Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067

Terry Bean

 Note: I have moved this thread, formerly titled "Possible fraud on Article Page 'Terry Bean'. Article is apparently captured and controlled.", from WP:AN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The following is what I just posted on the Talk page of article "Terry Bean". You may notice that the Talk page refers to a great deal of news about the subject, Terry Bean, yet it is by now clear that editing to include that material is being obstructed. The history of the main article indicates, however, that editing isn't entirely missing. So, the people actually doing that editing must be aware of the problem, yet do nothing. It is useless to merely include complaints on the Talk page, as you will see: They don't respond. They don't explain, or justify, the reason for the write block, or why anybody gets to write on the article nevertheless. I don't know who to complain to, so as a first step, I will include the following material below, to begin to document the misconduct. Allassa37 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Has this article, "Terry Bean", been captured by the supporters of Terry Bean, and are they misusing that control to cleanse it of embarrassing facts about Bean? Should we report that to Wikipedia as misuse? I wanted to make an edit, but I don't see an indication that the article is write-protected. Yet, write has been disabled, which usually means that an explanation will be placed at the top of the Talk Page. I will be quite clear: Terry Bean appears to be being protected, and the egregious news of his criminal case has been concealed from this article, apparently for many years. There has been a great deal of news about Bean himself, and his Attorney Derek Ashton, and the attorney(s) for "MSG", his rape-victim, and the fraud associated with the handling of that case. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be ideological, although for years seems to be under the control of "those kind of people". (Interpret that any way you wish...) The only plausible explanation is that there are people who think they can control this article, for the purpose of concealing embarrassing events that involve a (BLP violation removed). I am thinking that anyone who feels the way I do should assist me in filing a complaint with Wikipedia for this obvious fraud, which must include some WP administrators, to expose just how bad WP can get when that misconduct is allowed to fester. Notice that there are a great deal of references to news about Terry Bean and his criminal case in this Talk page, and far more information is available through a Google-search, and yet any attempt to put those events into the article seem to have ceased years ago. I say "seems to", because failed attempts to edit the article apparently don't leave a trace. Presumably, somebody tried to do edits, but were blocked by an edit block...but that edit block seems to not include EVERYONE, right? And, I wonder if the list of people who HAVE successfully edited this article in the last 2-3 years can be trusted: Are they a part of a de-facto cabal? I believe they must recuse themselves since they have apparently demonstrated their bias. I am thinking that there should be far more controversial discussion on the Talk page, and that should by now include extensive discussion as to why the embarrassing news hasn't been included in the main article. This is obvious corruption. Who objects to it? Who tolerates it? Tell me how to issue a complaint, and if nobody else does that, I will. Allassa37 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Allassa37 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: The article is protected from editing, as indicated by the blue lock symbol in the corner of the article. Your suggestion that the article has been "captured" by a "cabal" etc. etc. seems completely without evidence and is not likely to make people inclined to take you seriously. A look through the article history shows that there haven't been many substantial edits to the article at all since the protection was placed, and given that only 35 people watch the page I suppose it's also somewhat unsurprising that the talk page comments have gone unanswered. It seems to be just an infrequently-edited page.

My suggestion would be to step back for a second, take a deep breath, review the specific sourcing requirements we have for biographies of living people such as this article about Bean, and then use the edit request process to suggest a specific change to the article, complete with sources. Edit requests do not rely on people happening to see you leave a comment on the article talk page, as the template used for them adds the request to a queue to be answered by people who are able to edit the page.

You should also keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages, and descriptors such as the ones I've removed for someone who has not been convicted of such a crime should be avoided.

As for I am thinking that there should be far more controversial discussion on the Talk page, and that should by now include extensive discussion as to why the embarrassing news hasn't been included in the main article, evidently not many people have taken as much of an interest in this subject as you have, or if they have they haven't come to Wikipedia about it. There is no edit protection in place on the talk page, so no one has been prevented from commenting there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look at Terry Bean, it does seem to be in odd shape, with piles of section headers about community involvement and praise followed by "Sex abuse allegations" right at the end. That's not exactly to say adding BLP vios would balance it, but it looks like pre-ECP there must have been some POVing from multiple angles, and the current state is the version with the BLP vios removed but the puffery retained. Vaticidalprophet 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the article could undoubtedly use work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've ran through tearing out a bunch of it, and that's with leaning to keeping the stuff I was unsure on. I haven't heard of the man before, and it does seem that if he's as politically influential even on just the local/state level as the article implies, we should make that power clear. All that said, it doesn't justify giant puffery sections. Haven't yet touched most of the actual wording, which was terrible. No comment on whether or how to expand the sexual abuse allegations stuff. Vaticidalprophet 00:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a well-known case in Oregon for years now. Bean is an influential political fundraiser but he is of local, not national, interest. The sexual assault charges against him have been on and off over the past six years and I think at this point, he has yet to go to trial. I read over the article and I think it is as direct and informational as it can be at this point in the case. Once a trial starts, there will be more coverage and perhaps more relevant information can be added. I think what the OP is alluding to is that years ago the victim refused to testify and there was an out-of-court settlement proposed between Bean and the victim. That situation has now changed but Wikipedia will have to wait for trial coverage and its conclusion to make any more statements on his guilt or innocence. We can't post speculation on any subject but most especially not on a BLP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I did, after my original 'no comment', add the last two sentences about the trial to the allegations section. Schazjmd also added the mention of the civil lawsuit just after this was posted to ANI. I can understand the OP's consternation in the context of the pre-ANI article, which ends with In a statement, Bean wrote "I take some measure of comfort that the world now knows what I have always known – that I was falsely accused and completely innocent of every accusation that was made." Vaticidalprophet 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think you can consider those additions improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This situation is complicated by the past involvement of a prominent Oregon attorney who is herself credibly accused of unethical behavior and criminal misconduct, specifically charges of defrauding her own clients. This is a tangled web that has been woven, and level headed editors should watch this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that this is NOW being talked about, but so far I don't see much recognition that the real problem is that the main article page has been write-protected for years. That, in combination with the fact that whoever DOES have authority to edit the article, is intentionally refusing to make greatly-needed edits based on news that has been been swirling since 2015. Effectively they are "protecting" the article from embarrassing reality. And if you don't see 'much' such edit requests, is that really so surprising?? Everybody has learned that those editors who CAN edit won't help include any "negative" news about Bean, apparently since after 2015. There isn't even any discussion on that subject! There is simply no legitimate reason to write-protect this article, except in the minds of people who are trying to protect Bean's sorry reputation. Take the write protection off, and let the article be edited for 6 months. Or forever. Allassa37 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The page was protected as a result of considerable BLP violations being inserted into the page, including by sockpuppets, over several years. Your previous BLP violation about Bean does not give me great confidence that you should be editing this page directly; I would, again, recommend you use the edit request process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Also courtesy pinging Black Kite, who placed the ECP two years ago, in case they have any input here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I have just blocked Allassa37 for 31 hours for personal attacks, including repeatedly ([1], [2]) casting aspersions that the editor(s) who protected the page are "trying to conceal Bean's crimes", "help cover-up news of Bean's criminal (and now civil, too) case", etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And here is my response, and advice, to GorillaWarfare, for having deleted material I added to the Talk Page, AND for obstructing me from participating in this discussion, AND for making numerous false aspersions in her comments here and the Terry Bean Talk Page.  ::Here, I am referring to things you have said and done. Your paragraph extensively criticizes me, or by implication others ('disruption') Sauce for the goose. I suspect you feel free to criticize others, yet not follow your own 'rules'. Everything you said in your above paragraph is biased and distorted. You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless". You investigated nothing. You are completely new here. We are not obliged to assume, or even take your word, that you have adequately researched the past misconduct of 'all' sides. I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'. How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you? Names? Expose evidence of why you arrived here. Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly 'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material. You are taking a side simply by calling it "disruption", when in fact the actual "disruption" is obstruction of free editing of the article, that has gone on for 7 years, as I can see. You also hurl a term, "conspiracy theories", when actually you have no evidence whatsoever that the problem IS NOT what I claim. More likely, the editing has continued to be obstructed precisely to inhibit new, embarrassing information from being added. But that wouldn't work, unless simultaneously people were 'neglecting' to follow the edit-request situation you imply is available. You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'. I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made. If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede. You also rushed in to 'protect' against my attempt to stop the obstruction of the editing, obstruction which you cannot properly defend merely by vaguely referring to other "disruption" in the long past. Even you admitted that this article page has been neglected, which constitutes a malicious act when it is intentionally done in coordination with blocking other editors from editing what you admit is a 'long-neglected' article. 'long-neglected' simply isn't accidental in this case. It has been astonishingly deliberate and persistent. Explain yourself to the victims here, as well as all those that have been so thoroughly discouraged by design. Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal. In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to. I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal. This problem needs to be discussed. How many times, in the last 7 years, did somebody else attempt to expose this problem? Were their attempts deleted from the record then, too, just like you did to my effort? Allassa37 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless" People are not guilty until proven innocent. If you are going to accuse others of misconduct, you need to bring diffs. From WP:ASPERSIONS, which I already linked you: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."

I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'. How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you? Names? Expose evidence of why you arrived here. You called me here, when you made the above post at the administrators' noticeboard to request uninvolved administrator input. That is what you got; until your post on May 3 I had never heard of Bean, edited the article about him, or commented on its talk page.

Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly 'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material. Again, your suspicions are not based in evidence. Browsing the past 100 edits to the page shows vandalism ([3]), edit wars (15 December 2016‎–11:55, 4 January 2017‎), and editing by sockpuppets (revert, revert).

You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'. You can see in the page history who edited the page. If you are suggesting that I explain who was "in charge" of the page, Wikipedia doesn't work that way—anyone may edit any article, or if it is protected, they may suggest changes on its talk page, but no one is officially designated as "responsible" for one page or another. We are all volunteers and we edit where we please.

I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made. If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede. Again, if you want to check that edits actually occurred this is plainly visible in page history. These are the edits that have been made since your request for help at the page. Whether these are edits you think ought to be made or not, I don't know, because you have as yet not requested any specific change to the page.

Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal. In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to. No, it is quite proper to remove content that violates WP:BLP and casts unfounded aspersions against other editors.

I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal. You are here posting on ANI, so quite clearly you have not been limited in doing that except for the brief period. I hope it was effective in driving home that it is not acceptable to cast aspersions or violate the BLP policy in articles, on talk pages, at ANI, or anywhere else for that matter. I welcome your edits and requested edits, but you do need to tone down the rhetoric a bit or come up with even a shred of evidence of this "cabal" that supposedly exists.

I will, once again, recommend that you suggest well-sourced edits to the page rather than spinning conspiracy theories about cabals. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that the burden of demonstrating coordinated misconduct is on you; your argument that I must provide evidence that this "cabal" doesn't exist is absurd.

I understand that you are new to this project and frustrated with the state of that article. Editors have responded to your call for improvements and updates to be made, and if you make specific edit requests for neutral and well-sourced edits to be made I suspect you will find there is no grand conspiracy to stifle changes to the page as you fear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've made a thread at WP:BLPN#Terry Bean about the content issues. Vaticidalprophet 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Xtools, Allassa37 has 20 edits on enWP (one of which is to mainspace). Miniapolis 22:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Not surprising or, imo, particularly worthy of note. Non-editor readers can't be expected to be familiar with our bizarre habits like extended-confirmed protection (which I hammer in, whenever people treat it lightly like at the minor edits RfC, means restricting edits to less than 0.15% of people who have ever made an account) or even the fact, completely outside the understanding of most of the world, that Wikipedia does not have editorial control. I note that Allassa isn't a SPA on this topic (which I had originally thought they might be, still in the "non-editor reader distressed about being unable to make edits" context) and has some content-related edits to the talk pages of other articles, which in my experience is a fairly common way for new users to propose changes. Vaticidalprophet 00:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Can another uninvolved admin please try to explain things to Allassa37, or otherwise step in? They are continuing to post accusations of bad faith and imagine bizarre plots against this article on the talk page, and I am clearly not getting through to them. Whether or not another admin can, or will just be decided to be a part of the "cabal", I don't know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing et al.

Can someone please rein in User:Pigsonthewing. His incessant hostility and disruption is extremely offputting (which is probably the intention). Their latest is the TfD of a new template with a very misleading or uninformed nomination statement (at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Template:Authority control (arts) Master, which is an attempt to disrupt the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: look of Authority Control, where they add their usual belittling and attacking comments (see also the discussions at Template talk:Authority control.

If the comments were only against me, oh well, but it seems to be the same against everyone who opposes them. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Authority control:

• Out of the blue, they threaten an IP who made a good-faith suggestion with a vandalism block[4]: "We tend to block people for vandalism."
• I objected to this threat, as did the IP[5]
• They ignored the IP and replied to me with some sophistry, so I reiterated my point.
• Their reply? Poppycock, changed afterwards to a flat-out denial that they threatened anyone with a vandalism block, despite it being right there in the discussion a few replies earlier.

Inbetween, they decided to throw around some insults[6] about me around a template I created and they nominated for deletion, but which got kept. For good measure, they repeated it in their next reply, but now in italics. Way too many of their replies are in the same vein, from the very start of the discussion (calling the OPs post a "diatribe"), to "farcical", "stupid", "asinine change", "is disingenuous at best" (in Template_talk:Authority_control)

User:Mike Peel, while usually a bit more civil than Pigsonthewing, adds fuel to the fire. In the same VPP discussion, their first comment calls the opening post "ridiculous", and further down replying to me with "If you're going to persist in deliberately misunderstanding and trying to put words in my mouth, then just go away". At the template talk page, they also sarcastically claim "But no, we must have drama!!!" because they disagree with Pppery

Similarly, User:Tom.Reding feels fine declaring "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation." (in Template_talk:Authority_control#Anyone willing to implement this?), and now claims that opening an RfC about the design at VPP (as asked for by Mike Peel and Pigsonthewing!) is Forumshopping.

This all harks back to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Template:ACArt, which Pigsonthewing nominated without understanding what the template did, and for which they canvassed at some offwiki GLAM page[7]. And then of course the RfC on the redesign of Aythority Control[8], which two of these editors opposed (no problem there): both felt the need to immediately personalize things unnecessary though, with Tom.Reding ("I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but that hasn't stopped Fram before, either.": when called out on this, their reply was "Nothing personal, just facts about your person.", and later on "For an RfC, you are stunningly misinformed"), Mike Peel (first sentence: "While the the template could definitely be made better looking, I don't trust Fram to do it. " and later "Assuming good faith with them has long been worn out").

Basically, it is neigh impossible to have a constructive discussion with Pigsonthewing, and Mike Peel and Tom.Reding regularly add their oil to the fire (although they also have constructive contributions). The way Pigsonthewing treated that IP (with the block warning for no good reason, and then ignoring them), and the way they then denied even making a block treat, is just unacceptable. The constant attempts to paint everything in the worst possible light, deliberately using provocative, uncivil, over-the-top words instead of having a reasonable, civil, adult conversation, is extremely offputting. I noticed that I exhausted my patience and started replying with sarcasm, so I have just stopped replying to them at all wherever possible. Fram (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running issue with Fram's behaviour. They have been actively hostile for a very long time (going back to at least 2017), not just with this template but with anything to do with Wikidata (which is why I said AGF has "long been worn out" as quoted above, as well as "I don't trust Fram to do it"). There was a respite while they were blocked, but since then they seem to have gotten worse, particularly with this case, but also others (e.g., see Template_talk:Cite_Q#TfD_warning, which I took to 3RR). I recently said "But I'm going to re-adopt my policy of not bothering to reply to anything you say" (I was doing that before they were blocked and unblocked), which has mostly been helping (and Fram appears to have done the same in reverse). On the other hand, Andy and Tom seem to be quite reasonable in discussions, and are raising points that should be addressed. Mike Peel (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, on the same discussion, Tom.Reding accused me of Willful ignorance and/or intellectual bias at its most obvious (Special:Diff/1020417845). At the time, I let the matter drop and implemented his suggestion, because I still believed that it was possible to write code in the sandbox that would satisfy everybody and then non-controversially implement it, a belief I now realize was wishful thinking. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't recall encounters with the other users, but I agree with Fram that Pigsonthewing's attitude and behaviour are abhorrent. GiantSnowman 14:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that Tom.Reding thought it wise to start an EW report asking for a topic ban of me for longterm disruption (without any evidence of such) nearly half an hour after being informed of this ANI discussion. For someone concerned about Forumshopping, this seems like a strange move. I have asked there to refer the issue to this ANI and to close the EW case.[9]. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but think you informed us of this discussion (1, 2, 3) TWO minutes prior to 3RR'ing. Kinda seems intentional, as if you thought that would absolve you of WP:3RR (of which I had no part, mind you).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no. I wrote this lengthy (and rambling, sorry) report, which took me quite a while, then looked at my watchlist, and saw that this was again reverted. I reinstated my version, after which you reverted it[10] and started the EW report. Claiming that you had no part in the edit war is not really true, yours is just the latest in the series. Fram (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are a few 'heavily involved' editors on the authority control templates in recent proposals (one of which I started) who seem to be in conflict over a longer period of time[11][12] (I'm not familiar with the broader background). In the recent discussions, Pigsonthewig and Tom.Reding most notably have personalised the dispute, or bludgeoned/derailed the discussion. These issues stretch back to the initial RfC.[13][14][15][16]. In the most recent discussion, a couple of vocal editors seem to feel the need to air their (apparently) personal conflicts, somewhat hindering others from getting a word in and making it difficult to keep the discussion on track. I had a feeling this was going to happen, which is why I didn't open my WP:VPR section as an RfC in the first instance. I don't think Fram has done anything poor in these discussions. There is a problem here, but I'm not sure how it can be solved. Disclosure that I also participated in these conversations, and my own opinions align closer to Fram's, but I don't think my summary is biased. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Re:

1. Re my comment "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues": Fram agreed. So I replied, given the evidence.
2. Re my claim that "opening an RfC about the design at VPP [...] is Forumshopping": yes, it is, given Fram's own comments. No consensus was reached @ Template talk:Authority control#Discussion example of the new look after the RfC, Template talk:Authority control#The new version takes up too much space, nor Template talk:Authority control#Taking out all the wikilinks doesn't seem like improving user-friendliness, as suggested it should be prior to any followup RfC.
3. Re "For an RfC, you [Fram] are stunningly misinformed": yes, given that:

1. Fram was not aware that {{AC}} wikilinks doubled as parameter names (or Fram refused to tell participants, which is worse, but what I suspect to be true, to further their already-badfaith RfC, started without any discussion with regular AC participants),
2. not aware of/ignoring (again, I suspect the latter) a category relevant to, and against, the discussion, and
3. not aware of WP:Authority control's own guideline on redirects;
4. so "stunningly misinformed" is the kindest possible interpretation of Fram's actions, which are better characterized as hostile to {{Authority control}}, given Fram's failed TfD from 2017, and editing tenure back to 2005 (i.e. ignorance is not a reasonable excuse).

Below, Fram has acknowledged that they knew about wikilinks doubling as parameter names, yet they purposefully omitted this from the original RfC, supporting my suspicions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Given:

1. all the above background,
2. Fram's recent edit warring @ {{Authority control (arts)}},
3. prior edit warring @ Template:Cite Q/doc (also Wikidata related),
4. original no-prior-discussion RfC,
5. followup no-consensus RfC,

I think a WP:TBAN re WP:Authority control, {{Authority control}}, & WP:Wikidata are appropriate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to take this comment by Tom Reding serious. I quoted their post "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation." as evidence of the uncivil, personalized comments and attacks. They reply about the first part of the sentence (which isn't an issue), and completely ignore the second part, which is the actual issue I raised here. They repeatedly make a claim that apparently an RfC about the template can't be started without prior consensus at the template talk page. I have no idea where they get this idea from. They claim that this post by me is evidence that the RfC is forumshopping. When there is no agreement on an article talk page, it is standard procedure to bring the dispute to a wider audience, certainly when it impacts so many articles and when the previous discussion was held at the same forum. As the previous RfC showed, the regulars at the template talk page are widely out of sync with the larger community.

Their claims of me being "stunningly misinformed": the first link given as evidence is a comment by Tom Reding, from which he draws conclusions about me. I was well aware of this functionality, seeing that I used it extensively in my version of the template (it is barely used elsewhere though). His second link[17] is about the exact same issue, but it looks more impressive if you make two issues out of one of course. His third link is again not to anything I said, but to Wikipedia:Authority control.

So, they make a three-bullet version explaining why they called me "stunningly misinformed", with 2 links to their own comments, one to an information page, and none to edits made by me. And that is supposedly enough, not only to defend personal attacks, but to demand a topic ban. They reiterate this with a 5-point argumentation, including not only the current, ongoing RfC (where apart from the 3 people discussed heren, so far most people tentatively support the proposal, but it's early days still), but also the previous "no prior discussion" RfC, which was closed with a strong support for my proposal and a strong consensus against the position of the same 3. Trying to get someone topic banned because they made an RfC at the village pump which was closed with "strong support" only goes to show the WP:OWN behaviour Tom.Reding (and the other two) establish for their templates. I don't know if a topic ban is necessary here, instead of just some strong warnings, but if any TBan are handed out, the people trying to subvert consensus and abusing fellow editors are probably the first in line to receive one. Fram (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read all the diffs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• The perfect storm. Fram's obsession with this template is probably the only thing to equal Andy's obsession with microformatting. IBAN maybe? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Probably wrong solution, as the dispute is topical. Whatever Fram's historical behaviour on this template (which should be clearly evidenced if relied on anyway), his conduct in these discussions has been just fine IMO. In the discussion labelled "no prior discussion RfC", his proposal gained near unanimous community consensus, even though it was shot down by the maintainers, some of whom relentlessly attacked Fram and his 'motives'. We can't start sanctioning people for being on the receiving end of PA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  For background, Fram nominated this template for deletion in 2017, campaigned for removal of properties from it (e.g., Musicbrainz), and created {{ACArt}} to systematically remove content from it. They have not discussed any proposed RfCs at Template talk:Authority control, and their "near unanimous community consensus" was based on 'make the template prettier', not a solid proposal - they had to go find someone to implement it afterwards, and this led to the current RfC. Fram's replies to messages are often sarcastic and designed to annoy the person they are replying to (and I haven't figured out if they are deliberately misunderstanding things or not). Mike Peel (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  I see four RfC/TfDs over the course of four years, two of which passed in Fram's favour, a third was evenly divided (8-8), and the fourth rejected? As I say, evidently the maintainers disagree with Fram's views, but surely Fram holding views the maintainers don't like is not a conduct problem.

