quote" (see the first quote I removed here, it's about 1/4th of the full article. In the second AfD I pruned, the first quote was 198 words[128]. The Brownlee quote was 249 words, from a 590 word article. That's not a "limited quote" at all, that's excessive. And yes, adding more and more quotes makes it less and less defensible to claim fair use and brings it closer to being a copyright violation. (Note that I have only removed these from the two most recent AfDs, but the practice can be found in many older ones, like a 360-word quote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Art Association, many long quotes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Medicine Institute... Regularly adding 10kb+ of quotes to AfDs is not an acceptable practice. Fram (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • From where are you getting the idea that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive? Lev¡vich 16:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
      • If I would write an article and someone would copy 1/4 or 1/3rd of it, not even to comment on the quote (e.g. criticising what I wrote or praising the prose), but simply to strengthen a point they are making, then I would consider this as clearly excessive. When someone routinely does this, even more so. There is no hard-and-fast rule for this, ut if 1/4th isn't excessive to you, then what is? Anyway, looking online gives rules of thumb like "max 300 words from a book-length work", or "best at the most 10-20% for a short work". Fram (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter what you would consider or what I would consider. Neither of us are experts or authorities on copyright law. You are expressing personal views/assumptions/results of online research, none of which make a good basis for claims about copyright law. In other words, if you don't know what the rules are... Lev¡vich 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'm surprised people are complaining about him listing coverage it gets, and even quoting the relevant parts so you don't have to click on each one to go and read it. This is rather helpful in an AFD. And it doesn't violate copyright laws to quote something for this purpose, this clearly fair usage, it not in the main article just in a deletion discussion. Dream Focus 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh, "quoting the relevant parts so you don't have to click on each one to go and read it." is definitely not a fair use defense. That's it is in an AfD and not in an article also doesn't make it better, e.g. fair use images are only allowed in articles and not anywhere else, including in AfDs. Fram (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Listing sources and quotes is helpful (I don't agree the quoting is copyvio). The ZocDoc AFD is a bad example for this: the sources Cunard listed include NYT and WaPo; while I quibble about one or two sources on Cunard's list there, overall they seem solid. Conrad Bangkok is a bit more difficult to parse: lots of travel guides and such, which I don't think make for good sources. Still, if we cover hotels (and we do), travel guides and hotel reviews are going to be sources for those articles, just like book reviews are sources for articles about books. I think both of Cunard's lists would have been stronger if they had 5 items instead of 10, and that would be my big suggestion to Cunard: do lists of 3 or 5 instead of 10. If you're listing NYT and WaPo, don't list things like Entrepreneur and NYObserver: they actually weaken rather than strengthen the list. But, this isn't ANI-worthy. Yes, there are problems with churnalism and promo articles surviving AFDs, but these two are bad examples (better examples: bagelry, toy store, lawyer), and I think !votes without sources and quotes are a much bigger problem than someone !voting with "too many" sources and quotes. We should encourage sources and quotes at AFD, not discourage it. Lev¡vich 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree the quoting is copyvio. Well, to quote you: It doesn't matter what you would consider. Hold yourself to the same standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    No evidence has been presented supporting the copyvio claim. Better? Lev¡vich 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    • • For the sake of not pressing it further. Sure. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• What reams of text, User:scope_creep? I see a list of references. I feel guilty now for just providing links, instead of such well formatted lists of references. Personally, I'd be more concerned by the first delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok, that once again, did 7 delete votes in 7 minutes, which quite clearly means they did not do the required due diligence. I'm also concerned you aren't doing enough WP:BEFORE nominating. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Uesr:Mulman82

Please delete remove the following edits by Mulman82 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) who is taking deletion discussions personally and responding with vague threats of violence, accusation of pedophilia and homophobic slurs.

• Delaware Black Foxes
• My user page (not sure how to show diff for page creation)

Ytoyoda (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I deleted your User page, as the only edits were those edits, and revdel'd the edit summaries on the Delaware Black Foxes page. I've also blocked the user for a month for those gross attacks, as they were recently blocked for 2 weeks for sockpuppetry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Outside of the user issue concerns, I've contested the prod; please take to AfD. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)