  More generally, while there are a lot of allegations made about Fram (here and elsewhere), I haven't seen any of them be clearly substantiated. See Tom's reply above, which can be summarised as little more than a distraction. For example: labelling an ongoing RfC started one day ago as a "no consensus RfC" simply because a few maintainers disagree, alleging forum shopping based on posting a proposal to the wider community at VPR rather than bringing it to the maintainers (a fictional definition of WP:FORUMSHOP & sounds more like ownership), and some incomprehensible rationales for the personal attacks Fram is concerned about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here's the thing: on one side we have [what seems to be] a years-long, multi-fronted effort to chip away at various elements of data/Wikidata on Wikipedia, of which the several authority control template discussions are just one front. And on the other side we have lots of brusque assumptions of bad faith and insufficiently substantiated allegations. I seriously doubt either is sanctionable based on these reports, but some real talk for the "[wiki]data is not always terrible" crowd: ANI isn't good at dealing with the long-term stuff, and based on the diffs available (and the ongoing conversations), the only possible sanction is for those personalizing disputes, making allegations, and assuming bad faith. In other words, if anything comes out of this thread, it won't be a tban for Fram. I say this as someone who thinks we really can't spare any of the voices who actually know a bit about this stuff. If you think Fram is being intentionally misleading, using bad faith framing techniques, etc. that will probably require a lot of work to address, and will probably involve digging around those past discussions to show a long-term pattern (and there may not be enough even then). I don't think there's anything all that problematic just looking at Fram's involvement as of late, even if his approach is frequently frustrating. The reality right now is we have is an RfC with consensus to make authority control more user-friendly. I think you have some points about the way Fram has been framing some of these threads, but I think Fram also has some points about some of the objections you're raising, too. What's needed is working with Fram and others you disagree with, realizing that we can't afford to lose the people who know that most about this stuff. On Fram's end, it would probably be both productive and a gesture of good faith to commit to collaboratively drafting RfCs in the future, since whether intentionally or not there's clearly some dispute over the wording of yours. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the numerous arbitration cases regarding Pigsonthewing (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review); the case regarding Fram Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram, and this declined case request regarding Wikidata and some of the same players [18] - moving this to ArbCom may be appropriate. --Rschen7754 17:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Or may be we can topic ban him (Pigsonthewing) here from everything related to templates broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I see one of the above Arbcom cases is related to me, so I would rather shut up--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ListeningBronco

• ListeningBronco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I recently noticed mass changes to the Nagorno-Karabakh articles with regard to the location map, similar to the one's made by sockpuppets of EljanM such as JavanshirAliyev, made recently by ListeningBronco. The issue of the map was recently raised by ListeningBronco on Talk:Stepanakert#RfC, seriously misleading map AntonSamuel (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have never even heard of those accounts. AntonSamuel has been trying to get me banned since the day I arrived here. At first when I slightly changed his map which was seriously misleading, he refused to discuss with me despite several pings and then reported me to admins for c:COM:OW for overwriting his file. After a discussion was stalled I've decided to boldy change the misleading map which confuses readers by showing the former boundaries of a state which is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan. Now that he can't report me for overwriting his file he has resorted to accusing me of using blocked accounts. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have explained pretty clearly what is problematic with this user's contributions with regard to the changes that were made to the updated location map for Artsakh/NKR that I created on Wiki Commons and on Wikipedia - and it has also been raised on the RfC this user started and which was later shut down, I would say it's not likely that this is a new/inexperienced user that starts RfC's, pings regular editors and creates new vector maps for Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And you only recognized these after I started doing edits against your POV, gotcha nothing personal in your report. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It was me that removed the {{rfc}} tag; but I didn't shut it down - indeed, I stated that people should continue to discuss in the usual way. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, the matter was not ready for an RfC: I have observed that far too often, people reach for RfC without first trying the easier alternatives, and this was one such case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Perhaps I could have phrased it better - I didn't mean that you put an end to any discussion of course. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

And in addition - the editor in question is continuing the same type of edits with regard to the map after I raised this issue, on more Nagorno-Karabakh articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So? Am I not allowed to edit because you are accusing me of something. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• ListeningBronco's mass change is self-evidently controversial and there almost certainly wouldn't be a consensus for it if they'd discussed it first, especially given the entrenched standpoints of editors in the AA2 topic area. The map portrays the smallest possible boundaries of Artsakh, which looks like WP:ADVOCACY to me. Notably, they recently proposed a different map at Talk:Stepanakert which more reasonably included Artsakh's claimed borders in a lightly shaded colour; I was the only editor there who expressed support for this change. To then go and insert an even more controversial map into multiple articles, rather than continuing to engage with that thread – where there was very little support for even that (less one-sided) proposal – is completely unproductive. I agree that ListeningBronco is probably a sock of one of the editors previously blocked or topic banned from AA2. I certainly don't believe they're a new editor, and I noted as much in the discussion at Stepanakert. Although I think an SPI is warranted, I'm not familiar enough with previously blocked editors to confidently conjecture who the sockmaster might be. Jr8825 • Talk 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC) edited for clarity Jr8825 • Talk 06:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• I have now restored the previous Artsakh/NKR location map with multiple layers of borders to the concerned articles by reverting the edits of ListeningBronco, referring to this discussion and the one on Talk:Stepanakert, as these changes were done without consensus. I hope it was within my bounds to do this - I don't intend to edit war, but I thought I would step up with regard to this matter as these changes were made without consensus, since I've pinged admins about this with the hope that someone would take a look sooner rather than later, since I started this thread yesterday and since the user that made them participated in the discussion on Talk:Stepanakert and was made fully aware that there wasn't consensus for removing the additional layers of borders to the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• @ListeningBronco: while we're here, could you explain why you made the redirect Republic of Artsakh (de facto) to Republic of Artsakh? Seems Tendentious to me as it provides nothing other that POV pushing, it's not a valid redirect. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding user Knewdates for bad faith editing and what I see as intimidation Daniel Lee (designer)

Firstly, I left a note on user Knewdates page that I would be asking for arbitration. Though I don't have social media, this user is attempting to link me to a twitter account as a part of their argument that I cannot edit a certain page on wikipedia. Posting here is already too much social media for me. This user has failed to read the articles in question and is making claims about the event in question that do not hold up to scrutiny (such as, there are no videos of the event in question),

My original edit reads:

In April of 2021 at the Soho House (club) in Berlin, Germany, in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic-lockdown, Lee was involved in staging Bottega Veneta-sponsored parties without social distancing or masking. ref ra.co Fashion label Bottega Veneta receives criticism amid reports of a Soho House party following their Berghain Fashion show April 12, 2021/ref It was also reported that he did not wear a mask or respect social distance during the fashion show (billed as a business meeting) which took place in a Berlin night club rented for private use for the occasion.ref highsnobiety.com BOTTEGA VENETA’S SECRET BERGHAIN SHOW WAS A GLIMPSE AT CLUBBING'S GRIM FUTURE April 18, 2021 /ref ref bz-berlin.de revolt against Soho House April, 2021 /ref

Their current edit reads:

Since early April 2021, the Berlin police is investigating rumors* that Bottega Veneta staged afterparties at the Soho House (club) without social distancing or masking.[14] According to sources, "the event's legality and hygiene concept is unclear" and "whether the afterparties were official Bottega Veneta events or not is unclear" [15]

"rumors" is entirely innacurate see https://www.rtl.de/videos/gaeste-feiern-im-soho-house-mitten-in-der-pandemie-60755f431782501d2a71d7c2.html, also they deleted other citations which go beyond "clearity" into confirmation. This seems like bad-faith editing to me. Further, they edited out the actual involvment od Daniel Lee while leaving perhaps the least important information out. I am a neurodiverse person and this kind of machiavillien-behaviour garbage is meaningless to me, I have no idea how to deal with it. Help! talonx78.55.186.185 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a party on the case, but I would like to bring up the conduct of Knewdates on Talk:Daniel Lee (designer). Sadly I can't provide any diffs as it has been revdel by an administrator. Knewdates seems to engage in WP:HARASSMENT by publishing what could be the social media handle of the IP editor, which I see as a more serious issue than the content dispute. Also this statement: It would also be better if an actual user of Wikipedia added this type of content, instead of IP users. is a WP:BITE, though not as serious as the WP:OUTING, is also a concerning conduct.SunDawn (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

SunDawn do you have any recommendations to help me protect myself, can I do anything more? I can promise I won't be getting an account anytime soon, especially after this. The last thing I want is to make myself more accessible to people who are aggressive and unfortunately my editing interests (i.e. controversies and people who are marginalised) seem to make me a target. Being a neurodiverse person in this case means I really don't have the ability to judge this kind of threat accurately, but I would like to continue editing without distress. I am open to recommendations. Talonx77.183.83.196 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The only really practical way is to get an account, and work on different subjects. It takes a considerable amount of resilience to work on controversial articles here. They're not really a good place to start for anyone. Once you've built up some confidence, you might want to broaden out, very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Bobjörk claiming their account is compromised

Bobjörk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) The normal procedure would be blocking because that's the "my brother did it" defense, innit? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If the account is truly WP:compromised, it probably should be globally locked until we can be sure the originally owner is back in control. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Well that would be the normal procedure if I was blocked and wanted to be unblocked for that reason. It might also look like this is a new user and my only edit is the vandalism. But on the swedish Wiki i have many edits 15 years back. If its possible to block it on the English wiki im fine with that as I have another user for the English. I was unaware you even could make edits on the English with the swedish user. As soon as I saw the mail with a reply I changed my password using a password generator. Bobjörk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bobjörk: To be clear, a local block is silly here. It doesn't help anything. While the edit made with your account was highly problematic, I'm not sure it's enough for an instant indefinite block and none has ever been suggested. If the problem was simply that you persistently made such poor edits such as the two or three that lead to concern, you could be locally blocked but thankfully that never happened. If your account is compromised it should be globally locked until we can be sure the original owner is back in control. There is nothing stopping the person who compromised your account editing the Swedish Wikipedia. I don't know if your reassurances you are back in control are sufficient, I'll leave that to someone most experienced. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Yeah, then thats the problem. I should have acted as I made that one (or if it was two) and been blocked here instead of being honest. If I get blocked here then I will let everyone know that from now on: Lying is better if you are compromised but back in control. Because HOW do I prove that I'm back in control?Bobjörk (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask admins to hold off any actions on this account? I am making an off-wiki request for a check on this. If Bobjörk's account is used to vandalise in the meantime, by all means block, but provided this is Bobjörk himself, that won't happen. --bonadea contributions talk 08:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As I now understand the original edit the hacker did would not lead to me being blocked or only blocked here, not global. So thats the issue I'm having. That I wrote that I was hacked to show that I did not do those edits. I'm very confused by this. I would really appreciate if this was checked before any actions are made. Bobjörk (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bobjörk: As I said on your talk page, if you care so little about Swedish Wikipedia that you'd be willing to lie and risk the project by your account being further misused just to avoid the possibility of a short term global lock while it's verified you're back in control that's your business. We assume that most editors don't care so little about the projects they work on. It's unfortunate you feel that way, but that's your business. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: As I said. Since I KNOW that the account is NOT compromised (I changed a lot of passwords now) then I would not risk Swedish Wikipedia since this is the swedish user that Ive used for over 100 edits there. You say its not a punishment, yet I am reported for "my brother did it" for edits that would not have led to a block whichs means that because I TOLD you, I will now be banned permanently as "My brother did it" will lead to a permanent ban. Your logic is flawed when you try to defame me by saying I dont care about Swedish Wikipedia. That would only be true if I did not change my password and let whoever he is destroy it. Which I have not. Bobjörk (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, any user claiming to be compromised is automatically blocked per policy. Only a CheckUser can verify who is really editing right now. --Heymid (contribs) 13:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if I could get the same answers from everyone. One say "its not a punishment, its just for safety and only for a few days" and accuses me of not caring about Wikipedia. And one says that it will be blocked. What is true: Will my user be permanently blocked or not? And do I not care about wikipedia if I changed my password with a password generator? As I said on my talk page. If I had just changed my password and not told anyone, Wikipedia would still be safe, my account would still be safe and none of you would have to deal with it. So it is still true that all this is because I was honest and told you.Bobjörk (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bobjörk: no one ever said you will be permanently blocked. Stop making stuff up. There isn't even such a thing as a permanent block save perhaps for a small number of WMF imposed blocks. Changing your password helps if that was how your account was compromised. AFAICT, no one experienced with this thing has looked into the details like run a CU. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Well if you read about "my brother did it" as the reporter claims, it is a permanent block because its an excuse someone would use. And you talked about a few days, while other said block and I just added that with the information under "my brother did it". If that was not what you meant, then I apologize. [i]Edit: and I just realized that that page is just a joke but I missed that part)[/i] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjörk (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Checkusers can indeed do magic, but there's a limit. What I can say is that the same device(s) has/have been used throughout, from the same place(s), and that there's no evidence that the password was compromised. I don't see any of the red flags you'd get with some compromises. Little brother, mistake, regrettable incident, who knows. It would be my inclination, in the absence of additional information, to tell Bobjörk to be more careful in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean the same device? Has all edits been made from the same device or is it just similar IP:s? I only have static IP on my computer. I could speculate in how it happened but I dont see the point. I might have suspicions but that is up to me to deal with. I know that I will be more careful and I have also checked all my other passwords today just in case.Bobjörk (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If what zzuuzz says is correct, then the explanation is that, likely, you logged-in, forgot to log-off and somebody else made a silly edit or two. So more of a "be careful and do not let this happen again"... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm also a checkuser, although I have not checked because several others already did. With a stolen credential compromise (i.e. a hacker has your password and logged into your account) we can see edits made from a device and/or a connection that's not similar to the one you "normally" use, for example if you "normally" edit from an IP in Germany on a Windows 10 device but there are a series of edits from an IP in Vietnam on an iPhone, that might indicate a hack. That's difficult to determine here because English Wikipedia checkusers can only see data for edits on English Wikipedia, and your account has no edits at all on this Wikipedia prior to the allegedly compromised edits. If I can interpret zzuuzz's comments: in your case, the data shows that the "bad" edits were made from your computer on your network, which means most likely your password was not stolen but that you left your account logged in just as others have been saying. You should be aware that while the different Wikipedias are different projects with separate governance, we have unified logins, so if you had left your Swedish Wikipedia account logged in and walked away from your computer, anyone else could have sat at your computer, navigated to English Wikipedia, and made edits under your account without knowing your password, and perhaps not even knowing they were using your account. It's entirely up to you to not leave your Wikipedia account logged in if other people have access to your device or if you use a shared device; nobody here can control that for you. If your account keeps making disruptive edits, it doesn't matter who is sitting at the keyboard, it will be blocked. So, whatever happened here, do whatever you can to ensure it doesn't happen again. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We like to assume good faith if it’s a one-off incident, but expect yourself an indefinite block if your account does something silly again. --Heymid (contribs) 18:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) "I was unaware you even could make edits on the English with the swedish user." I have a unified WP acct over 32 languages. It wasn't difficult to do, just fiddly to set up each language after I'd made a minor edit, to enable editors in those languages to easily track me down to this my lair. Narky Blert (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • We all have unified accounts that work on all languages. If this user wants to make a default user page that will be seen in any Wikipedia where they do not have a user page, they should create meta:User:Bobjörk. See meta:Global user pages. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I can't help wondering if lack of awareness of SUL is the reason we got here. Then again, there was a comment on the user page and I would have thought someone would notice this even if they didn't notice they were editing with an account. BTW, the edits were made with the mobile website, and while you can use the mobile website on any device, it seems likely it was a mobile phone or tablet or similar rather than a library computer or something. (Although I admit the possibility of a library computer or similar was something I completely forgot about until now.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Random Canadian

RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) Article(s): Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 for the edit in question and also COVID-19 pandemic

Please comment if this edit to re-insert disputed content by RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) violated the 1RR DS/GS in place relating to Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19. Editor added here #1, I removed it here #2, editor re-added it here #3. This is a continuation of WP:SEALION and WP:BLUDGEON on a range of Covid related pages (including this very ANI noticeboard). If I am misunderstanding the 1RR, apologies in advance, but my understanding what that you dont re-add disputed content and rather discuss it on the talk page (that was the intent of GS, right?). It would clearly have been the WP:ONUS of Random Canadian to discuss addition of disputed content (WP:BOLD) on the respective talk page to argue for inclusion. Intentional failure to follow BOLD on a GS article and continue WP:TE is cause for disciplinary action. If you have a look at the talk pages of COVID-19_pandemic and others, the bludgeon is clearly apparent. I suspect there are others in the Covid space as well that the editor is exhibiting WP:OWN behavior. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 there is no 1RR in place on that article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see any indication that there is any 1RR on the article. The editing may or may not be a problem, I make no comment, but it doesn't seem to be a specific violation of any page restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I could just as well make a big post about the OP's WP:PROFRINGE and WP:SEALION behaviour. Or instead, I could just point out that they haven't managed to get their way at the COVID article, despite the objections of multiple editors against their PROFRINGE stance, for over 1 month (see [19], [20], [21]) and they're now resorting to WP:FORUMSHOP (note that their revert on the virus page, with an unexplained vague wave, seems to have been some form of hounding, since they have never edited that page before - either that or they're part of the Twitter meatpuppet ring). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Also courtesy pinging participants at the page of the non-existent infraction who were not informed of this discussion: @Bakkster Man, Hyperion35, Personuser, Alexbrn, Hemiauchenia, JoelleJay, and Forich: (sorry if I missed some, there's a lot of people as you can tell). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order Jtbobwaysf did not post anything on the article talk page to discuss this issue, while RandomCanadian has been an active participant on the talk page. It is completely inappropriate for Jtbobwaysf to bring a complaint directly to ANI without first discussing his revert of the edit on the talk page. The only reason Jtbobwaysf lists for removing the edit was in his edit note, which said only UNDUE. In the absence of any further comment on the article talk page, I see no reason why RandomCanadian shouldn't have put his edit back up on the page, if he believed in good faith that the edit was not giving undue weight. Personally, I do not see how it would be undue weight, but that is a content debate suitable for the article talk page, and if you look at that talk page, you will see that there is active, robust, civil discussion of many other aspects of the article. I do not know why Jtfbobwaysf chose to come here rather than the article talk page, but if it is because he believes that consensus would go against him there, then this may be Forum Shopping. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the most relevant point to make here. This discussion entirely skipped WP:BRD on the article talk page, and went straight to ANI. As such, I won't even share my thoughts on the dispute itself here.

At best, this incident is premature and should be closed. At worst, this is WP:POINTY/WP:GAMING and potentially opens the question of sanctions against the submitter. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in on this as well. Jtbobwaysf has a long history of reverting edits and claiming WP:UNDUE with no basis. Here is a recent example which is a well-sourced edit on the Ethereum page that was recently deleted by him/her with no discussion on the Talk page despite there being an open section regarding changes to the lead. They have similarly deleted numerous edits to the Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin and Uniswap articles and maybe worse of all, Jtbobwaysf bullies editors into reverting their edits through notices like this and on their Talk pages (you can view mine as an example). I would also support sanctions against Jtbobwaysf for continued WP:POINTY/WP:GAMING. Hocus00 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Another note: Jtbobwaysf has deleted many other unresolved warnings on their talk page. They were also topic banned before for deleting cited edits. See Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos. Not trying to pile on here, but come on. The disruptive editing/deleting of legitimate edits within articles needs to stop. Hocus00 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Trout OP and move to close. There doesn't seem to be any violation on the side of RandomCanadian, owing to the lack of a 1RR restriction on the relevant page. The OP made a mistake of fact in bringing this complaint, which probably should have been addressed on the article's talk page anyway before coming here. There doesn't seem like much more of a reason to keep this open except for WP:BOOMERANG considerations, though I don't see a reason for anything more than a trout (or a whale) at this point. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

References

AIV backlog

Esteemed admins, your attention at WP:AIV would be received gratefully. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill - I'll stop by and go through it. In the future, this should probably be mentioned at WP:AN instead of here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Any backlog when you posted that will have been an entirely different one to the one I posted about nearly 15 hours before. But thanks anyway! DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Having seen how people get treated for asking there I don't think I'll take your advice. DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill - Oh wow... I don't blame you... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

Hi everyone,

I'm writing to report an incident involving an IP editor. 2603:7080:123F:ED8D:2D09:D05C:2072:3506 has repeatedly and prolifically made edits inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy against avoiding redirects, at WP:NOTBROKEN. I have reached out to this editor twice to explain the policy to them, and they have continued to edit wikilinks to avoid redirects. They also posted on my own talk page to let me know that they consider this policy "stupid". Not sure what the proper way to proceed is.

Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, looking at some of their edits, they are correct. Places like hatnotes and see also sections shouldn't link to redirects, as there's no reason not to use the actually bare article title in places like that. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of that exception, but regardless, the bulk of their edits don’t seem to fit that pattern. Wallnot (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There is at least one situation where a hatnote or see also link not only can be a redirect, but should be one: when it's an intentional link to a disambiguation page, and the disambiguation page is at the base name (WP:INTDABLINK). Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Another situation is if a hatnote or see-also points at a section of an article. If a redirect is properly {{anchor}}ed, it will remain correct even if the section title is changed or an article split out. It also looks tidier than Article name#Section title; especially if the section title (e.g. "History") isn't obviously connected to the word or phrase being redirected.

Another is if a direct link might look like a WP:EASTEREGG. On a DAB page, "[[Piffling Startup]], former name of Megacorp International" is clearer to readers than "Piffling Startup, former name of [[Megacorp International]]" - not so much there, but the natural tendency is for editors to copy the bluelink off the DAB page, resulting in puzzling-at-first-sight links like [[Megacorp International|Piffling Startup]], and hatnotes like "Piffling redirects here. For the company, see [[Megacorp International]].

Adding back (disambiguation) qualifiers is a minor bane of my life. I do a handful every day. If it's a registered user, I can often revert with a polite explanation (or if I've reverted them before, fix manually). If it's an IP, there's no point at all in doing anything other than revert (and check their other contributions for the identical error; -17 is a standard number to look for). Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've really got to make a template to say this, because I feel like I have to say it all the time. 1) No they probably should not be doing that 2) The appropriate response to them doing that is do nothing. It's such a minor deal that if they wants to avoid redirects, let them. This is the nonest of non-issues. We need a WP:NOTBOTHERINGANYBODY page for when people break rules, but where they're not really doing anything wrong. --Jayron32 16:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Something should be done if an editor is constantly acting against a Wikipedia guideline adding nothing of value, cluttering watchlists and wasting other users' time. It seems it's all this editor has been doing. Perhaps they think what they're doing is valuable and helps, and it's not until this that they'll realize their time can be better spent doing something else. —El Millo (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If the main downside is watchlist clutter, then mass reverting just doubles the problem. Since some of the IPs edits are appropriate (e.g. See also links shouldn't be redirects), then reverting them creates both watchlist clutter and worse content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I just listed it as one more. I think that's actually the least of the problems. The main one in my opinion is the constant, and appropriate, reverting that has to be done. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of what I wrote justifies the rudeness of the "Really?" edit summary to your reply, Jayron32, especially given that I closed my post with "Not sure what the proper way to proceed is". I didn't make some hysterical post calling for you to ban him—I just pointed to someone repeatedly ignoring well-established policy and asked what should be done... Wallnot (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the response is "do nothing" then the guideline should just be removed as pointless. In this case, I don't think that would be a bad thing. But you can frame basically any of the MOS as "not important enough to report someone" -- except that it is important to some people, and arguments between them are why we have so many rules like this. If the rules don't do anything to stop those arguments, they don't serve any purpose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not pointless. We do want to advise people to not needlessly bypass redirects. The advice is good. The problem is the rush to "punish" people who are doing things we don't like. The solution to everything is not "punish them". The solution is often "just let it go". The phenomenal waste of time, and the amount of damage we do to the community and to good faith editors who aren't really doing anything harmful or wrong, when our first response to doing something we don't like is "punish them!", that's a problem. It's fine to have a guideline that says "don't do this unnecessarily". But the solution to every problem is not "punish them". Sometimes, the solution is "tell them to stop, and why to stop, and then if they in good faith disagree, just move on". As noted, the amount of work to undo these edits is more disruptive than just leaving them be. --Jayron32 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't rush to punish, and I'm certainly not making a judgment that this case calls for punishment. But you scolded them for not "doing nothing", not for bringing it to ANI and trying to have them punished. I find that the "get over it, nobody cares" response to someone who took the time to learn our guidelines and try to see them followed is no less problematic and confusing than trying to enforce them to begin with. If a going against one of our guidelines is so unimportant that doing !nothing about them is a negative, then yes, the guideline is pointless and we should get rid of it or downgrade it in some way. Sorry -- pet peeve coming through. I think if we're going to socialize people to understand that guideline is second only to policy in terms of having broad consensus behind it (sufficient to be enforced unless there's a reasonable exception) then when new users who take the time to try to learn those rules (which isn't easy for everyone) turn to the "go-to-admins-for-help-with-a-problem" board, the first response from an admin shouldn't be to dismiss it entirely with instructions not to do anything. Regulars may think of this place as a dealing in punishments, but it's fundamentally a place to turn for help. At very least you can explain, for those who do not have the assumed common knowledge about what's important and what's not, why they shouldn't do anything about something that's reached guideline status here, lest they be left to assume guidelines aren't actually worth learning. (And again, I don't care about this rule at all). .... hmm I started adding a "sorry, pet peeve coming through" and it came through again. I'll shut up now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Again, point me to where in my original post I wrote "punish them!" Because if memory serves, what I actually wrote was "Not sure what the proper way to proceed is". And for what it's worth, I was under the impression that this was a guideline worth observing based on my observations of the behavior of far more experienced editors like DuncanHill. Clearly I was mistaken, but I don't think that justifies snapping at me when a) I didn't call for the IP editor to be hanged, drawn, and quartered and b) very experienced editors continue to operate under the same mistaken impression. Wallnot (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You asked for general advice. You then called me rude for giving you my honest opinion. I said nothing derogatory to you or about you, I said that the best way to proceed was to let the matter go. When I gave advice, which I'll note you asked for in an open ended question, your first response to me was to call me rude. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but if you didn't want me to actually answer the question you asked, you should have said so. You could have saved me the trouble of answering of you had made it clear that you didn't actually want honest opinions on how to proceed. --Jayron32 02:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: As I said before, I called you rude for your “Really?” edit summary. I’m not sure what you possibly could’ve meant by an edit summary like that, except something to the effect of “why are you wasting my time with this?” Don’t gaslight me. Wallnot (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that. The edit summary was rude, and I had not recalled using it, but yes, I did that, and you are correct: I should not have. I apologize for doing so. It was rude of me, you did nothing to deserve that, and I am sorry. My apology comes with no expectation of acceptance, but I offer it nonetheless because I was wrong. --Jayron32 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That is quite all right. Thank you for offering your opinion and teaching me the difference between a P and a G. Wallnot (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I must ask... What is meant by the second part of your sentence? I don't recognize the reference... --Jayron32 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A Policy and a Guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Should have been obvious. Thanks. --Jayron32 13:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Asshole John rule. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm down for downgrading this from guideline status or otherwise getting rid of it FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a rule the community has set; it is inappropriate for an admin to be giving some condescending lecture about how OP is in the wrong for reporting it because it's "not a big deal". Reported user has been given a formal, final warning by an administrator, which is appropriate in this case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  What a ridiculous overreaction. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is also a rule the community has set, and this "incident" is well short of the level of intransigence that would warrant the wiping of asses with it that's happening here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not an overreaction in the slightest, nor is it a violation of BITE. The user received two handwritten messages about this last month which were ignored, which is blockable in its own right. IMO it was fairly lenient of Jamie to just issue yet another warning. I'm not sure why you're bending over backwards to pretend like this user is being railroaded for no reason. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not to take any position in the dispute, but if the IP is using the mobile version they just do not see the warnings.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  You still receive notifications via the mobile version, if you're editing via the app I believe you do not receive notifications (unless it's been fixed by now), but edits from the app are tagged like this, which we do not see here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Tnx, this makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is certainly a rule, and you may note that I politely posted on the IP editor's talk page twice, both times explaining myself, before reporting it here. The editor ignored those warnings twice. What level of intransigence do you think warrants an intervention? Wallnot (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Refusing to engage others is a blockable offense. But that should be what we focus on here. Not on the redirect issue. --Jayron32 17:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leaving messages for IPv6 editors is nearly guaranteed not to work, their addresses change too frequently and our software doesn't handle it; don't hold it against them. I admit I don't have a better solution for getting such an editor's attention than bringing it up here, I just don't think this was worth the time. I'll also concede that's my opinion. By the way, if you want to chase the full list of this editor's bypassed redirects, you should be looking at the contribs for 2603:7080:123F:ED8D::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this IP editor clearly did see my messages, since they replied to them on my own talk page. Wallnot (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

They may have been responding to your reverts, which cited the policy in the edit summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, we're bending over backwards to make excuses for this editor here. They would have seen the notifications before they made their most recent edit, which was from the same IP address. It would be no different than if they were editing from a static IP. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. My reply is probably out of place, the thread's a bit all over the place, but my 2d is @Wallnot: is right, @Swarm: is right, and Jayron32 and PEIsquirrel or Ivanvector, or whatever he calles himself, need to stop bending over backwards to excuse disruption. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any solution we have (range blocking) will cause more harm than the status quo. Accepting reality is not excusing disruption. Nothing wrong with asking the question though and I see no problem with the OP. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Range blocking a /64 subnet is akin to blocking a single IPv4 address; it's low-risk and in fact it's the best practice as opposed to blocking a single IPv6 address. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I owe Wallnot an apology - I don't want anyone to be discouraged from reporting what they in good faith see as a problem to administrators on this noticeboard, and I hope that Jayron32 would agree with that sentiment. I disagree with some of my fellow admins on what should have happened here, but that ought not to be made into the reporter's problem. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent posting of unreliable sources and unreferenced edits regarding TV ratings

User:Superastig has been told in his talk page [22] not to post unreliable sources such an unverified Twitter account. He insists that "he stands up" to his edits and continues to use the unreliable Twitter account as a reference.[23][24] [25] He also restored unreferenced TV ratings in two separate articles ([26][27]) and claiming his fixed something in the article.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• This clearly cannot continue. If this were a brand new editor, I would say point them at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, leave a uw- template about it, and have a talk conversation with them about why proper sourcing is important. But this editor has been here since 2009 and absolutely knows better already. A topic-ban might be in order to prevent more improper sourcing in these articles, and the behavior does seem localized. It could even be a very narrow and specific one, like: "prohibited from using unverified-account social-media posts as sources, from citing sources challenged as unrelialble, from adding information without a source, and from using misleading edit summaries", rather than a broad ban from Philippines TV articles. This edit [28] and one diffed after it are of especial concern as obvious original research (either that, or they're relying on some actual source which the editor WP:POINTedly refuses to divulge, perhaps because it is known-unreliable). While WP:V permits insertion of non-controversial information with no source at all, on the good-faith expectation that it'll be sourced later, in this case these claims are obviously being controverted so that cannot apply. Since Superastig postures as "stand[ing] up" for their edits, they must assume responsibility for them and for the negative pattern they are forming. This all seems especially boneheaded because the Twitter account in question (some random non-notable person going by Yera Calma and whose profile pic is a dog) is just parotting or claiming to parrot an actual publication which looks ostensibly reliable (Philippines Nielsen ratings), so the obvious thing to do is find that publication and cite the real thing. If it or another reliable source cannot be found, it is perfectly fine for WP's article to lack information on the relative ratings of these shows; WP:THEREISNODEADLINE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Micga's strange moves

This guy has made bold moves and been warned by a number of users. They don't have time to reply. I reverted a number of moves yesterday per a request at the WP:RMT but this user has made few other moves today. This disruption needs to be stopped. See this. Thank you. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pings Borsoka, Srnec, who filed the request at the RMT. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Micga for 36 hours. I'm hoping that this will get their attention... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, Thanks, this worked and they replied lol. I've posted them a note that if the behavior doesn't stop once the block ends, they might face an indefinite block for disrupting the project. Thank you ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

TheAafi - No problem! Happy to help! :-) I hope that they remain in communication and that they learn from this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your actions. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

IPs changing "British-American" to "British"

This may ring bells. I have noticed a couple of IPs changing "British-American" to "British". 81.153.77.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 86.28.105.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2A02:C7F:D436:EA00:7580:29B3:3712:3B16 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Does anyone remember this sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We had a series of sockpuppets and an IP busily changing "British" to "English" yesterday - this seems like a mirror image. Doesn't seem like the same person. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I love the fact that they insist that gaining another citizenship doesn't change your nationality. Apparently being British and taking American citizenship doesn't make you American, but being American and taking British citizenship does make you British. Canterbury Tail talk 02:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hint to the clueless: John Oliver is now an American! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Spamming of airport articles with useless charts

User User:Legion23 has added "Airport pax stats charts" to hundreds of airport articles. While the majority of them is useful, there are also dozens of others which are virtually useless.

Many charts present just 2 years of passenger numbers like for Braunschweig or Braganca.

Several others are showing only 1 (one) year, see here for Tortola, Qabala or here for Vila Real.

Historical data might be useful for someone - but in case of old data with just 1 or 2 years in plain figures instead of charts.

A 20 year old chart with 1 or 2 years does not make much sense, the same applies for charts like "2016-2017".

Unfortunately, a discussion on my talk page led to nothing. Instead, this user reverts corrections in irregular intervals, always repeating "please stop deleting".

Besides, the vast majority of his charts do not have a directly accessible source, but sources are only accessible through several steps via Wikidata. That means there is no instantly available proof of their correctness. I am not sure whether this is compatible with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

While many of his edits do make sense, he appears to be on a mission to put in such "charts" into as many airport articles as possible. Since the discussion has become stuck, I would like to hear the opinions of neutral readers. Thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyone - please read the discussion on Uli_Elch's talk page first, with the template developer's comments. These charts will update themselves in the future as more data is added to the database. This template queries the Wikidata database and displays the data in it dynamically, when the user displays a Wikipedia page.

Line charts must have at least 2 data points (for 2 years). Otherwise a line won't be displayed. I didn't add empty charts (yes, I went through all European airports and checked what would be displayed, and didn't add charts to those airport pages that would have empty charts).

Braunschweig had 3 data points: 2015, 2016 and 2017, Vila Real 2016 and 2017, Tortolì 1999 and 2000, Bragança 2016 and 2017.

In Qabala, the table below the chart also presents only 2 years - by the same logic, is the table useless as well? Legion23 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply - Please note: "2 data points (for 2 years)" is wrong - they represent just 1 (one) year, as in the Tortola example, from January 1999 to December 1999. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

In the Tortola Tortolì TTB example, the chart might indeed be unuseful as the airport is very small and looks to be closing/closed. But open airports have to get their own chart, be them small or with few data. It might be a signal to help find data and collect it, to improve data quality. Bouzinac (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we have uncovered an interesting issue with the Tortolì example. The data is available for even 3 years (1998-2000). Unfortunately, it is not passenger numbers that have been added to the database, but aircraft movements: 660 and 923. I suggest to go through all Italian airports that use this source and check for the same issue. In this source, page 32 (23 printed as the page number) shows comparison between years 1998 and 1999:

* 1998 - 923 movements, 44,412 passengers

* 1999 - 660 movements, 33,266 passengers

Page 44 (35 printed as the page number) shows data for the year 2000:

* 2000 - 906 movements, 37,039 passengers Legion23 (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether to include charts or not should be something agreed upon by active editors on an article; a decision like open airports have to get their own chart is something that needs to get consensus somewhere - probably the relevant WikiProject. As far as sources go, I agree that a Wikidata query is inadequate, especially since it links to bare URLs. Actual sources should be cited here. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Bare URL' (for Wikidata) are the very place where you can find the relevant number and check it. Better to have "www.someone.com/file/somefiledata2020.xls" than "www.someone.com". By the way, I've corrected Tortolì data (my mistake when converting the pdf). --Bouzinac (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah, a bare URL on Wikidata is a stopgap - it doesn't include an accessdate, or any information about the source. A proper reference over there should be an item that fully describes the source page - there's a reason you can use a Q number to generate a reference over here on Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The tendency for people to use inadequate references like that on Wikidata seems to be a big part of the reason some people over here are so hostile to incorporation of Wikidata over here. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

From my experience as a DABfixer, I consider the quality of information in Wikidata to lie somewhere between Discogs and IMDb. Errors imported from Wikidata into English Wikipedia sometimes need a specialist to fix (which I am not, but I know one). Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Just looked at one, Brussels South Charleroi Airport. The numbers in the chart from 2010 and earlier are completely unsourced. In a normal, onwiki chart, I could now remove these ones, or tag them with "source needed", or something similar. Here, all I have is the nuclear option, removing the graph completely. This is the same issue we had with e.g. Listeria lists, which have been removed from the mainspace. Fram (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour by IP editor 24.196.94.122

The IP editor at 24.196.94.122 has made a contribution to the talk page of Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting which involves multiple personal attacks. Bravetheif (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Bravetheif The IP has been warned. If the behavior continues, please report it to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

147.161.9.167

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

147.161.9.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism by user. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours, talk page revoked. In future, you should report incidents of straightforward vandalism to WP:AIV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep in mind about WP:AIV. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that the diffs should be revdeled. RolandR (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree and have done so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Epictrex

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Despite multiple warnings (if they didn't keep blanking them, they'd have around 10-15 for the last month to 6 weeks by now, here's a sample, with their reactions), editor User:Epictrex behavioral problems continue, and have been escalating into personal attacks and random nonsense:

• The latest [29], not just once, they edit warred over it, [30] and [31]. When warned at talk, here was their response [32] and [33].

But that's just today. Here's the last month:

• Donald Albury was being rude and ignoring me, while blanking an article talk page. Warned here

• What’s wrong, did I catch you ref handed? You dummie., while responding to an admin who had warned them for disruptive editing. Warned here.

• Stop undoing my edits you asshole, while edit warring across 3 pages to insert unsourced material, despite having been asked repeatedly for cites, for weeks, and never having at that point used even one. Even when how to format and add references had been pointed out to them in excruciatingly minute detail, User talk:Epictrex#WP:CITE. Warned here Talk:Hohokam#Culture vs Civilization and here

• And let's not forget this little escapade where they used IPs to have an edit war with themselves on History of Nevada : [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38]. Both IPS geolocate to the same place, which also happens to be the same place as the IP they used to vandalize 2 user talk pages several days earlier while in the middle of some kind of meltdown, [39], [40], and [41]. Also at the point the edit war started, the editor had not been on wiki in several days, but timestamps confirm they used their named account within one minute of the first IP vandal. This whole thing resulted in an ANI report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#Epictrex in an unusual edit war with themselves), but when they hadn't edited for 24 hours, and no admins seemed interested in pursuing it, was withdrawn.

• "WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM?!!!! WDYM YOU “TRIED TI BE PARIENT WITH ME”?!!!! YOU GODDAMN KNOW THAT I AM NEW TO THIS GODDAMN WEBSITE!!!! DON’T BE SO RUDE!!!" and this, which was in response to this

• I initially began interacting with the user after they started editing multiple Native American and archaeology articles that I watchlist, and noticed they were being templated for many of their edits, most of which seemed to be inserting uncited WP:FRINGE material into articles or random changes that looked like experimenting with syntax/grammar/adding useless flag icons. I tried to walk them through a few things, stressed the need to read up on the policies everyone kept linking for them and that they seemed to be wholly unfamiliar with, stressed that they needed to experiment in the sandbox to get the hang of editing syntax, and pointed to the location of the sandbox multiple times. I also gave them the most detailed explanation of "how to do a cite" I've ever had to do in the 13 years I've been an editor here. (User talk:Epictrex#WP:CITE). As the last several weeks has passed, I've wondered if this is a WP:CIR situation. They aren't editing maliciously, they are not a vandal, and I don't think they are trolling us. I suspect the user is young and may not be mature enough to handle editing here yet. They are combative, they name call and engage in personal attacks at the slightest perceived provocation, they do not take criticism well, and so far seem almost entirely uninterested in learning what the policies are. And this latest incident calls into question if they can be trusted with the editing tools at all. At best, their edits where they actually add content with references are bits of information copied from other articles (cites and all, if they ever manage to copy a whole cite, Talk:Native Americans in the United States#I gave a citation, yet a bunch of people keep on undoing my edit.). At this point I'm wondering if a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences. I don't like writing reports like this, I don't like having to take the time to look up the diffs, and in all the years I've been here I've only resorted to ANI a handful of times. But after this latest instance (bulleted point one above), after repeated warnings from multiple other editors, this user needs a wakeup call. Heiro 06:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

At this time, Epictrex has deleted this case twice. This is precisely why they were brought here in the first place. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 06:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

DarthBotto, Make that 3 times, as seen here, they seem to just be here for malicious purposes. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

An IP editor (now rangeblocked) has been trolling and edit warring on this noticeboard, but the timing is a coincidence and Epictrex has nothing to do with it. I'm collapsing the unrelated comments to prevent misinterpretation and distraction from the actual topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

He is now trying to delete the comment directly above mine.[42][43] — Czello 07:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Czello, Should we just ignore their edits and not revert? Because there is a very high chance of an edit war starting, and that is not wanted by any of us. If we keep reverting, so will they. Opinions? ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC) @Czello and Ronjapatch: For clarification, those edits were made by the unnamed troll from Auckland and not Epictrex. This thread simply had the misfortune of taking place directly before the troll's nightly routine, several days running. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 07:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC) DarthBotto, Thank you for that, clears it up a bit more. What are your thoughts on how we should approach this? I would prefer a calm and gentle approach if possible. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Concur. Epictrex is not in New Zealand, see above, the IPs they have socked from all geolocate to Nevada. Heiro 07:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Heironymous Rowe, For clarification, are the trolls separate people, or are they all a sock of Epictrex using a VPN? ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I do not believe they are Epictrex, they only reverted here twice with their named account. They nave not socked with VPNs yet to my knowledge. They were socking earlier today on History of Arizona, more IPs from Nevada. Heiro 07:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Heironymous Rowe, Thank you, the clarification is much appreciated. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The diffs provided show Epictrex (talk · contribs) veering between the extremes of over-aggression and over-sensitivity (a total inability to cope with the mildest rebuke or upset). I'd go along with ThadeusOfNazereth's suggestion of a "a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences" except for Epictrex's assertion that there's a deeper underlying reason - "I just have bad anxiety and get panicked very easily". It looks to me that WP:NOTTHERAPY is the frame in which this should be handled. Cabayi (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, Very good, I second this. A short wake up call seems to be exactly what the user in question needs at this current moment. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum, they also tend to IP sock when ducking out, just look at this today, [44], there are 4 or 5 IPs right there, all geolocate to Sparks, Nevada, same as the IP s mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months for currently not being compatible with a collaborative project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Appreciate that, thank you. Here is to hoping they come back and make productive edits. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 08:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and I hope for the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Anyone want to take bets on this new account (Rui Beech (talk · contribs)) that has made 2 edits to an Epictrex draft is a brand new sockpuppet? Heiro 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Y do u think Im Epictrex? I ain’t no Dino. Also, I just know about the Kings Beach Complex and decided to add a pic of Lake Tahoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Beech (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:, quack quack? Heiro 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• The two posts to Kings Beach complex, a draft page that new user would not be able to just happen across, and not searchable. It was their first two edits.

• Rui Beech to Teahouse ([45] and [46]), see Epictrex to Teahouse here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1104#What should I do if I am being falsely accused of sock puppetry on Wikipedia? Can I get into legal trouble for anything I do on Wikipedia?. They have several more at Teahouse, all with the same pattern of overly long similarly worded titles, if I really need to go hunt them down.
• And now they have taken to trolling my talk page, [47] and [48] Heiro 03:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t troll your talkpage, I was answering your question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Beech (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Rui Beech blocked indef as sock, per loud quacking. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: While we're here, meet Zapientus, who magically appeared two days after Rui Beech was blocked and made the exact same edits to the draft page. What a magical coincidence. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Francis Schonken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) makes wholesale reverts of my edits, including these:

• Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling Edit summary: (revert a series of unhelpful changes)

• Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Edit summary: (WP:Revert, ignore)

• Wikipedia:Red link Edit summary: (reverting a number of non-consensus changes to the guideline, take to talk)

I sought guidance from an admin and Francis Schonken participated in the ensuing discussion. Start reading here for the long version and here for the short version.
At one point during that discussion the admin posted:

@Francis Schonken: And with that you are edit warring...after being blocked for it, again, again, again, again, again, again, and again. This isn't the first time since I gave you a final warning regarding edit warring either, as you did so with this and [49]. After that final warning and this warning I gave you, the only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you want to be banned from the project. The why escapes me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I ended my most recent post to the admin by saying "In short, FS continues to indiscriminately target my edits for reversion - acting as a self-appointed administrator to block my contributions to WP: pages. I hope you will advise [sic] me regarding how best to respond to this treatment." The admin replied: "I would raise this issue at WP:AN/I at this point." So here I am. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No editor or administrator has the right to target and revert edits just because, as it appears here, he doesn't like them. Francis might consider editing elsewhere before ummm.... trouble hits the fan. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Red link is about 10,000 words long. My overall impression of FS's stance is that consensus is not the same as unanimity, but so long as he is the lone objector to a small change, then there cannot be consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

indef by Cullen328

• Good block — Ched (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I readily acknowledge that many in the the community agree that Francis Schonken has contributed excellent content about classical music. I thank FS for their positive contributions. But for many years, this editor has had difficulty complying with our behavioral norms. As a result, they have been blocked eight times previously, for a year last time. Francis Schonken has been warned in great detail and at great length several times in recent months by Hammersoft, who has taken great care to identify the problematic behaviors and encourage improvement. Very sadly, FS has chosen to continue with their past pattern of disruption, edit warring and endless IDHT debates about trivialities. Accordingly, I have issued an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Good block — If it means anything, I almost never participate at ANI, and least of all to support or oppose any blocks, but FS's behavior is so repeatedly unproductive, I feel—for the sake of classical music coverage on Wikipedia—I have to come here and leave a comment. FS has managed to frustrate literally everyone I know in classical music community. Honestly, some of it is just genuinely upsetting. He's put off and discouraged so many people, it is a truly abysmal thing to watch unfold (a somewhat recent example that comes to mind). Tireless edit warring, no understanding of proper consensus, and extreme ownership ([50] [51] [52] as just a few examples) Frankly, I've found myself repeatedly worn out by his editing, but his inability to be collaborative is ceaseless, and I have never seen someone given so many chances. Aza24 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Francis Schonken - ban from the project?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 10 May 2021 as a result of the discussion above, Cullen328 issued an indefinite block [53] for Francis Schonken (talk · contribs). At the suggestion of another editor, I write to propose that the indefinite ban of Francis Schonken be converted to a community ban from the project and that, if consensus is achieved, the account be added to Category:Banned Wikipedia users.

I base this proposal on:

(a) the conduct in my original post (above) that led to the indefinite ban block.

(b) the history of (now) 9 blocks with no evidence that any of them led to long-lasting changes of behavior.

(c) the failure, despite being an active editor for more than 15 years, to understand (or maybe "to accept") how consensus works, as reported by WhatamIdoing above based on this exchange (see another example here).

(d) the continuation of inappropriate behavior after receiving a final warning for edit warring:

March 19 to April 15 conduct catalogued by User:Hammersoft

Edit warring after final warning On 19 March 2021, Hammersoft gave Francis Schonken a final warning regarding edit warring: [54]. Following that warning, Francis Schonken continued to engage in edit warring. Incidents described as below: 27 March 2021 16:04 27 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow makes a change to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not [55]. This was part of a discussion on the talk page of the policy. 16:17 27 March 2021: FS reverts [56] 17:07 27 March 2021: Buwhatdoiknow reverts FS [57] 17:15 27 March 2021: FS reverts [58] discussion here 29 March 2021 16:06 29 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow asks a question of FS for a second time regarding the removal of a phrase from the red link guideline [59]. FS does not respond. 22:48 3 April 2021: After waiting five days with no reply from FS, Butwhatdoiknow goes ahead with the change [60] citing the talk page discussion. 04:40 4 April 2021: FS reverts with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" [61], without answering Butwhatdoiknow's question on the talk page. 30 March 2021 5:01 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow creates a new redirect at Wikipedia:BRDISCUSS 5:38 30 March 2021: FS changes the target of the redirect with edit summary "re-redirect: less confusing" [62]. No associated discussion initiated by FS. 15:43 4 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow changes the redirect target back to what they created it as with edit summary "Restore original, more specific, target." [63] No associated discussion by Butwhatdoiknow. 19:34 4 April 2021: FS reverts Butwhatdoiknow with linked edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" (links to Wikipedia:Revert, ignore, a very short essay written December 2012, and referenced twice projected wide). [64]. No associated discussion by FS. 22:42 6 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow initiates discussion on the talk page of the redirect, and pings FS to the conversation. FS never responds. 30 March 2021 5:02 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow adds new shortcut they created to Wikipedia:Consensus [65] 5:35 30 March 2021: FS reverts with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" [66] 15:43 4 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow restores the shortcut [67] 19:54 4 April 2021: FS reverts again with the same edit summary [68] 30 March 2021 05:43 30 March 2021: FS reverts a long series of edits done mostly by Butwhatdoiknow that extend from after 7 December 2020 to 30 March 2021, with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore". [69]. Diff showing revert goes back to 20 December 2020: [70] 15:04 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow asks a question of FS at the talk page of the essay, pinging FS back to the conversation. [71]. FS never responds. 15:43 4 April 2021: After waiting five days, Butwhatdoiknow reverts, with a modification that Butwhatdoiknow feels addresses FS' concern. [72] 18:59 12 April 2021: After seeing the essay referenced on a discussion on Hammersoft's talk page to which Hammersoft pinged FS, FS reverts again, describing Butwhatdoiknow's edit as "Not helpful". [73] 19:41 12 April 2021: Hammersoft points out to FS that their 18:59 edit is edit warring. [74] 19:43 12 April 2021: FS self reverts back to Butwhatdoiknow's 15:43 4 April 2021 version, and then posts on Hammersoft's talk page saying they self reverted to reduce tension. [75] 14 April 2021 18:12 6 April 2021: User:Faunus places content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on Prem Rawat. This is part of a larger reorganization of the lede of the article. [76] 12:54 12 April 2021: FS removes content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on Prem Rawat. [77] 14:08 14 April 2021: Faunus places content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on Prem Rawat. [78], referencing a discussion at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Is_there_anything_to_be_done_on_this_page_to_make_it_acceptable? as consensus. 14:17 14 April 2021: FS removes the content [79] 16:18 14 April 2021: Faunus puts the content back in, with a citation. [80] 07:06 15 April 2021: FS removes the content [81] While this is going on, there is discussion on the talk page but only FS and Faunus are involved, and there is no consensus. [82]

(e) the result, reported by Aza24 above, of putting off and discouraging many other editors.

--Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support community ban: The amount of effort I've put into trying to avoid this happening has been rather large. I have found a number of troubling behaviors, some of which is highlighted above. I've repeatedly warned FS about their behavior [83][84][85][86][87] to no avail. I acknowledge and respect their contributions to the project, especially in the realm of classical music, but very strongly feel they are a net negative to the project. This is most especially true with their distinctly negative impact on other editors. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Ban unfortunately.
  • FS is an editor who has made significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia, especially in the area of classical music, but has also made larger negative contributions.
  • Their conduct on the content dispute about the sexuality of Frederic Chopin was also troublesome, when they tried to end-run around the RFC that I had started, by creating a separate sub-article, and then accused me of forum shopping.
  • I don't know why classical music causes so much controversy, although it is a great art form about which many editors are passionate.
  • Sometimes when the editing in the area of classical music gets heated, some of the editors should put on a recording rather than editing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I've never been a fan of adding salt to a wound, but I'd also be concerned if an unsuspecting admin wandered on to an unblock request and granted a serial edit warrior a reprieve. Francis didn't even make it a year before his first WP:3RR block [88]. The past year is covered above; but, additionally: 15+ years of disruptive editing does not make for a collaborative environment. Even after a 1 year block, within a month after returning they were trying to bully others.[89]. When people tried to talk to them, they often were confronted with rudeness and snark. [90]. Francis may be knowledgeable and capable of writing about the things he cares about, but he's shown no sign of being able to work with others. At the end of the day, I think a WP:CBAN is best for all sides. — Ched (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support—At this point, it seems like everyone has their own "Francis Schonken story". I could go in to the many examples of edit warring or extreme ownership (I briefly mentioned some in the thread directly above), but the most unfortunate thing is the constant bullying of editors. This entire talk page, resulting in the article's creator saying "I see you have taken possession of the article again. I despair. I've taken it off my watchlist and you can what you like with it as far as I am concerned."; this thread, resulting in the article's creator saying "I'll defer to others about what to do, and remove this from my watchlist". It things like this that show FS continues to directly damage the work of others, whether or not he is productive in his own right. So many blocks and way too many ANI threads, it seems this needs to come to an end. Aza24 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. At the outset I really tried to find the wording that would make FS look beyond his own desires to really collaborate with others. With one exception, he never did. He achieved editing almost solely through bullying, forcing people to see his side of things, and basically being so determined that nearly all editors gave up because life is too short. Yes, he did contribute some good things, but Wikipedia is a social encyclopedia, and this is an individual whose sole desire is to achieve what he sees as right and thus appears to be unable to collaborate except through bullying. - kosboot (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support community ban (with some further points). Many people have remarked on the issues with Francis Schonken's behavior and his edit warring, so I thought I might give a few examples of other issues with his conduct.
  • Selective application of and disregard for WP:NPV ([91]), which he followed up with accusing me of violating NPOV and complaining about "drive-by editors" (of who I'm presumably one). All in all, a demonstration of extreme WP:OWN on his part (which other editors have provided further examples of).
  • A bizarre, selective understanding and/or application of Wikipedia rules (see for example [92] and my response at [93]) and constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
  • Selective interpretation and definition of consensus ([94]) and openly expressing disregard for consensus that does not align with his goals or viewpoints ([95]).
    • With reference to the previous point, the WP:OR and stubbornness exhibited by Francis Schonken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni are astounding, as is the circumventing of consensus (including multiple RfCs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination). The improper/disruptive behavior exhibited on the latter page ([96] will give you some flavor of the discussion) is a sight to behold, too.
  • This is one of the snarkiest (to put it mildly) comments I have ever seen on Wikipedia, especially given that it was directed at one of the kindest editors the project has ever had.
  • Many of the recent discussions at Talk:Frédéric Chopin were some of the nastiest and most heated in the history of classical music articles on Wikipedia (second perhaps only to some of the ones on infoboxes), and Francis Schonken was a major contributor to the hostile atmosphere there. Other have commented on his conduct in the various discussions on Chopin's sexuality, so I will highlight just one bizarre interchange: after I referenced some of the principles that Wikipedia is built on ([97]), Francis Schonken asked me about their relevance ([98]). I mean, what relevance could a Wikipedia policy possibly have to a content dispute?

  At the end of the day, these problems (which are just a selection from the last few months) may still be less relevant and intractable than Francis Schonken's hostile and toxic behavior, which others have remarked on and has discouraged many editors of classical music articles, and which on its own is grounds for a community ban. Toccata quarta (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I have, unfortunately, had my encounters with Francis (including long before I created an account - they were particularly BITEY back then). While they certainly seem to have made valuable contributions to the area of classical music, their behaviour within that area is, as evidenced by the examples above, often acerbic and arrogant. Coupled with their disruptive editing and difficulty collaborating, that seems sufficient grounds for a community ban. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As the blocking administrator, I am not going to !vote, because I do not want to pile on. I chose to make this block because I have not had much if any direct previous interactions with FS that I can recall, so I consider myself uninvolved. I like classical music and many other genres but I am not passionate about it. My favorite type of music for daily listening is classic hard rock, but I don't edit much in any music genre. Over the years, I have read many noticeboard threads about this editor. Over and over, I assumed good faith in my mind, because FS is knowledgeable about classical music and I am not, and I want the encyclopedia to have good coverage of classical music. But their behavioral problems have not improved. Finally, I decided to take a closer look this time. I have to thank Hammersoft for doing the research and taking the time to give FS excellent highly customized advice in recent months, and I commend them for doing that work. It makes me sad to block a long time contributor. But when a person has been given and has blown chance after chance after chance after chance, the time eventually comes for decisive action. I appreciate the comments made here by other editors active in the classical music topic area, who have been subjected on a day to day basis to FS's disruption more than I have. To those editors, I say that I may not be among you, but that my decision to block was for you and for your benefit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think others are more qualified to express an opinion here. My interaction with Francis Schonken was limited to matters of citation maintenance, which then seemed to escalate beyond reason. Their understanding of edit wars seemed alarmingly peculiar to me. Nemo 06:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – I agree with what editors have said, above, that FS has contributed much valuable content, but a repeated pattern of bullying must not be condoned, and it is all too evident that FS refuses to learn that lesson, despite repeated warnings, advice and multiple second chances. – Tim riley talk 14:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the affected editors' comments here. While Francis Schonken's contributions to classical music are appreciated, there is not a single editor here whose contributions are so valuable that we can excuse behaviour that drives others away from the project, particularly when so much effort has been expended to correct it yet the behaviour persists. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blocked for an entire year, and then comes back and resumes disruptive editing? They are not going to change, and FS is a net negative. P-K3 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support-ish, but what about T-bans?. I agree that this behavior pattern cannot continue, yet that it will continue if something drastic is not done (given the block record). I think there is one last step that could be tried, and this is removing FS from the topics in which he is most controlling and disruptive, which to my eyes are a) composers (in any genre) as biography subjects; b) Classical music broadly construed (including Baroque and Romantic and neo-Classical and anything else included within Classical in general parlance but not by musicologists; it's really a continuum of interlocking styles and movements and eras in music); and c) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (their editing, not their application). Include whatever else FS editwars and filibusters/OWNs over (I've not pored over the block log, but I imagine others know what those topics are). If FS can learn and demonstrate an ability to get along with people while editing random articles on salamanders and comic books and chemical elements and goat breeds and varieties of red wine and parasites of marine plants and whatever, then lifting of the T-bans could be considered, after a good while. But if the negative behavior pattern simply migrates to other topics, then we'll know it's a lost cause. (Maybe I'm being sentimental, after the irreversible loss of Flyer22 and SlimVirgin this year, who dated back to the 2000s like FS and I do; it's all starting to have an "end of an era" feel to it. Regarding the suspicion that FS actually wants to be blocked, that's possible; it wouldn't be the first time someone engaged in an indef trajectory to get admins to force them to quit WP-as-an-addiction. But it would be simpler for FS to just state "please block me", and then scramble his password, or something to that effect.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Art music" could be the term of art to refer to it. Or alternatively "Western classical music, broadly construed" (which would de facto include composers). I wouldn't oppose the above per se, but I can't help but feel like changing from "community ban" to "multiple topic bans in most areas of interest to the editor" is an unnecessary complication. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Never mind unnecessary complication, most of the behaviors on display transfer readily to arbitrary other topics. Izno (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Well, even if a T-ban blunderbuss is only effective, say, 20% of the time, it's at least a chance. But I seem to be outvoted on offering another chance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Despite the fact that at times I agree with Francis in content matters, I feel his near-homicidal level of hostility and bullying, especially in cases like the interminable ceaseless interactions with and hounding of MathSci, indicate that he appears constitutionally incapable of modifying his behavior to collaborative Wikipedia norms, even when asked and/or warned and/or blocked repeatedly. It is unfortunate when knowledgeable and often useful editors cannot conform to community-based work, but as DGG once said to me, "People are more important than articles." Not to mention, competence is required, and that includes social competence to be a cooperative and collaborative community member. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:43.247.159.146

I have warned 43.247.159.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) sufficiently regarding their odd editing behavior of incorrectly adding spaces before commas. I already had to go through some of the edits and fix all the issues. But, this is an ongoing problem, and seems any type of warnings on their talk pages does no good. Their talk page is full of warnings, with no response from this user, and they've already been blocked for disruptive behavior. They made further edits after my last warning (level 4) (this for example, showing the grammar errors). Essentially, all their edits have to be fixed up by users and they have made no attempt to fix (this very simple) issue. They also consistently add unsourced information to articles by adding specific dates in regards to fictional content, another issue this user has been warned for multiple times going back almost a year. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Man of failures

Man of failures (talk · contribs)

Man of failures, a 3 month old user with less than 25 edits is removing content which seems like they don't like with misleading edit summaries mostly to remove content or to add WP:OR.

• Uses the edit summary Removed some biases in writing while they added more WP:OR.[99]
• Uses the edit summary Removed some bias in the write-up as only the reserved category students and doctors were involved. while they add more WP:OR.[100]
• Removes sourced content in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 citing some IP address to be "invalid ". Invalid reference (Invalid IP Id)[101], Invalid IP address of citation[102], Invalid IP address (Invalid citation)[103]. They had removed a lot of content in the article with similar "invalid IP" edit summaries.
• Removed content backed by a reliable source citing Write-up and citation don't match in Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu [104], again removes it with an edit summary blaming the reference number as wrong and asks me to show them where the content is a one-page online article Show me where this is present in the source. Additionally the reference no is wrong. [105], again removes it with an edit summary I can't find it[106] while it is literally in the source.

In my opinion, the user is here to remove content which they WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT with WP:GAMING and is clearly WP:NOTTHERE to to build an encyclopedia. SUN EYE 1 18:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User not discussing changes, continuing to make changes

Hi all - reposting as this didn't have replies - I have a very new editor, SkunkaMunka (talk · contribs), who has decided they like geographic relief maps in settlement infoboxes, which is nonstandard. They also continually edit warred with me for a little over interactive maps, trying to remove or supplement them with outdated or inferior maps. I opened a sockpuppet investigation because it's clear they are abusively using multiple accounts. There has been no activity there yet. I also received and responded to an email from this user, hoping to discuss and stop edit warring. I have not heard back, and since then, they have proceeded to revert any un-reverted changes and continue to convert additional articles.

In short:

• User changes maps to nonstandard or poorer maps with no discussion
• Short edit war ensues
• Brief email conversation
• I stop to file a sockpuppet investigation
• Days go by with no activity
• I'm filing an ANI as this user will no longer discuss their desired changes or accept anything different

Best, ɱ (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ɱ, after the first, now-archived thread about SkunkaMunka's behavior was created, they responded in Special:Diff/1021623639. Re-creating the thread without any indication of a) the re-creation and b) their reply is somehow suboptimal. At the moment, the situation looks as if we can simply wait for the SPI result, even if that takes a week or two. If this assessment is wrong, please provide recent diffs that show an emergency intervention need. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Ah, thanks, I missed the user's reply. I'll see what I can do for now. The user's conduct and bad edits need to change, and I can't do it without them reverting me again. As well, their continued bad edits across other articles need to stop. ɱ (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If someone besides me could help reinforce that Wikipedia requires collaboration and discussion, and compromise isn't always the solution, that would be appreciated. ɱ (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I often do that and have a relatively low hesitation to block users for disruptively ignoring community concerns (or actively rejecting them). I'll wait for the SPI result though, and for further edits. Please keep me updated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and input, @ToBeFree:. Following further discussion, the user has relented. I'll let you know if anything changes. Best, ɱ (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Excalibur26 - please revoke TPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Excalibur26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was recently indeffed for treating Wikipedia like a forum for their racist and misogynist opinions, which they inserted directly into several articles, catalogued here. Today they are using their talk page to repost the same comments. Please relieve them of their talk page access. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Tiderolls 14:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone remove TPA from this IP?

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

They've been blocked for six months, but keep spam adding edit requests on their talk page (mostly to WP:VANDALISM, which is very subtle). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Large AIV Backlog

Any assistance would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:42 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Did, coincidentally.

Please consider changing your signature to use the standard datetimestamp and such that the enclosing small is around only your name and talk page links. I really like the new Reply tool and it doesn't like one or both of those things about your signature. :^) --Izno (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks for your help on the AIV backlog. I don't use the Beta preferences (I'm really old school), so I just looked at them and I see the issue you are getting. I am going to tinker with my signature and try to make it work with the new Beta features. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:54 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Riley

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Might want to change the visibility on these diffs as Riley is suing over these comments. diff, diff. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

To be safe, I've RevDel'd them. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Anarchyte - Wait, I don't understand why these revisions were rev del'd. They don't seem to meet the the criterion for RD2 or RD3. Riley is suing over these comments? Where can I read about this? Sorry, I'm just confused here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: See this article. I only RevDel'd the edits because I see no reason to keep content that she's already in legal battle about unless we're providing reliable sources that discuss the case, instead of just parroting the allegedly defamatory statements. Anarchyte (talk • work) 02:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Anarchyte - I appreciate the response and the clarification. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Meh. This looks like a teapot tempest. There is somewhere between 0% and no chance at all that Riley will prevail in a case about "mere vulgar abuse" (see Defamation Act 2013). Accusing someone of being a Nazi and then complaining about the blowback? Bye, Felicia. That said, I can't see the revdels. But please: don't panic, Mr. Mainwaring. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ruling Party BLP violations

User:Ruling party keeps adding back information sourced to an alleged US diplomatic cable hosted on wikileaks about living persons. This started in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article diff A diff B diff C but has moved on to the 8th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party article diff 1 diff 2 which hosts a whole list of members sourced to this cable. There is ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sisay Leudetmounsone and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#US diplomatic cables on Wikileaks (the latter started by me) which IMO is leading towards the cable being unreliable although that is also my view so I'm obviously biased.

I've tried to explain to Ruling party multiple times that as this concerns living persons, the information should stay out until there is consensus about the reliability of the source [107] [108] [109] but they're not getting it. Note that the first two messages on their talk page were about the Sisay Leudetmounsone article, but the last message on BLPN was 8th central committee article. (The 8th central committee article became a problem when they effectively mentioned it on BLPN.)

IMO a block is justified but I'm fine if someone thinks they can get through to them via discussion. I would suggest a partial block from both the Sisay Leudetmounsone and 8th central committee articles sufficient for now or alternatively the whole article space. It would be good if they can continue to participate in the RSN and BLPN discussions and on the article talk pages. To their credit, they do seem to have stopped in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article for now, although there are 3 diffs, it was over multiple days so they're not close to 3RR. -Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Note in the 8th committee article, several sources have been added but they do not source the information. An open access version of the journal article is available here [110] and it doesn't have a list of the 10th central committee let alone the 8th. While I don't speak Laotian, a machine translation of the 9th central committee list here [111] also doesn't seem to mention anything about their membership in the 8th central committee. A source from 2002 obviously cannot tell us who was in a committee formed in 2006.

I'm also fairly confident that the Wikileaks cable is the only source anyone has found for a list of all members of the 8th central committee, since the only reason this started is because there was none but it was desired to show that Sisay Leudetmounsone joined in the 8th. Both me and User:Thucydides411 have looked as well, and it seems clear from what Ruling party has said that they too have looked and couldn't find any source for the whole membership. Instead they keep insisting because the information from Wikileaks is supported by sourced information for the 7th and 9th central committees, it must be correct.

The information sourced to Wikileaks is IMO not particularly contentious, membership in the central committee isn't a secret. The problem is simply one of WP:Systemic bias i.e. it's very hard to find sources talking about these older committees. But the fact remains, it does concern living persons and IMO it's not acceptable to use unacceptable sources just because we can't find an RS. As annoying as it may be, we need to keep the information out until an RS can be found. I have explained to them they could use WP:CALC and reliably sourced information about the 7th and 9th central committees to provide information about Sisay Leudetmounsone and other members of the 8th. I have also explained to them, as have others, that Laotian sources and other non English sources are fine. Indeed I even suggested looking into Chinese sources. So I'm trying to work with them to help them source the information, as are others.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Very strange arguments: the 10th LPRP Central Committee is referenced by this http://kpl.gov.la/En/Page/Politic/partyx.aspx
2. you are right regarding the Creak source—its been added by mistake by me. It shouldn't have been there. I forgot to remove it or added it wrongly. Mistakes happen. That source is about the 10th LPRP Central Committee / Congress.
3. [112] lists the members of the 9th CC.. That is.. the reelection column of the 8th CC LPRP article
4. The source from 2006 references the "old" column in the 8th Central Committee article. That is, those that were members of the 7th CC

To be honest—block me and I'll never come back. If there is one user that should be blocked its Nil Einne. Her bad faith towards me can be seen all over this edit. If she had asked; what does the different references source I could have given her the answer.. But she has never ever asked that question. He/she has been extremely uncivil (as I have I) and has done everything in his/her power to make the discussion between me and her take this direction.

If she had been willing to discuss, to collaborate and to find a solution I would have been willing to jump on it. But he/she never has. He/she now blames me for the discussion ending this way which is strange because I have written I will respect the outcome of any decision reached by a discussion when the discussion is finished. AS it currently stands he/she wants to block me and force her view on Wikipedia before the discussion even closes... --Ruling party (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WAIT Can we hold off on any action? It looks like Ruling party has finally found a reliable source and while this still doesn't excuse their early BLP violations, per WP:NOPUNISH the problem may be resolved. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: to the contrary. I will always respect a consensus. I've said all along you can and should continue discussion even if the information is removed. Keeping the information out doesn't mean the discussion ends. It means the information stays out until we reach a consensus. You've been asking that we keep what I regard as BLP violations while discussion is ongoing which I do not consider acceptable. Ultimately the only way this problem can be resolved is via reaching consensus on the source, or finding a different source the only question is whether we keep the information out or keep it in while discussion is ongoing. No one has ever suggested a final decision is being made by keeping the information out. All that has been said is the correct interim solution, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, is the information stays out until a reliable source can be found. You say I've been unwilling to work with you. Yet I've explained to you in great detail on your talk page how you can go about finding a suitable source [113]. I've also explained how you could potentially use WP:CALC [114]. I've also asked you to continue discussion, and indeed even in this very thread, I said I wanted you to be able to continue discussion. I clearly never wanted to shut you out of discussing the issue. The only thing I want you to do was stop adding information when you lacked a reliable source. Since you believe the source is reliable, you are welcome to convince the community of this, although as I've said, 'there's no indication it's wrong' or even 'all indications are it's right' is not an argument well supported by either our policies or guidelines so is unlikely to be given much consideration. In any case, this discussion is probably moot. It seems you've found a suitable source. Great work! That's what we've wanted all along. It doesn't mean we were wrong to insist you find it though. Quite the contrary. We need reliable sources, if a source is not a a reliable source, it doesn't matter if we're fairly confident the information is correct it needs to stay out especially when it comes to living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh, this is a very simple dispute that would have been solved quite quickly if a couple of people had actually listened to what people were telling them about what a reliable source is and is not. Despite having it explained to them in detail, or being here long enough enough they should know better. Thucydides411 in particular at the RSN discussion linked above is either being deliberately dense or lacks the capacity to deal in anything regarding reliable sourcing. Not particularly bad in general in the wider scheme of things, but absolutely a huge issue when it comes to BLPs. There are only so many times you can explain something to someone in different ways before you have to accept they do not and are unlikely to ever understand. And more to the point, its not other editor's job to do that about our core policies.

The sourcing issue was there was no reliable source available for a particular piece of relatively innocuous information. It was (for the time in which the various sourcing discussions at RSN and BLPN were taking place) included on one of the stolen diplomatic cables available on wikileaks. If the cables had been released by the authors/owners as a public document, then it would be a primary source and so useable to the extent primary sources are used (still very little on BLPs). It was not however, it was leaked and hosted on Wikileaks, which in itself is not a reliable source. Where secondary sources (research papers, news orgs etc) have commented on particular cables, we can reasonably use them (the news orgs, research etc) as secondary sources. While some news orgs have said the cables as a group are legitimate, none have commented on this specific cable and we only have Wikileak to trust that this cable is part of the wider group. "Wikileaks includes this as part of the cables, reliable sources says the cables are legitimate, therefore everything in this cable is reliable". This is far too many steps to assume reliability in a normal article, but since the actual potential harm is small, if it were not about living people, it would likely just be hand-waved away. Because it does involve living people, the demands for reliable secondary sources are significantly higher and more vigourously enforced. As a content dispute this is small beans, but Ruling Party and Thucydides411 should be topic banned from BLP's as I have zero confidence they understand WP:BLP and if you dont understand that policy, you need to forcibly prevented from editing anything involving living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic-banning someone for discussing source reliability on a talk page and at RSN would be an extreme action, and would have a chilling effect on discussion. I haven't attempted to edit the page in question, and I wouldn't edit it without consensus. I think my position on the cables has been reasonable. The US diplomatic cable cache is known to be genuine, so the question is whether or not a list of Central Committee members drawn up by the US embassy in Vientiane can be considered a reliable source. Thucydides411 in particular at the RSN discussion linked above is either being deliberately dense. From my perspective, the suggestions that the US diplomatic cable we're discussing might be a fake are far-fetched, contrary to all the reporting on the cache (which all describe it as a genuine cache of US diplomatic cables), and frankly are just fantasy. There's no actual question that this is a US diplomatic cable, but there is a question about whether or not that cable is usable as a source.

"Wikileaks includes this as part of the cables, reliable sources says the cables are legitimate, therefore everything in this cable is reliable" I never claimed that everything in the cable or the cache of cables in reliable. I merely said, as countless reliable sources do, that the cache of cables is genuine. Whether or not the claims made in those cables are reliable is a separate question, but the cables themselves are real. I've been trying to redirect the RSN discussion towards the question that is actually interesting - whether the particular cable in question is reliable - rather than the sidetrack (and unreasonable, in my opinion) discussion about whether the cable is genuine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I share Only in death’s assessment of the competence of these two editors when it comes to BLP, they either need to demonstrate that they now understand it or stay out of the space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the misunderstanding of BLP policy, there is also a misunderstanding of the vandalism policy. CMD (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a partial block from mainspace until Ruling party gets it. This looks like someone who is here to increase our coverage of an under-represented viewpoint, which is fine, but they need to learn the relative weight we place on Truth™ and fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Blocking me after the situation has been solved seems to be a good idea. No vendetta there. As I said before if you block me I'll never come back. So if you want the Wikipedia community to lose another contributor do that. But let bygones be bygones and, of course, if this happens again you can of course block me. This seems childish... --Ruling party (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And no, I'm not here to WP:RGW anything. I'm just creating articles that are missing. I'm not trying to change anyone's view on North Korea, Laos or anything for that matter. I'm just creating articles that are obviously missing.... So if you want to block me because of that sure... I don't think many other editors will create articles om missing living people from Laos... --Ruling party (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Ruling party has since found RS for both Sisay Leudetmounsone and the Central Committee articles (see here). In doing so, he has aligned himself with the opinion of the rest of the community: WikiLeaks is replaceable by these sources and hence these sources should be the ones used. I do not think it's a matter of not getting the BLP policy. Rather, as we all know, it can be frustrating to spend inordinate amounts of time to go from what we know to be true to what is verifiable in reliable sources. That has only been made more acute by the systemic bias and language aspects of the topic, so frustration is understandable. But this is not the same as not getting or agreeing with the policy. Furthermore, it's been Ruling party's position throughout that sources that have been considered "generally" unreliable at RSN can be discussed, and there is nothing wrong with discussing their use in a specific article. Indeed, this strikes to me as a correct understanding of the BLP policy and something we do all the time. But to reiterate, we now have sources that err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP, and these sources have been uncovered through Ruling party's positive participation in the process, not because of any contempt for policy. (I am not an admin.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Williams (artist)

Could someone semi-protect this page please? A block-evading 205.234.53.90 , a sock of of Bembo Bold (SPI) has been, well, block-evading there for the last four hours. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's actually getting quite amusing; the one IP 205.234.53.90 has !voted keep something like 11 times now, but I suspect some may be dupes.--- Possibly (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ivanvector has now closed the AFD and deleted the article. I don't know whether salting the page might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That was quite a nasty series of socks. I am still a bit disturbed that they were adding negative material on the "Owen Williams" controversy to the Yukon Arts Centre. It seems like obvious grievance editing. They even came back just now as user:OwenWilliamsYukon, after Ivanvector's block, to restore the "controversy" material again.--- Possibly (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Izno blocked the new IP, and I blocked the range they're both on; Bembo Bold's block is now indefinite. Salting disambiguated titles is weak, and I'm reluctant to add this to the title blacklist since there seem to be a lot of Owen Williamses. There are plenty of editors watching this now: if the page is recreated under this or a different title, please flag it for WP:G5 and report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bembo Bold. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. --- Possibly (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Welshale and Srodgers1701

Welshale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Srodgers1701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd take this to WP:SPI but it's urgent and the socking is so obvious that ANI seemed a better fit. See this edit on my talk where Welshale admits to being Srodgers. This traces to a content dispute at Dalia Gebrial, in which I removed poorly sourced biographical info per WP:BLP. Welshale/Srodgers1701 is now coming after me in unrelated articles (see Special:Diff/1022895047). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Unrelated as far as checkuser evidence goes, but I still blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

206.74.86.194

• 206.74.86.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Revdel and block please. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: did the block and I got the revdel. --Jayron32 22:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and general WP:NOTHERE behavior at Talk:Quantum entanglement

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

There's a bit of genuine entertainment value in being called one of those 'entanglement' freaks and seeing a decades-old physics subject summarily dismissed as all Voodoo, and a fairytale, but when the response to pointing out policy is You guys stop making lame excuses, I don't think the discussion is going anywhere. IP was blocked for edit-warring, then came back to cast aspersions, promote self-published sources, and insinuate a conspiracy theory on the Talk page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

How could you leave out the best quote of the section: The reason you want to censor the following sentence that I wrote into wikipedia is that it is an existential threat to everything you have been pushing for years? I mean, I'm used to hearing these kinds of things from the alt-med cranks, but I didn't realize that physicists had to deal with it too. Now I'm curious what nefarious conspiracies Big Physics (Big Particles?) is up to... Hyperion35 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sure, we have quite a lot of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the same IP that was the subject of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#IP_disruptively_editing_at_Quantum_entanglement which is what got them blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

N-rays are so passé. Narky Blert (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been quiet for a couple of days so action now is unlikely. Ping me if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood; will do. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: it seems to be starting up again. Apparently now all physicists are in a conspiracy to hide the truth from ourselves. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning at User talk:47.201.194.211#Procedures. Let me know if problems continue if I don't notice them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:AwesomePro50 keeps modifying/adding OR to "name=" fields

AwesomePro50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This unresponsive editor keeps adding extraneous information to the "name=" fields in infoboxes instead of following the guidance to use common name and/or article title:

[115] [116] [117] [118] [119]

also keeps adding OR translations:

[120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]

Also see editors history for (70? 80?) such edits, still ongoing.

Despite notifying them about the problematic edits and reverts with explanations by me and other editors they continue making the same edits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have mass-reverted them. If that doesn't get their attention then a parblock from article space may be the next step. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Civility of editor User:MjolnirPants in discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

*MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Some edits were made from this account)

• Snopes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Civility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I brought up on the talk page of Snopes that the content could be improved along with my suggestions for doing so. MjolnirPants disagrees with my suggestions, but the violation is that he is being uncivil and/or failing to AGF while expressing that disagreement.

Several uncivil and/or non-AGF statements he has made are as follows:

• Suggesting that I have not read the content of the article that I am making suggestions about:
  • "You need to read the whole section."
• Implying that I have an ulterior motive:
  • "labelling satire as false is only controversial among those who rely on spreading fake news with tiny little "satire" disclaimers for political gain."

• Further uncivil and/or non-AGF statements:
  • Edit summery "rv pure hypocrisy"
  • Edit summary "You're not gonna like where this is going..."

The owner of all ✌️ 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC) (I withdraw this report, but per WP:BOOMERANG if I am going to be sanctioned then go ahead.) The owner of all ✌️ 00:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• If those are your standards for intolerable incivility, you're probably going to have a difficult time working with other people in all aspects of life. --Jayron32 22:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to this issue. The owner of all ✌️ 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You've brought another editor here for santioning for mild incivility. That's not going to happen. Was that less circumlocutionary for you? --Jayron32 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • If nothing is going to happen then we can just close this discussion. The owner of all ✌️ 23:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • You know what, I don't think we should. There's some additional parts of this situation that needs to be explored, as noted below. Let's see where this discussion goes. --Jayron32 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I have been careful to avoid violating policy. If that's not good enough for whoever has authority here, then oh well. The owner of all ✌️ 23:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Note, this editor was just threatened with a block for an attempt to game WP:3RRN. I'm not going to get into the meat of the content question at the heart of the issue here, but I will say that this editor's preferred content is the sort of thing many admins might see as a policy problem, itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, User:The owner of all opened this complaint just minutes after being warned for launching a different spurious complaint against MPants at AN3. They should at the very least be warned about WP:FORUMSHOP. Generalrelative (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see this as a "forumshop" violation. I reported the potential edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, and the incivility to here. The owner of all ✌️ 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• And that's another example. He thinks that I'm only here to insert policy-violating content in articles. The owner of all ✌️ 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This ANI posting is meritless (if not ridiculous). You should withdraw it to avoid being sanctioned and so as not to waste the community's time. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware of any policy that I am violating that I could be sanctioned for. Plus, I already give my consent to close this discussion if nothing is going to happen, as stated above. The owner of all ✌️ 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Please read and follow WP:COLAS. --JBL (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Ok, but that's not a policy page, so can I be sanctioned for mistakenly not following it? The owner of all ✌️ 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support a boomerang -- obvious bad-faith filing, a quick review of the editor's contributions suggest they are a net negative to the project. --JBL (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Which contributions do you have issue with? The owner of all ✌️ 23:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is nonsense. Someone please close this and either warn or block the OP for edit-warring and filing ridiculous bad-faith ANI reports. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that this report can be closed, but I disagree with blocking me for filing an ANI report. (I disagree that this report was bad faith when I filed it, because I looked for where I could file a report about violations of the civility policy. But now that it's clear that the community believes the behavior of that editor doesn't violate the policy I am ok with withdrawing the report.) The owner of all ✌️ 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is getting into WP:BOOMERANG as well as WP:CIR territory. And no, please do not ask me a follow-up question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • But CIR is not a policy so I'm not sure it would be valid to ban me for not following it. The owner of all ✌️ 23:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is not a policy. It is a behavioral guideline and editors get blocked for violating it quite frequently. Editors also get blocked for lack of competence routinely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" is certainly a blockable offense. Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia... sanctions may have to be imposed. --Jayron32 23:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Ok but I've already stated that I get the point. I am already trying to move on and blocking me would not be helpful. The owner of all ✌️ 23:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • The owner of all, please avoid (1) adding colons in between bullets when responding to a reply, and (2) adding a line space when responding to bulleted replies. Please check your posts via Show preview" to see that your post has only ONE bullet, before you click "Publish changes". I've cleaned up your posts once today, and I'm doing it again now. Please don't make more than one bullet visible on your replies. Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I apologize. All of my replies were created by typing asterisks, but WikEd or one of the other gadgets was changing some of the syntax. I have disabled those gadgets on my account to avoid further issues. The owner of all ✌️ 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CSD Abuse

Moved from WP:AN

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:DJRSD has been arbitrarily tagging pages for CSD. While some of these have been helpful, he has been warned twice about false tags and continues to tag pages that blatantly meet Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Some of these have been good faith, and I don't believe that a total ban is necessary. Is there a way to limit tagging abilities? Thanks in advance! Carwile2 ^*message* 19:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for a statement from DJRSD. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Carwile2 - The only way to "limit" one's ability to tag a page for speedy deletion would be to block them. This obviously isn't necessary. I think the best solution here would be to ask that they review and understand what constitutes credible significance, and ask that they take more care and time to review articles before they tag them for A7. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking yes, but there are people on WP:EDR for CSD-related issues. (No opinion yet on the merits of the individual case.) Vaticidalprophet 01:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet - Oh, sure there are, but I don't think this situation merits a ban yet. Not by far. I think as a first step, we need to reach out to the user and educate them and ask them to review this page and give the user time to improve before we resort to any further action. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, and thank you ToBeFree for notifying me. I didn't do any CSD tagging arbitrarily. Each speedy is under Wiki guidelines. If i am wrong anywhere, kindly accept my apologies in advance. If you see my previous CSD that were also not wrong, though one user notify me for those CSD tag. DJRSD (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response @DJRSD:. We appreciate that you are acting in good faith here, but from what I see you are making mistakes at far too great a rate in terms of inappropriate tagging of articles. My suggestion is to slow down, listen to experienced editors who have been here much longer and know the standards, and try to learn to be better. Perfection is not required, but improvement is. While I don't think you need to be sanctions as yet, continued problems could lead to something like a ban on tagging articles for deletion. Please take the advice of others on board, and we're looking forward to your improvement in this area. --Jayron32 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Jayron32, I will follow your advice. DJRSD (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Forrestgump420 and Chauvin Lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Forrestgump420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account Forrestgump420 is a single-purpose account who has a crusade about the wording of the lede in Derek Chauvin. The article describes him as an American former police officer. The user insists that there is a grammatical rule about adjective order, and that he should be referred to as a former American police officer. It has been pointed out that Chauvin is still an American, because his conviction does not revoke his citizenship. The user tried to argue at Talk:Derek Chauvin, which was closed by User:JzG. The user tried to argue at the Teahouse. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1021294333#new_editor/seeking_to_clarify_Derik_Chauvin_lead . The user tried to argue at DRN, which I closed on 5 May at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_206#Derek_Chauvin . The user has filed again at DRN, which is becoming a nuisance. I request a topic-ban against the user on all matters related to Derek Chauvin. If this amounts to a de facto ban, that is what happens to disruptive single-purpose accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the editor's edit summaries are a personal attack against User:Ivanvector. Please revdel them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought but their comments hardly rise to the level of revdel. Maybe ironically, the comment of mine that they've repeatedly referred to as a threat was a warning not to make threats. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Agree, time for a partial block from that article and talk. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from any mention of Derek Chauvin and also all grammar related nitpicking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal WP:PBLOCK from both Derek Chauvin and Talk:Derek Chauvin, topic ban from all discussions about grammar. This is beyond disruptive. --Jayron32 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Partial block. This is wasting everyone's time. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just block them. Come on, this is a troll account. Their userpage is a rambling polemic, they've been editing simultaneously as 2600:1702:2340:9470::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) this whole time (courtesy ping El C regarding that range's multiple blocks), their username may be a WP:DISRUPTNAME violation, and probably most obvious of all, they're fighting about being knowledgeable in proper English grammar with comments like "for example the word standard generally modifies (describes) the word proper which in turn generally modifies the specific term [in this case a word ( a term can be more then one word..for example police officer is a term )] which is english...as it does in other written languages" and have spelled Chauvin's name incorrectly multiple times, including in their most recent repeat DRN request. Block them and carry on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Well if you insist...Blocked for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and incivility by Getabrainmorans

• 12 May 2021: "oxbridge dumbasses can't even quote people properly"
• 12 May 2021: "wikipedia dumbasses can't even link things properly"
• 13 May 2021: "‎i know you've based your entire wikipedia career around sucking this guy's cock like an industrial pressure pump ..."

Reported by isento (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've left a message with the user here asking them to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at their username, I would say a "visit" to WP:UAA is in order. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No need for a visit - I've blocked them. If someone wants to watch their userpage for responses to this thread that can be copied here, that would be great. Guettarda (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I just got pinged there with this: "... you ran to the mods like a pussy, huh. also, if you'd have any reading comprehension, you'd realize the thing about wikipedia dumbasses was a self-effacing dig at a mistake of my own, you know, the type of thing you tried to pull off and failed miserably at, like a fucking, well, dumbass." isento (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed talkpage access. Killiondude (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

Maje020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I reverted said user's edits as disruptive and warned them. They said that the info was based on the Hungarian Wikipedia page, so linked them to the BLP policy and WP:CIRCULAR, and reverted their reinstatement for BLP concerns. They undid me and made a somewhat vague threat here, saying that they are considering reporting me. That's a clear NLT vio I think. JavaHurricane 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. Any admin may lift the block once they demonstrate an understanding of WP:NLT and retract the threats. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! JavaHurricane 12:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"He only speakes Hungarian." – What a weird thing to say about a living person in their biography. I will remove that and start a new discussion at Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement about the language skills that JavaHurricane reinstated (which Maje020 tried to remove) actually was sourced to obviously biased sources. Maje020 was right to remove the statement and JavaHurricane was wrong to reinstate it. I think it's a heated topic and Maje020 got frustrated, which I can understand. @Yamla: Maje020 said "you can end up on court to publish lies" (in Hungary, who knows?) and after their first signature (two replies in one edit) "I don't stop delete that lie and I am busy to find the possibility to report you for spreading liese". IMHO we should WP:AGF and assume Maje020 wanted to report the issue to the admins. Despite this, Maje020 should probably WP:DOGGY as they appear to be maybe a bit too passionate about this topic. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bummer, Maje020 really has to retract that before they can be unblocked. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Dajo767

Dajo767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think this speaks for itself. WP:NPA, WP:NOTHERE, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I posted it there not to contaminate the talk page further with our bickering. You obviously cannot be open and discuss without imposing and attempting to dominate Dajo767 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC). People can go through the talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language and see for themselves the months of feuding which happened. I contacted two wikipedia adminstrators. Twice the article was changed protection. Dajo767 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Like you said this speaks for iteself. I had not received any help from the appeals I made to two wikipedia administrators to resolve this dispute. It's all on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language. Dajo767 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my words. Dajo767 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I request you further not to place messages on my user page again Dajo767 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it hilarious when you brought up WP:NOTHERE because this clearly applies to you concerning your edits on the World language. Check the talk page Dajo767 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767, You may want to stop posting unless someone asks you a question or you have to refute a point. I am certain you're not helping your case right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Dajo767's edits, edit warring and ownership issues on the article in question, I don't think it's looking good on your edits. And making a blanket statement that you will just outright revert the edits of another edit based purely on who they are, shows that maybe it's you that is not capable of editing in a collaborative manner? In the current edit warring you're doing, TompaDompa asked for more verrification for the claims, and you just blanket reverted them. Someone else restored them and you reverted again. Twice. At this moment the only user I'm looking at for disruptive editing, edit warring and inability to edit in a collaborative manner is Dajo767. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is just beyond the pale. "And do not forget that he uses misdirection and manipulation - a psychopathic editor - by changing the templates and the reasons for those templates for his own - hence his name is mentioned at the original research template - as a warning to everyone of this user." I'm tempted just to outright block you just for writing that on Wikipedia servers. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If I may respond, you were only studying the recent edits. Looking at these places everything out of context. I urge you to go through the talk page talk page Dajo767 (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Specifically these two talksections that speak about TompaDoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#User_TompaDompa_using_this_page_to_promote_his_views and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Stop_disrupting_this_artcile. Dajo767 (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Answer us why you felt that sentence I posted above was an acceptable thing to write on Wikipedia about another editor. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Dajo767 you are only making it worse for yourself. After ending up here for accusing a user of psychopatic, you post in defense (?) a case of you calling the same user's drunken and hysterical? You must understand that that kind of language has no place on Wikipedia. As ScottishFinnishRadish already said, the best you can do now is to stop talking (and preferably apologise for the language).Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh and incidentally I've read those sections. It's quite clear that you are the problem here, not TompaDompa, thank you for drawing our attention directly to that fact and pointing us to the evidence. You clearly are unwilling to accept that you are wrong. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines, they do NOT need to be experts in the subject. In fact it's often best that they aren't, because we rely on what independent reliable third party sources say about the topic, not our own opinion and not our own original research. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767 I give you one chance now to repond to explain to us why you shouldn't be immediately blocked for ownership issues, edit warring, disruptive editing and egregious personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As the user on whose talk page this was posted, I felt very surprised and then immediately reverted Dajo767's edit on my talk page; I felt very uncomfortable in particular by the sentence Canterbury Tail also highlight above. I also struggle how anyone can accuse TompaDompa of WP:NOTHERE. My impression is the opposite; even when I have disagreed with TompaDomba, I have found the user polite, willing to discuss and willing to listen. I see no basis for the accusations against them and feel uncomfortable being dragged into this against my will (by having had it posted on my talk). I would strongly encourage Dajo767 to remove the personal attacks on any other place they may have posted it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the question of colloborative editing, this was how the article looked like on 10 February 2021 before TompaDoma started being active. It has content which were contributions by many editors (including TompaDoma's) from their sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_language&oldid=1005959032 and this how the article looked less looked like recently on 11:27, 2 May 2021 , which was purely and 100 percent filled with TompaDoma's own edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_language&oldid=1021009442 Dajo767 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: In the middle of this discussion, while talking about their edit warring etc, Dajo767 decided, after having been warning about 3RR and given a chance to explain himself on all the above, to revert some tagging on the article because they don't think the unsourced item is controversial. Words quite literally fail me at this point. Despite it being their first offense I believe in light of the above, the talk page comments, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the egregious personal attack that they refuse to defend or apologise for, I have gone straight to an indef. If another admin wishes to review and things it's too hard, feel free to do what you feel is best. But, I just can't. Words fail me right now. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Good block. I've been reading through Talk:World language and the intransigence of Dajo767 seems to have been going on for months. I was quite impressed by the patience shown and repeated attempts to educate Dajo by the other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty impressive isn't it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of this moving forward I have actually responded to some of Dajo767's comments on their talk page with some recommendations. Again I will not review the unblock request in order to allow other admins a change to put their viewpoint in. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

user:TrangaBellam

TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) slapped a deletion notice on Tripura Buranji ([127]) and when enough references and citations were provided, he has been deleting them ([128]). He wants to "talk" and wants to police the article. I have asked him not to remove texts ([129]). It is also strange that he has slapped a notice on me for edit warring[130], even as he is the other party disputing my edits.[131]. Chaipau (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I hope that the administrators will discount this report as frivolous. The author, to prove the notability of the article, has been misrepresenting sources and is not engaging with me on the article talk-page despite multiple requests. I did not delete a single reference but edited the text to comply with WP:INTEGRITY. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know who is right here, but this really just looks like a very young content dispute. I agree with TrangaBellam that you should continue discussion at the talk page, and I'm not sure what Chaipau means when they put "talk" in scare quotes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a frivolous charge. TrangaBellam's cycle of engagement indicates he is not engaging in good faith and is being disruptive.

• He flags article for deletion [132] with the note that it lacks notability.
• I added references for notability[133]
• I then removed the tag for deletion[134], according to the second step of the PROD process, which says: If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag—see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.. The reason being that notability has been established.
• TrangaBellam nominates page for deletion[135].
• I continue to improve article[136]
• TrangalBellam stands guard, removing referenced and cited texts, along with citations, for improving the article.[137], [138], [139]
• TrangalBellam now clearly having reverted a number of my edits, notifies me against edit warring and warns me that I may be blocked![140]

This is disruptive behavior that needs to be checked. Instead of improving the article, the TrangalBellam seems to be pushing a point of view, displaying WP:OWN, and anointed himself as the gatekeeper. This behavior needs to be checked.

Chaipau (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: By "talk", I mean that TrangalBellam is trying to be a gatekeeper here, even as he is pushing to have the article deleted. A gatekeeper more in in the 3O tradition is more appropriate. Surely, he is in the right to verify the citations. But reverting and then calling for a "talk" (aka "proposal for change") is ludicrous. He made his objection later and his objections have been addressed[141]. Chaipau (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - We are all gate-keepers here. I am afraid you just need to roll up your sleeves and engage in good-faith discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• I am not user Chaipau but User Trangabellam really is far from constructive edit on articles if he did not like certain lines or topic he will act like a police use wikipedia existing laws like a weapon and will delete the article or the section, citing it lack wp:CNG will delete even book source saying its unreliable, he seem to nitpick everything based on his preference, here are some of article he delated recently without any discussion, he even took mythological dieties should satisfy publishing from journal. see this big content deletions [142] [143] [144] [145] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I will just point out that User:Luwanglinux was recently blocked by an administrator for a week, based on my (and User:Kautilya3's) complaint at a noticeboard. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You and kautilya even lobbied [146]to that admin when the admin told me not to revert article again and I did not revert article but you were saying something like this creation of articlePuya Meithaba ( Burning of Puya ) is also an indirect edit war, I am really amazed by the way you and Kautilya took the effort to block me. Admin Edjohnston did not reply yet when I asked if I really violate rule revert article or edit war after discussion.[147]🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 18:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Three rollbacks reverts suffered

1 2 and 3 This despite the fact that twice in the comments I had tried to explain to the user in question that the community has not yet decided that he was right to eliminate my choice of a different headercolor for the athlete's infobox and that indeed a discussion at the project had been, some time ago, opened by me to explain the reasons for my choice to use a common headercolor for a certain category of female athletes. Notified on the user's talk page. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"indeed a discussion at the project had been, some time ago" - Really? What discussion? And why are you insisting on enforcing gender stereotypes on WP? Is it always pink for girls and blue for boys? What other views on women do you have? And you're not even consistent in applying this ill-though out idea across other articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts you see, the problem is not whether my idea is right or not, but the attitude of those do rollbacks without giving explanations (you did even rollback my ANI notice on your talk page, maybe because there were too many?) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin: Since we're evaluating everyone's behavior, Kasper2006, you also have a habit of not including edit summaries. After a couple of reverts, you started using edit summaries not to justify/explain your edits but simply to say that there aren't any guidelines against it.

Lugnuts, since Kasper2006's edits are not "obvious vandalism", do you think it's fair to ask that you provide edit summaries when you revert?

I know that this isn't the place for content disputes, but could someone direct me to the best place to build a consensus that these kinds of edits should never happen and that work can begin on undoing them all? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, please start using edit summaries and answering queries on your talk page when you've reverted someone. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless a conversation has run its course, or in cases such as Kasper who are trying to WP:BAIT me, I always do. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So you're arguing that "a certain category" of female athlete should have a pink background? My kneejerk reaction is that's mildly offensive on its face, but if you're arguing there's a discussion supporting that, you should provide a link. —valereee (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I do not see this intention in fact, it is a completely innocent thing ... a simple distinction of gender which among other things, as you know exists in athletics competitions (men do not compete with women) and the utility 'user of Wikipedia is to see immediately from the infobox if those records, those results are male or female, among other things it is since 2012 that I assign this headercolor to female Italian athletes. I give you two links, one when I reported the thing to the project and the second when I asked the Lugnuts user for explanations for his systematic rollbacks. Explanations that obviously I have not had. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's not a discussion. It's a single post by you a month ago which no one has even answered. I don't think you can really use that as an ongoing discussion, but honestly I guess I'm going to involve myself here by !voting at that discussion. —valereee (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the header is misleading. There has been no use of WP:ROLLBACK, a user right that can be revoked if misused, but just the undo button (without a edit summary), which every editor has.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This was the last time that Kasper accused me of wrong-doings. In this case he was making sweeping statements about people's ethnicity/language spoken. That's why I pretty much ignore this user. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There may be a language issue here. Kasper2006, are you aware that a "rollback" is a particular kind of revert, done with a special tool, that generally is used for vandalism and other bad-faith edits? If an editor is abusing rollback, they can lose their right to use the tool. That's why editors mentioned both here and at the previous complaint by you about Lugnuts that they hadn't actually rollbacked your edits but had instead reverted them. —valereee (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Kasper2006, you've been here long enough to know that it is the responsibility of the person making the change to get consensus for the change if it is challenged. You were bold on that article and changed the colour to pink, it was reverted, but you didn't take it to the talk page you instead just reverted again thereby starting an edit war. And the thread you link to above about making the header pink for female athletes (like seriously?) is quite clear that everyone who responded was against it. You're the one operating out of consensus and you're the one edit warring. Should Lugnuts have used an edit summary and not continued to edit war, most certainly, but you are the one who introduced the change so the onus is on your to take it to talk if you wish to continue to push for the change. Either way, it's quite obvious that making the headers in a female athlete's infobox pink is not supported by the community and would be an incredibly bad look for Wikipedia promoting outdated sexist attitudes and inappropriate colour gendering. Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, all those responses were made in the last hour or so. —valereee (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Doh!!!!! Yes you're quite right, I should have spotted that. Sincerer apologies on that front. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Oh finally! After 10 years I pointed this out to you, even I didn't like it, but once I started I wanted to standardize. Ok from tomorrow, now it's night here, I'll get to work to return to the default color. I am quite a self-critical subject and I accept defeat, because, as I explained, I didn't like changing the color either. But I don't understand how we can overlook the behavior of Lugnuts, who, as the community knows, is not new to this kind of behavior that is not very respectful of the work of other users, committed as he is to writing the stubs of a million articles. . --Kasper2006 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts' reaction was perhaps suboptimal, but it was a reaction to a pattern of gender stereotype that hits the nerve of a lot of Wikipedia editors, mine included. I think this could have been explained better to you, without stereotyping you. On Wikipedia I actually didn't find much beyond List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers. Yet I think this is not worth pursuing anymore. No sanctions needed, no gender colors needed. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gugark pogrom

There is some suspicious activity going on at that AFD. The article Gugark pogrom was taken to AFD in December 2020, and was kept. Recently, just a few months after the first AFD, it was nominated for deletion again, by Fractuallity (talk · contribs), which was an account created solely for the purpose of this AFD and which was soon banned for using a sock account to vote for deletion. According to posts there, there's some brigading taking place on forums like reddit (one example: [148]), and there are IPs and new accounts that pop up to cast a vote, mostly to have the article deleted. I would like to ask the admins to check the validity of the new nomination, and also please consider joining the discussion, because decisions on such articles should be made by the wider wiki community, and not by offwiki mobilization that apparently is taking place now. Grandmaster 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made a NAC under criteria #2a and #2b of the the criteria for Speedy Keep as a purely disruptive nomination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor ignoring WP:MEDRS

Hi everyone. PeterSweden has been repeatedly ignoring WP:MEDRS at Peter Daszak. In the article lede the subject is described as He is a researcher, consultant, and public expert in the cause and spread of zoonotic disease outbreaks like that of COVID-19. PeterSweden has been continuously reinserting the word "contested" citing two non-WP:MEDRS sources. On top of this, they have been uncivil. Relevant diffs:

• I reverted their change explaining "researchgate.net is not a reliable source for medical claims. See WP:MEDRS.": [149]
• They re-insert their change, adding another non-WP:MEDRS source, accusing me of "censorship, restriction of freedom of speech and manipulation": [150].
• I reverted them again [151] and posted to their Talk page making them aware of WP:AGF and further explained the importance of WP:MEDRS.
• They have not responded on their Talk page. Instead, they have again re-inserted their changes: [152].

A new editor, they haven't edited any articles other than Peter Daszak. They seem to be unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion and more like a WP:NOTHERE WP:SPA interested in righting great wrongs. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How does WP:MEDRS apply to people when it is designed to apply to biomedical information? With that said, crying censorship is never a good thing and those sources need to be WP:RS, not WP:MEDRS in my opinion. spryde | talk 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether COVID-19 is zoonotic or not (or contested) is biomedical information, whatever article it is in, so is subject to WP:MEDRS. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Are the editors willing to close this ANI and discuss at DRN, or should I close the DRN thread? McClenon mobile (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

One editor has filed this WP:ANI thread, while the other editor has requested content dispute resolution at DRN. DRN will not handle a case that is also pending anywhere else. It would be better for the editors to treat this as a content dispute, because no one gets blocked or topic-banned at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah, this is just another SPA in the COVID area who is likely NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SteveBenassi persistent disruptive edits: edit warring, refusing to discuss/engage.

User:SteveBenassi has recently been edit warring and adding disputed material (currently under discussion at WP:RSN) at/to the Eran Elhaik, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Genetic studies on Jews, and Jewish history pages (so far) while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed WP:UNDUE and problematic. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion [[153]]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted me again, and though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). More recently, SteveBenassi has added this disputed material to another page (Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the Eran Elhaik article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. Since then, so far, he has added the same disputed material to two other pages, Genetic studies on Jews and Jewish history (and has added it, along with other somewhat controversial material, to the articles' leads), and also misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), but , since SteveBenassi has continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, he seems likely to continue doing so.

Update: He continues to edit war. He reinstated the edit at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry page, linking a recommendation/suggestion User:Austronesier) in the RSN to justify it, despite the fact that the RSN discussio. has not yet been concluded/resolved, and he again misleadingly marked the edit "minor". He was reverted by User:Shrike.

Here are the pages' edit histories for reference:

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

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

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

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

Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The user is currently engaged in edit warWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SteveBenassi_reported_by_User:Shrike_(Result:_) and have broken WP:3RR also it seems that he here to WP:RGW as per his edit summaries [154] --Shrike (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Since another report was filed on the other noticeboard (the edit warring noticeboard linked above) by Shrike, and has been addressed, it seems this report is no longer necessary. Skllagyook (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I'm not sure that this report is no longer necessary. This statement in particular [155] "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue." would seem to strongly suggest that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knowingly breaking policy because the punishments are "worth it" seems like textbook tendentious editing.NonReproBlue (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: I think you are right (it is still necessary). I had not seen that. That diff you linked is a very troubling statement by SteveBenassi, admitting to tactically edit warring on purpose to push an agenda very much suggests that he is WP:NOTHERE, came to Wikipedia with a decided "battleground mentality", and that his recent semingly appologetic statenent at RSN [[156]] was not accurate nor frankly honest. I think a new perhaps report should likely be filed (since this one has gotten little attention), but I'm not exactly sure where (for now I will modify the title a bit to reflect this new development). I'm not quite sure of what the usual protocol/policy would be here, but I will be starting a new ANI report, that will refer back to this one. Skllagyook (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Its clear that User:SteveBenassi is doing POV driven constant edit warring in multiple pages related to the Jewish rigins and should be permanently blocked from editing on this subject.Tritomex (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I respectfully disagree. I haven't used Wikipedia in years. I felt I was being bullied unfairly, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours. Openly admitted twice in public what I was doing. I apologized. And will not do it again. See bottom of this post, I asked @NonReproBlue to make an edit for me. I have learned from my mistakes. Note: 3 people are bullying me, twisting my comments and lying about me. Thank You SteveBenassi (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

See ... search Benassi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eran_Elhaik

Extended content

@Austronesier: I added disputed text to Khazar Hypothesis as you suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry&type=revision&diff=1022218010&oldid=1022203273 SteveBenassi (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC) @SteveBenassi: I don't believe the disputed text should be added anywhere untill the issues discussed are resolved. That has not yet ocurred. Skllagyook (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC) @Nishidani: Regarding ... (3)DNA sequences obtained from a variety of Jewish mortuary contexts or even Natufian or other Neolithic/Bronze Age Levantine populations.. .would provide useful information about the nature of genetic diversity that is at the root of the Jewish ethnogenesis narrative. New research does exactly that, and it confirms that Zagoros/Caucasus population during the Bronze Age, and Today, contributed to the Genome in the Levant, indicating Elhaik may be partially correct that Ashkenazi Jews are converts from the north. See Graphical Abstract ... The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6 SteveBenassi (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC) @Skllagyook: See Graphical Abstract ... 3 lines from Zagoros/Caucasus at 3 different times including from the Bronze Age to Today. SteveBenassi (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC) If SteveBenassi is to be believed, even one of the study's authors says "we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view". It is abundantly clear that there is an accepted mainstream model, and this is a single paper that challenges it. That is fringe. There is no other way to view it. If it proves to be correct, the mainstream consensus will support it, and it then would absolutely merit inclusion. Until then, there is no reason why it should be given such prominence. It is clearly undue weight. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC) @Skllagyook: I emailed Aram Yardumian three days ago about the suppression of his article on Wikipedia, he responded "Dear Steve Thanks for this email note and the link to the Eran Elhaik wikipedia discussion page. That was interesting to see. Your question about why our article didn't warrant any news coverage is a good one. First of all, it was just a review article. There was no new data or genetic analysis. Had we undertaken new sample collections or a new kind of analysis -- as Eran Elhaik has done more than once -- I'm sure it would have at least registered a blip on the radar. Review articles often pass unnoticed. Perhaps also: our view of Jewish ethnogenesis is actually somewhat at odds with Elhaik's. You may be aware that I posted an article on BioRxiv back in 2013 that was very critical of his methods (i.e., using Armenians and Georgians as surrogates for Khazars). Since we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view, perhaps nobody really knew what to do with us. Perhaps in some ways it's a blessing. There's probably more that could be said, but I'll leave it there for now and ask how you came to be interested in this subject... Regards Aram" SteveBenassi (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC) It's about Yardumian and Schurr's criticism of both, which I felt was undue (and I feel currently has undue prominence), since, like Elhaik, they take an unusual minority view among geneticists (seemingly held by only them), and their paper has not had any mainstream engagement (not yet cited, etc.). Part of my issue was the undue prominence it was given, especially in the initial form added by SteveBenassi, before Nishidani's rewriting of it, which I welcomed/was an improvement, but even after that as well. I don't know that I'd object to a short reference to it in the Eran Elhaik article, or perhaps among the other refs, whose prominence, per WP:WEIGHT, is not out of balance with other references criticizing Elhaik (which includes scientific sources, not only Journalistic). Skllagyook (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Your assertions that they are mainstream is belied by the fact that you have repeatedly asserted that they are challenging the mainstream view (and if you trust SteveBenassi, as it seems you do, so does one of the studies author's "Since we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view, perhaps nobody really knew what to do with us.") If they are challenging the mainstream view, they cannot represent it. If there is no mainstream view, they cannot challenge it. You say If the two authors here challenge an ideological meme, that is an eminently reasonable point of view, minority (though growing)", then you say that saying they hold a minority view is an "undocumented and repeated assertion". It seems that the real issue might be that you yourself do not agree with the mainstream view, which is fine, but that does not mean that you can add information in such a way as to emphasize what you feel are the shortcomings of that view, out of proportion to what actual mainstream RS say about it. Also, it seems incredibly hypocritical to talk of having secret info about Elhaik's research that you cannot go into depth on that proves both the mainstream and other fringe ideas wrong, and at the same time chastising Skllagyook for "exceeding your remit and asserting a competence, in a highly technical area of science, for which there is no evidence an in asserting your superior judgment". I think your personal feelings on this matter might be clouding your ability to neutrally analyze the body of RS as a whole. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC) @Alaexis: Yardumian and Schurr are Reliable Sources for the Eran Elhaik Wikipedia page. I made two edits to the Eran Elhaik page, one on Ostrer "will not defame Jews" comment, and another on The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis paper, causing this debate. The point I am trying to make is, in layman's terms, are Jews a race or not a race. Ostrer and his camp say Jews are a race, they are more homogenous than not, they are closely related, and they are mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant. Elhaik, Yardumian and Schurr say no, Jews are not a race, they are more heterogenous than not, they are not closely related, they are not mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant, but are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism outside of the the Levant. Elhaik is a Zionist but is not biased in his research, he says his intention was not to disprove a connection to biblical Jews, but rather "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe". Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. I think we should modify this to reflect the above "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews. " SteveBenassi (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC) There is no need to panic remove this from articles. Its not the kind of source that will be disqualified for reliability. It may be out of scope for a biography but that discussion should continue at the article talk page."The Khazar hypothesis" saved lives in Vichy France. It should not be taken drastically out of its historical context to smear Elhaik. Separately, the Khazar hypothesis enjoyed a Muslim revival after the founding of the modern state of Israel and the English speaking rose to the bait [35] but it's never been the heart of Zionism. SteveBenassi asks "are Jews a race or not a race". The answer was once a matter of life or death. But the "right to exist in Palestine" is not justified by genetics. The only place I've seen such rubbish claims is the The New York Times which is not a reliable source for science. Why would Jews who were deported to Israel by the nations that were ethnically cleansing them justify their presence in Israel by genetic studies? On Wikipedia we should not be "taking sides" but continuing to improve the weight or NPOV issue by discussion. Spudlace (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC) @Nishidani: (and to any other editors reading) In the diffs you (Nishidani) link above (where I removed the disputed additions), SteveBenassi has added the them to several articles while it was being discussed here instead of waiting for the issue to be resolved, after having been warned about edit warring. That did not seem appropriate. He also added them prominently to article leads, which was also undue given that the the additions represent a minority view. In the case of the Jewish history article there is no other material referencing genetic studies, so adding it seemed especially undue. And he had almost completely refused to engage in any kind of Talk page discussion since the beginning (since his first edits at Eran Elhaik). As I have tried to explain, I do not claim any kind of special knowledge or expertise (I am not an expert), and your accusations - now of "arrogance" - are becoming increasingly personal and uncivil and beginning to enter the territory of personal attacks, which I would like to ask that you not do. In making the point that the new paper is strongly divergent from the mainstream (as we can be aware of the mainstream and majority view, from published research) I merely quoted (and refered to) what much of the research itself says/concludes quite explicitly. I can find no other published research (by population geneticists, the relevant expert community) that takes positions similar to those of Yardumian and Schurr. And you admit above they they are not of the majority view. I merely argued that their position is extraordinary and has not yet had mainstream engagement (e.g. been cited by experts) and this that some caution should be used at this stage. But if the paper is to be used in this or any article, which I concede that it likely will in some capacity, it should at least not be given undue prominence. Skllagyook (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC) @Skllagyook: I am a Newbie, I don't know how to use Wikipedia, I was getting erased by three people unfairly I thought, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours, made one final post, and this one, I apologize for my inexperience. I am not planning on making any more edits for a while, I got my message out, now I am done, and will watch others and learn. It was quite the experience. Thank You for putting up with me the past few days. SteveBenassi (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC) @SteveBenassi: Your statement that your violations of Wikipedia policies were honest mistakes from ignorance seems to be directly contradicted by your other recent statement on another page (along with the fact that you repeatedly edit warred and refused to engage in Talk after several warnings and explanations. Namely this statement that you wrote on your Talk page 36"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue.". As User:NonReproBlue (who mentioned it to me at WP:ANI) correctly said, this "would seem to strongly suggest that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knowingly breaking policy because the punishments are "worth it" seems like textbook tendentious editing." Skllagyook (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC) My full disclosure is that I haven't read Elhaik. I was responding to the suggestion proposed above by SteveBenassi that doesn't mention Ashkenazi: "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews." The form of the Khazar theory that is taken seriously by scholars is not a theory of Ashkenazi ancestry. Khazar was a slur in Soviet Russia (basically calling them Turks and blaming them for everything, which we call anti-Semitism), and it was also a theory developed mostly by Karaim scholars about Karaim origins. The related Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry is not supported by any evidence, historical or scientific, and is not taken seriously by any scholars, with the apparent exception of Elhaik. I think we can call this fringe. Yardumian and Schurr are reliable and can be used in other articles. Despite the comments in the email, I don't think this is a new or fringe position. The well-established Rhineland hypothesis implies multiple heterogeneous populations. It remains controversial but it's not fringe. The issue of deleting the Yardumian and Schurr source from multiple articles as non-reliable came up. While there is no consensus here for that, it can still be challenged under other policies like WP:UNDUE. Spudlace (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Also ... See ... search Benassi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eran_Elhaik @SteveBenassi: Hello. Regarding the source you added, there are some issues. I notice you have re-added it twice witout engaging with my explanations in the edit notes. It will try to explain here and hopefully we can discuss it. The source's inclusion here seems somewhat WP:UNDUE given that is proposes a hypothesis that is strongly at odds with mainstream consensus, which is that moat Jewish groups (e.g. the Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi) do share a significant Middle Eastern genetic origin/genetic component with a common origin, and also carry substantial differential admixtures in each from non-Jewish sources, whereas this source "proposes to invert" the traditional model and controversially states that Jewish groups do not have a common origin. In addition, as I mentioned in my edit summary, its proposals have not been engaged with by other notable specialists in the field, and it seems not to have not been cited, despite having been published in 2019. Aspects of WP:REDFLAG seem to apply, particularly the first and fourth. From "Redflag", which explains: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;" And: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people." These seem to apply here. And there (and there are not "multiple high-quality sources" but rather one source of unclear/debateable/questionable quality) The authors, of which there are only two, Yardumian and Shurr, seem not to be notable in the field of Jewish population genetics, and their hypothesis here has not been covered by mainstream sources and seems to have no citations despite having been published in 2019. See here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Yardumian+Jewish+ethnogenesis&btnG= The source discusses multiple papers (by much more notable and cited researchers in the area) but interprets several of them in ways that depart significantly from the conclusions of the studies themselves (which are that the aforementioned Jewish groups do share a significant common origin, as well as varrying differential admixtures from non-Jewish host populations). For these reasons, the addition seems to go against WP:WEIGHT and to give WP:UNDUE attention to a minority position advanced in one relatively new work that has not been engaged with by the mainstream of researchers in the field (and thus it is unclear whether it represents a ballanced review). It seems best to wait until there has been some mainstrem engagement with its proposals before adding it, let alone as one representing as an authority, and the most recent one, on the subject in Wikivoice. Skllagyook (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC) @Shrike: ... See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms "Ostrer received criticism from Johns Hopkins University post-doc Eran Elhaik, who challenged the validity of Ostrer's past work on the topic of the origin of European Jews.[4] Elhaik has criticized Ostrer's explanations for Jewish demographic history and Ostrer being unwilling to share his data with other researchers, "unless research includes novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people." Pediatrician Catherine DeAngelis said that 'allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is "peculiar"', and added "what he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?"[5]" Ostrer is a Zionist and biased in his research, Elhaik is a Zionist and is not biased in his research. Why is the quote OK on the Ostrer page but not on the Elhaik page? SteveBenassi (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC) You didn't explained why she deserve more space --Shrike (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC) She deserves the same space on the Elhaik page as the Ostrer page. This is a conflict between two people Elhaik and Ostrer, why tie the hand of one and not the other? SteveBenassi (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Ostrer's withholding of data in a science like most others where open access is a basic principle, is extraordinary and certainly does merit the attention it gets in that source. The woman is eminently placed to comment. I think her remark should be paraphrased, since it is too colloquial. This page is notoriously subject to attacks, and consistent attempts to skew reportage against a person who is, as subject of a wikibio, entitled to comprehensively neutral coverage. It is an obligation.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC) I agree that her remark is due to be mentioned, and I also agree that it should be paraphrased (both to avoid ending with a "?" and for due reasons as most of the other quotes are not included in their entirety) which I have attempted to do with my trimming of the quote. If you have a suggestion for a change to an alternative paraphrasing I would be open to modification. But SteveBenassi re-adding his preferred version after admitting he knows that it violates policy is WP:TENDENTIOUS and an ARBPIA violation. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Also note that the edit by SteveBenassi makes it seem as though the entire thing is a quote by DeAngelis; It is not. The part that is a direct quote from her is "Peculiar" and "what he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?". The phrasing "allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is" is prose from the article, and should not be included in the quote attributed to her, but paraphrased by our prose as I have done with my edit. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @NonReproBlue: I am not knowingly violating anything, so don't make accusations. I am new to Wikipedia, all I know is that three of you are bullying me. I also know that Israel has weaponized Wikipedia. What is really going on here? Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. So we have the Left vs the Right on Wikipedia. Sad. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC) "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked" Yes, you absolutely do know. Also your current line of discussion violates ARBPIA sanctions, which you have been notified about on your talk page, that prohibits editors with fewer than 500 edits from making any edits regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Your edit summaries, and statements like "Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA." are clear violations of this prohibition. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Requiring you to follow policy is not bullying, and "I'm new" (close to 4 years isn't that new, by the way) isn't an excuse for your continued ignorance after being warned repeatedly and blocked.NonReproBlue (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @NonReproBlue: You are a bully, I'm fighting back. I am not hiding anything. I have not made an edit on Wikipedia in years. My life does not revolve around Wikipedia like you. Sad. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Continued personal attacks like that will only reinforce the idea that you have arrived here with a battleground mentality and are not here to build an encyclopedia. If editing on Wikipedia is important to you, I would implore you to spend some time reviewing its policies. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @NonReproBlue: Its you attacking me, not the other way around. Your a Bully and should be reported. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC) You are entitled to feel that way, and if you would like to report me feel free. I am not attacking you, I am explaining to you how the rules work. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @NonReproBlue: Report yourself, I don't know how. SteveBenassi (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC) If you review Wikipedia policies as I suggested, the information will be there. NonReproBlue (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC) However, before you report me for bullying, I would strongly suggest that you read WP:CRYBULLYING.NonReproBlue (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @NonReproBlue: Your Bullying is real, like Crying is real. Report yourself.SteveBenassi (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @NonReproBlue: References 30 and 31 are duplicates. Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234 Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234 SteveBenassi (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Either one of you, preferably both, should drop this. Benassi. Israel has a perfect right to exist, and to deny that is very close to sntisemitism. The right to existence as a state is established under international law. Discrediting international law is very much what Israel's behavior in its colonization of the territories is about, so you are mirroring what you criticize. Israel has denied the right to exist of the state of Palestine, of course. Please don't reply to this. It is off-topic but needed as a reminder that, in this area, one cannot pick and choose what suits one in international law. If you subscribe to its principles (and that is a precondition for grasping the shocking treatment of Palestinians) then, automatically, you must affirm Israel's right to exist. I will be restoring Yardumian and Schurr in due course in a slightly different formulation, since no rational policy based arguments has been raised, and their elision looks very much like an attempt to make Elhaik some solitary, freakish, contrafactual POV fiend. Other people share his skepticism of the so-called mainstream view, a view which is hilarious because several of its proponents actually, in their scientific work, explicitly state that their science corroborates the Bible. In any other discipline, such a curious marriage of science and fiction would arouse extreme caution.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Until now we caught atleast 6 verified sockpuppets of Historylover4 in last 8 years trying to do overfload the same artickles with same fringe and unscientific Elhaik theories, on same places [157] which were rejected by almost entire academic world.. Although this is a subject for another noticeboard, I am looking right now if we have another case for SPI. Beside that his editor is unfortunately promising further edit warring, he is politicizing science in his own POV driven intentions, promising that he will "restore" distorted citations from non reliable, unrelated and UNDUE sources. He is not even trying to gain concensus and therefore he should be permantently banned, even before eventual SPI.Tritomex (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Tritomex (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I don't understand what you are saying. Are you talking about me or someone else being a sockpuppet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations

SteveBenassi (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

New user, claims to be an old user, blanking loads of stuff

Gal00n20honm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account, claims on userpage to be an old user, is blanking loads of stuff, including threads on this page. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Same editor as User:Robeca5020 from a few days ago. Probably some well-known vandal, no idea if they can be stopped by some edit filter or similar? Fram (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This certainly, and perhaps the accompanying here, needs to be revdeled as well? Fram (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a sock of Sunholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Have reported to SPI. DuncanHill (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact, all their edits need checking for revdel for hoax claims reasons and for spamming of some sites in the edit summaries, and per WP:DENY. Fram (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indef for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Blakecowrie0389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another. DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Confirmed:
  • Robeca5020 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Blakecowrie0389 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Gal00n20honm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Galvingonw0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'll check out the SPI in a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat's involvement in admin areas

Chicdat has been under a self-imposed ban from editing admin-related areas. Chicdat made a list of the serious mistakes he made and posted it on his talkpage (archive 3). It has become increasingly clear recently that this self-imposed ban is not enough. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Kashmorwiki's_sockpuppet_block. He blanket restored a number of edits made by a sockpuppet and continued to argue he was a good-faith editor in edit summaries despite obvious evidence to the contrary. In a move closure today, he moved an article against consensus and inserted his own opinion to make a compromise. While it is clear Chicdat has good intentions, I feel that it is problematic that issues like this keep occurring. EDIT: He has also been causing problems outside of admin areas, with wikiproject templates and redirects (see below).Noah^Talk 20:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Merits of whether Chicdat should participate in admin areas aside, Chicdat recently expanded/reiterated their voluntary restriction at User_talk:Chicdat#Voluntary_restriction; that scope would include the Kashmorwiki discussions. The only assertion of concern you've linked since then is the closing of a move request on an article within the 'Tropical cyclones' topic area, which Chicdat is an active editor in. I'm not sure I would class this as an 'administrative discussion', but in any case Chicdat has an active and responsive mentor who they appear to be able to work with, and if you wish to discuss the merits of their participation in closing move requests I think it would've been better to discuss it with MarioJump in the first instance and tweak the restriction accordingly if necessary, rather than bring it to ANI. (I note that they were pinged here, but this ANI was started 10 minutes after without waiting for response.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact remains, mentor or not, that Chicdat continues to make poor decisions in admin areas and other regions that others have to keep cleaning up. There are more issues, such as these: [158] (breaking over 31000 links on a widely used redirect) and [159] - he redirected a project template and broke multiple parameters on talkpages + he left the articles uncategorized for task force level. Noah^Talk 22:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, redirects are a very separate thing, and I wouldn't class that as an 'admin area'. I gather that you're looking to turn the voluntary restrictions into a community ban, but what scope do you think covers all the areas you're concerned about? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear the issues are more widespread than I initially thought. I personally believe this user should not be closing any formal discussions where consensus must be determined, amongst other things. They should not be moving pages or retargetting redirects without consensus. Noah^Talk 00:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't like to be involved in administrative actions lately as it makes me stressed, but bringing Chicdat to ANI at this point of time is counterproductive as they has not, outside of move discussion brouhaha and this SNOW close (I may have gone too far in here but this is to prevent administrative involvement urges), done anything that can be considered administrative. Chicdat is currently not competent enough for administrative decisions, but as long as I can be active (not busy) and keep an eye on him, they will not disrupt anything and hopefully improve. The worst case scenario for Chicdat is probably a TBAN block which consists of indefinite partial block on Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk: and even Talk: spaces but not a community ban, which I consider to be a reach honestly. MarioJump83! 03:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I know it. One day I will get indefinitely blocked. The day will come. The block button will be pressed. There will be nothing I can do. The editors around me have repeatedly tried to delay that day, and they have largely been successful, but the day is quickly coming. I will end up here again... and again, and again, and again. One day, the majority of editors will vote to block me. I get onto Wikipedia. I begin an editing session. And I get that big ugly message saying I am unable to edit Wikipedia. So to further delay the fateful day, I have just added another thing to my ban. Also: Please don't partially block me from Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, and Talk:. Then I would have no venue for discussion between editors. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Are you aware of WP:TPO? You may want to re-think this. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Undone. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that this is starting to become a bit of a witchhunt, yes @Chicdat: made a mistake by closing the discussion on Bawbag and implementing a supervote. However, I don't think it rises to the level of shipping him off to WP:ANI and nor should every time he be shipped here every time he makes a major mistake. I have set up a challenge on WP:Weather specifically with him and others in mind and would like to see how he does with it.Jason Rees (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat, if you are seriously concerned that continuing to edit will currently lead to a block, then a possible solution can be stopping to edit for a while, until the situation has changed. Whatever it is. For many editors, their current age is such a temporary problem. If it's more permanent, this approach doesn't work. The only person who can assess and decide in this situation is you, yourself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Many editors (particularly the ones I have been in disputes with) have said that I am too young to edit Wikipedia. I disagree. Why, a baby could edit Wikipedia if he or she was constructive here! And in response to the other part of your comment, I just – feel unable to not edit Wikipedia. I think thousands of other editors think so too. So instead I will follow other editors' suggestions, add Noah's list to my restrictions, and hopefully avoid getting blocked. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat, I have no idea how old you are, and I don't want to know. I'd just like to note that if multiple editors have expressed "too young" concerns and if you are actually young, then they may be right. And yes, a baby could edit Wikipedia if they were constructive here. The probability of such constructiveness is correlated with age, and a lack of constructiveness combined with a low age simply "fits the image". So I uphold my advice: Consider stopping to run against a wall. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Those colons! I will be very, very, very cautious in the Wikipedia: namespace from now on. I will limit my volume of bold edits. I will listen to other editors. I will remain in good standing. I will respect my ban. I will continue to edit Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally think it would be helpful to Chicdat for the purpose of keeping himself out of further trouble, to teach him so he learns, and to prevent future harm to WP to institute some kind of restrictions (either formal or informal in witness of everyone here):

1. Chicdat should test any edits to template space pages in test cases to see if any problems occur prior to implementing them.
2. Chicdat should not move any mainspace pages and their talk and subpages without consensus.
3. Chicdat should not retarget redirects without consensus.
4. Chicdat should not determine the consensus in any discussions for a period of 3 months while he works with his mentor to go over how to determine consensus and practices doing so.
5. Chicdat should not be involved with sockpuppetry work, except in the case of reverting vandalism caused by sockpuppets. Noah^Talk 16:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment. These sound like reasonable restrictions for anyone who already recognises that they are still learning. There are plenty of other constructive editing tasks that User:Chicdat is welcome to carry out. Deb (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct. For instance, nobody has ever given me a warning for adding short descriptions, so I still use Shortdesc helper. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

These seem very reasonable, and I would support them as an informal restriction that can be lifted when Chicdat's mentor feels like he no longer needs them. ( I don't think we are quite to the point of an appeal needing to go to AN.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If I feel he's good to go, then I'll honestly put it on AN for input in regards to these restrictions. I would like these restrictions lifted without needing to go to AN, but I don't want to make risky moves at this time. MarioJump83! 13:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Account hacked or compromised

Hi there, I'm User:Owlf and this morning i received email from wikipedia that "Someone, probably you, from IP address 46.244.29.181, has removed the email address of the account "Owlf" on Wikipedia. If this was not you, contact a site administrator immediately." And now the account is removing the pages tags and some old discussion pages which you can see in history. If here's any CU or admin i request you to immidiately ban it temporarily untill the further investigation. I also mailed in emergency but they suggest to stewards but this page is also helpful cause it's really important. Please help out. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the account as compromised. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So someone compromised your account in order to... disrupt the deletion discussions about an article you recreated. That's credible, yup. —Cryptic 09:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cryptic: can you check the connection or ip with Suryabeej ? I suspect it's that who did it? 103.10.31.47 (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Here it goes, you were right. Check this out Special:MobileDiff/1023242224 103.10.31.47 (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• woahoohoho (apologies for that) well you are asking about the connection lol? lemme clear what would had happened, since you have COI with Prakash Neupane and after filing a rubbish SPI case in order to get me block just to save it when u saw all that failed you tried blanking 2 AFD pages about Prakash Neupane and when you saw [160] this discussion on admins page you realised your mistake because after the admins check your connections between user:SS49 and User:Owlf would expose that whole UPE thing because you had opened a case earlier on SPI involving my account the SPI case I opened got no value and got G6ed but when you saw that I am asking other admins to have a look at that you tried this trick of bluffing to distract others by stating that your account got hacked (and after it got hacked the hacker does only 2 edits and that was removing those 2 afd pages as blank because they might not let the page Prakash Neupane survive as per its discussion history lol) and since no one over here is fool @Cryptic: raised the right question lol. Cheers to you, rest I leave on Admins to decide upon things. Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm requesting for CU and my account has been compromised as I've got the email don't try to act weird here. As I'm editing from the account Owlf and need some serious CU check here. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you to get it checked ASAP!!Suryabeej (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I also request seniors over here to please have a look on or check SPI on user:SS49 and User:Owlf Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

*@Blablubbs: i think you warned this crazy guy yesterday. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's the reason I want other admins to have alook on the Interaction Timeline after that everything will be crystal Clear, Just because I was warned by him I am not doing it myself but asking other admins to check it. :) Suryabeej (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your filing was unconvincing, as was Owlf's. For users with 1000s and 1000s of edits, overlap is insufficient on its own and nobody is going to check or block based on that alone, certainly not without more context. I suggest you drop the stick. --Blablubbs|talk 15:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also you will have to answer on why you didn't mentioned on @Owlf: page that you are also editing from other IP's since 2019 please disclose how many other Ip or accounts you are using to edit Wikipedia. Suryabeej (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cryptic: not only blanking those 2 afd pages I just saw @Owlf: also tried to remove afd tag from the page Prakash Neupane which was Rollbacked by you only!! Suryabeej (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Aryan Sahu 1.0

Aryan Sahu 1.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

How was Aryan Sahu 1.0 able to vandalize semi-protected pages

• OpIndia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Republic TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

after only 9 edits? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

They have twelve edits so I'm guessing they're only AC protected? YODADICAE👽 15:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi is 10 edits; account has 9 edits plus one to a deleted article. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, they have 12 per central auth. But I think this has been sufficiently answered. YODADICAE👽 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe so, YODADICAE, but I have another remark to make: Ive blocked the account for 60 hours, and also blocked the IP with which they (obviously) have been removing this report. Bishonen | tålk 16:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC).

47.147.73.81 removing redlinks

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

IP was asked to refrain from this by DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered but continued after this request unhindered. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've checked their contributions and reverted nearly everything. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

p-blocked from article space for 1 month to see if we can get this editor's attention, as they've never edited a talk space including their own. —valereee (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Daniel_LMSDF Discretionary Sanctions Israel/Palestine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please review the 12 edits of this editor. Few, if any, have been constructive and the most recent two are particuarly disruptive Special:Diff/1023177707 and Special:Diff/1023185361. At minimum, DS applies but really it's likely time for WP:NOTHERE Slywriter (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very inappropriate attitude on talk (violates NPA, CIV, BATTLEGROUND)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I've recently become aware of some very disturbing edits by User:Exxess on Talk:Szlachta. I've interacted with him very little (disclaimer: while most of NPAs at that talk page are directed at User:Lembit Staan, some are directed at me; reviewing the history it seems I've had some interactions with that editor a few years back), but what I see is very disturbing and seems to breach WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. It seems impossible to discuss anything with that user there given their attitude. I'll note here that their edits to the article itself are mostly ok, but whenever they are challenged, even on a slight matter, Exxess responds with a walls of text in the form of extremly uncivil rant of the scale I've rarely seen in all my years here. Here are some diffs and quotations, from most recent to oldest:

• [161]
  • "to hell with your petty WP:NPA/[[WP:CIV]" <-- self explanatory...
  • "There seems to be a clique that regards Polish articles as their fiefdom. I defeated Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus in a request for deletion regarding the Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki, herbu Radwan family article. Then what Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus did was round up his little clique and posse, and I was accused of sock-puppetry" <-- battleground language/ABF and WP:ASSERTIONS
  • "Now, we have another knee-jerk editor, Lembit Staan, who tried to round up a posse here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta"
  • " Lembit Staan taking umbrage with calling the szlachta an electorate is idiotic and stupid" <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF
  • "Forget summoning your friends, and fight your own battles. " <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF, battleground
  • "STOOPID - brainless indeed. And mentally disordered. See lunacy above."
• [162]
  • "Knee-jerk editor Lembit Staan strikes again. This editor is bitching and moaning at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta"
  • " This kind of prodigious, knee-jerk stupidity and idiocy is difficult to comprehend, yet alone tolerate. "
  • "Lembit Staan gonna' try to round up a posse and a clique at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta, so he can make some half-assed, idiotic attempt at "consensus" despite what the sources state."
  • ":Lembit Staan, you really think Wikipedia exists to reinforce your ignorance, misconceptions, and prejudices. [...] Then you cry ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTH when your idiotic, knee-jerk deletions get challenged. There is no way to dance around the idiocy of this one. "
  • "Keep an eye on this editor Lembit Staan. Really takes umbrage if editor's edits are challenged, particularly when they are stupid"
• [163]
  • "I disagree with everything. It's a reflex" <-- not a good attitude to have by default
  • "let us have a war about that" <-- BATTLEGROUND
  • "stop the trespass, and let me work" <--WP:OWN attitude
• [164]
  • "a superlative brainless example of Lembit Staan's statement, "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'", and all this after a debate determining the title of the article should not be "Polish nobility"; but the lead sentence is in direct contradiction to the article title "Szlachta." Brainless and confused indeed. Knee-jerk editing" (also note the edit summary)

Just today, this spilled into WT:POLAND:

• [165]
  • "Lembit Staan, what is dubious is you contradicting the obvious. You are wasting time with trifles and the immaterial. At first I was questioning your intelligence. Now I am questioning your sanity. "
• [166]
  • "Pal, (Lembit Staan) you want to talk bullshit and nonsense, so let's demonstrate yours "
  • "Wrong, you cannot read."
  • "You have a primordial misunderstanding regarding facts, which requires countering your knee-jerk deletions and crap with forthrightness."
  • "Pal, here is some advice for you - do not fight facts and secondary sources with stubbornness and knee-jerk deletions."
• [167]
  • "I revert your edits because your edits are knee-jerk and idiotic."
  • "So, because the great Lembit Staan does not comprehend history, or law, he is going to cry"
  • "So, what you are bitching and moaning about is the fact you're publicly being shown you do not know what you're editing about, and when you PERSONALLY do not agree with something you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, or ever considered, you just knee-jerk delete, and start flinging accusations of original research and synth, and stumble right through the secondary sources, and pick yourself and keep going, then you try to round up a posse to support your half-assed, knee-jerk edits. I told you to take it to talk. You ran away. Then you come here and try to round up a posse."
  • "You knee-jerk editors who think anything on Wikipedia regarding Poland is your personal fiefdom get stopped dead in your tracks by the secondary sources. Then, you try to round up your little clique, but fail."
  • "Stay away for good, Lembit Staan, because you do more harm than good with your limited capacity to read English and comprehend what the secondary sources state"
  • "Do the world a favor, Lembit Staan, and stay away from this article, which is too complex for your limited powers of comprehension"

There is more but I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate a problematic pattern - one that has been going on for years. Note that this editor was inactive for a while, sometime taking wikibreaks that last over a year, but he displayed a similar, problematic attitude when he was active at the talk page of the same article in the past:

• in 2018:
  • General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Szlachta
  • also that year, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Szlachta (ping User:Korwinski)
• And more ancient history from 2011:
  • • Civility warning from User:Vecrumba instantly deleted by Exxess as "Deleted meddling" in the next diff. I actually forgot about this but this complain was apparently related to a personal attack against me: "You know what, Konieczny?  The thought of my comments from yesterday being here nauseates me.  Your archive will be the edit history.  Your conception of what nobility is, particularly Polish nobility, is so underdeveloped and ignorant, callow and juvenile, it's laughable trying to have an intelligent discussion with you in regards to its significance" and more
  • "Too ludicrous on such a fundamental, primordial level to even discuss without boggling the mind. DELETE IT ALL, like washing cow crap off one's self." (in edit summary)
  • and "You really do enjoy coming across with an authoritarian tone, don't you?" ... ":You do read, right, or is that demanding too much?"... "You and the little group of editors you canvassed and rallied around yourself"
• Also note that this topic is within the old discretionary sanctions that this editor was informed about all the way back in 2008: [168]
  • And last, a CIV warning from all the way back that year too: [169]

Just in case, let me point our recent attempts at dispute resolution: Lembit Staan asked for assistance at WT:POLAND a bit over a weeks ago, and yesterday I asked User:El C for review and mediation at Talk:Szlachta, but he declined to get involved. Exxess was aware of both of those requests, since they responded in their usual wall-of-text uncivil style in both places. Since community discussion at WikiProject and ping to an admin who was (until recently) active in related topic areas failed to provide any resolution, I see no recourse but to come to ANI.

While we can always use some more active editors in the obscure topic area of pre-20th century Polish history, and Exxess seems to have some knowledge about the topic, this kind of attitude and behavior (BATTLEGROUND, OWN, personal attacks, and the wall-off-text style they are wrapped in) cannot be allowed to continue: it leads to 'winning' disputes by making everyone else leave: recently, Lembit Staan mentioned at WT:POLAND "If the community does not participate, who I am to want more and I am removing szlachta from my watchlist for 2 months; not worth my mental health". Therefore I'd like to ask the administrators & community for intervention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, you forgot to put in here Lembit Staan calling what I put in the article "bullshit" despite the secondary sources, because it is something "he never heard of." Once again, I do not consider being forthright a problem. The goal is to improve the article. And, a detailed discussion is not a "wall-of-text" style with the intent to stop discussion. I am inviting discussion and challenging your behavior, your edits, and Lembit Staan's edits. Stick to the facts. You personally knee-jerk deleted something I was in the middle of editing. Based on what? See detailed discussion. I do not recall reading any policy on a character limit for talk discussions, so I personally think you are taking matters out of context, and painting a very misleading picture, just like when you lost a deletion debate, then you gathered a posse, and accused me of sock-puppetry. False claim. Stick to improving the article and the facts. The extent some editors will go to when they are challenged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - you are always appealing for outside help. Consistently. - Exxess (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an article called Royal elections in Poland. I do think it is stupid for Lembit Staan to object to the szlachta being called an electorate. Being forthright. I think that particular assertion is stupid. There is no way to dance around that one. - Exxess (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - deletion meddling? That was an honest mistake and you are a disingenuous editor. You are very good at ignoring the rules when it suits your purposes, like canvassing, until you are challenged, then, upon your edits being challenged, you rigidly assert violation of the "rules." "Deletion meddling" - that was an honest mistake. Korwinsky was another editor who just knee-jerk deleted a reference because he thought it would "mislead readers." Presumptuous in the extreme. - Exxess (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that Exxess has replied three times without denying that they have engaged in personal attacks and harassment. Perhaps that is because the diffs provided above show quite clearly that Exxess has repeatedly engaged in that type of misconduct. I have blocked Exxess for one week. Exxess, when you return, abandon personal attacks and harassment. If your misconduct resumes, the next block will be for a much longer time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the editor's comments on their talk page, this might as well be extended to indef. They've indicated they see nothing wrong with their behavior & will resume it when the block ends. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, Cullen328, Given Lembit Staan's comment below, I proposed a ban on post-size limit (nobody can be reasonable expected to read those rantish walls of texts Exxess mass produces). Given his later talk page comments, Exxess now demands an apology from editors he offended, while simoultenesly asking for a longer block. Sigh. I have serious doubts he is learning anything from this. This reminds of this mini-essay I wrote a while ago. Editors convinced of their own perfection are hard to reform. PS. All that said, I hate blocking people who show a willingness to reform, which is why my suggestion was the word-size limit. It's plausible Exxess could be an asset to the project, IF his talk posts were civil and readable. But said willingness to reform is hard to see right now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have withdrawn their talk page accesss and warned them that they will be blocked again if the personal attacks resume when their current block expires. I am not a fan of highly customized editing restrictions, but if the community disagrees with me, so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I am amused by how my accuser, wrongdoer _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}, writes about me as if I am in a larval stage of development, while all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me were forced from my fighting fingers, upon the deprivation of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit.

You may measure an editor by observing the editors aligned against him.

I am also amused by how my accuser, wrongdoer _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}, is attempting to govern my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit. By what right, does my accuser presume I wish to have him administer and govern my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit?

I am sure I will now be accused of harassment for courteously notifying my accuser Piotrus his wrongdoing is being discussed in a public forum.

Does not Wikipedia state, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."? Does not Wikipedia state, "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it.' .... Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it."

I saw a Wikipedia problem, and I Wikipedia boldly fixed it. I did no wrong. But wrong was done to me. My faultless 14-year record was besmirched with a one-week block, for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy, and now I will forever be evaluated in light of that besmirch, while my accuser, wrongdoer Piotrus, was allowed to accuse at will, while all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me were forced from my fighting fingers, and I was tossed into a Wikipedia pillory (my talk page), and deprived of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit, to counter wrongdoer Piotrus' willfully made false claims. I question the neutrality and impartiality of the one who forced me into a Wikipedia pillory (my talk page), and removed all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me by depriving me of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit, while allowing wrongdoer Piotrus to edit at will.

As I attempted to be heard, to counter, resist, and destroy the false claims hurled at me, my ability to be heard was limited by accusations of "walls-of-text," "walls-of-text," "walls-of-text."

I did not know all principles of equity and fairness were tossed aside for hasty and reckless justice upon my creating my Wikipedia account on 26 May 2007. - Exxess (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record: My major problem with the article "Szlachta" was not the belligerent editor, but the apparent lack of interest of the Polish community to the subject. I admit I may be in error, and asked them for a third opinion several times, but got none, and the article continues to be dominated by a WP:OWNer. Heck, I even did not complain then they violated the 3RR reverting my "knee-jerk" edits. I understand that only a community can handle a WP:OWNer. But the community seems to be deterred by the repetitive walls of text generated by this editor. Forcing this editor to be more polite will not solve the problems with the article text they generated. When I come back there in 2 months, I feel I will have to go in a hard way of the procedure of formal dispute resolution for each and every dubious statement this user introduced. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Exxess has returned, and gone right back to walls of text. Thankfully no insults yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite - well, look at that. I'm not defenseless anymore. Looks like I'm going to have several ANI cases of my own soon.

Hey, since you mentioned the wall-of-text, and you pinged me, do you think Lembit Staan is right? Take it over to Talk:Szlachta#Wikipedia:No_original_research;_Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. I hope that looming wall-of-text is not terrifying anyone. It is dark under its shadow. Would not want an ANI case for terrorism by way of "wall-of-text"... Notice the editors mentioned there, and how polite I am - Piotrus and Lembit Staan.

And, while you are there, look at this paragon of brilliance, "obsolete sources." Anything prior to World War II, is an "obsolete source". That should be applied Wikipedia-wide. When _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} deletes something, that could never be "deletion meddling". I can't be accused of not trying to be polite before we got here, but I never got a chance to mention that before being put in the pillory (blocked) and deprived of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit. - Read: Talk:Szlachta#Please_avoid_using_obsolete_sources

I have to compliment Piotrus. Since I first joined Wikipedia 26 May 2007, 14 years ago, whenever Wikipedia is causing me nauseating, severe migraines, Piotrus has always been there for me. I cannot thank him enough. And now, I have Lembit Staan, too, so the migraines disappear twice as fast. After I get banned, no more migraines at all. - Exxess (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD - Inciting a mob because no editor of their own accord took this editor below's position, or rallied to his side, upon his bad-faith presumption Exxess is "dominating and screwing up the article and talk page", because the editor below presumed so, because the editor below's logic could not possibly be wrong. Wrongdoer Piotrus did not cry, "Foul, foul, foul," or cry, "Personal attack", or "Incivility," or file an ANI report, or drop a hint the editor below is an example of an editor who thinks they are perfect, with an admonition that this editor read the pontifications in the essays of wrongdoer Piotrus. There was no possibility Exxess was trying to help and improve the article. Exxess has spent 14 years waging war on Wikipedia, as if that was a rule, not an exception, so shows the picture wrongdoer Piotrus presented. Of course, there is no possibility Piotrus could ever be anything but perfectly equitable and fair. Wrongdoer Piotrus comes with clean hands:

"No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article: More precisely, the szlachta were not a nobility nor a gentry, but an electorate. Really? I keep repeating that edits of this user [Exxess] must be monitored. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)" - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta

"<sigh> For God's sake, really? Nobody has a say against all this illogical rambling [by Exxess]? Shall I file WP:RFC for very nonsense this guy [Exxess] introduced? (Coming back there in 2 months). Lembit Staan (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)" - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta

FOR THE RECORD - NOT an Extended Discussion, or Talk, on a Page Called "Talk"; But Another Repetitive, Bullshit, Illogical, Rambling, Nonsense "Wall of Text", which, to quote wrongdoer Piotrus, "nobody can be reasonable expected to read those rantish walls of texts Exxess mass produces", on an article where it is obvious Exxess is claiming ownership:

Evidence - Talk:Szlachta#Wikipedia:No_original_research;_Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS

Of course wrongdoer Piotrus painted a picture of a battle-hardened Exxess, and the hands that painted that picture were perfectly clean, and wrongdoer Piotrus, being nothing but perfectly equitable and fair, would wish me to present this about my accuser, also in the interests of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight:

Regarding wrongdoer Piotrus: "In my view the A.M. part of your appeal demonstrates.. what to call it... a lack of forthcoming-ness. The remainder of the appeal, in which you speak of WP's losses from your lack of participation, that's a different story that others can think over."

Novickas (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid=406722192&diffmode=source

Wrongdoer Piotrus went through 14 years of my Wikipedia history and could only site a possible clash with two editors in 14 years - wrongdoer Piotrus and Lembit Staan, but as concerns wrongdoer Pitorus, wrongdoer states himself, "I've interacted with him (Exxess) very little," so, for all intents and purposes, one editor in 14 years - Lembit Staan. Both editors I stated I am neutral about. - Exxess (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Uh. Does anyone have time to read all of that?--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I read it, and I also read Talk:Szlachta. I don't know how it's possible for anyone to work on an article with Exxess. The haranguing, the condescension and snarkiness, the needless repetition...it's exhausting, just reading it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sooo... are the three dozen uses of "wrongdoer Piotrus" just a particularly inept attempt at being insulting? Because if so, I think the block just expired would seem not to have registered to any noticeable degree. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• I vote to indef block Exxess. Wikipedia is not some social media site where people score points by mocking and insulting those with whom they disagree. It is a project to build an encyclopedia, an endeavor that requires maintenance of a level of not just civility, but professionalism. BD2412 T 00:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block. The comments in this thread are a pale echo of the editor's behavior on the article talk page. That they are participating on the talk page rather than edit-warring their preferred content is a point in their favor, but what happens on the talk page is not a civil, collegial attempt to reach consensus. Until Exxess can find a new approach to working with others, the other editors should not have to endure that treatment. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef: Clearly the block has not had any effect, with them still engaging in WP:TLDR-violating posts and veiled personal attacks as mentioned above. Enough WP:ROPE has been extended. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef or lesser sanctions "Exxess"'s recent behaviour is inconsistent with a collaborative project, including the Idonthearitis (as evidenced by their walls of text), the personnal attacks, and so on. They don't seem to have been blocked before. I'm not sure an indef (or community ban) is the best solution, but their editing has been confined to mostly one topic so far (see [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Exxess xtools), which may be evidence of OWN as previously described, and is evidence that a lesser sanction would not prevent future disruption. I would nevertheless support a lesser sanction of a topic ban (possibly enforced with an indef partial black from the relevant page) to see if they have something constructive to contribute elsewhere, since the current situation might just be unfortunate heat (see Wikipedia:Incivility blocks), and per the general principle of escalating sanctions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Editors:

Elmidae (talk · contribs)

BD2412 T

Schazjmd (talk)

User:TheDragonFire300

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)

Your comments are noted for the record.

I did write in regards to this matter, on my talk page, that Wikipedia is not facebook, a place to collect friends and likes.

I also stated on my talk page I would accept a PERMANENT BAN. That would NOT be a reflection on my behavior.

When I write _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} is a wrongdoer, that is a not a smug, snide, underhanded insult. I mean it as a fact.

I am debating whether I should open several ANI cases of my own. It depends on how magnanimous I wish to be.

I prefer to work things out editor-to-editor, and never bring matters here, to ANI.

My attempts to have extended discussions on the talk page for that article Szlachta, to the points made above, are labeled "walls-of-text", or "illogical ramblings".

I find that very interesting.

I think Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, the admin in this matter, was derelict. - Exxess (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use signatures to refer to other editors. We have special templates for that purpose, see {{ping}}. The initial evidence was quite clearly establishing of your history of personal attacks, and you continuing to refer to "wrongdoer Piotrus" is not helping that reputation. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wow. Indeffed. —valereee (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Made edit on very large page (List of Top Level Domains) to make tables collapsible, but cluebot reverted it immediately. Some tables were set to auto collapse, however these were only tables. Also forgot to mark as minor edit since it was a formatting issue, but it still got reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UppercutPawnch (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@UppercutPawnch: Is this a systematic problem? If it is, please list the diffs. Otherwise, this is just a plain old false positive. It happens. pandakekok9 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: Yeah it's just a false positive. Didn't read the cluebot message I got on my user page all the way. Sorry, but thanks for reverting for me. UppercutPawnch (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@UppercutPawnch: Don't quote me on this, but I believe ClueBot is set up to only revert once or twice if the same edit is made repeatedly. jp×g 22:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Betty Boop, Helen Kane, and Baby Esther

Users blanking information at Betty Boop

A user [[170]] is blanking Reliably Sourced information from the article Betty Boop, and then refusing to explain why on the discussion page. Edits here [171] and [172]. He/she even threatened to report me for adding Reliably Sourced informetion from Time Magazine. Attempt at discussion page here.. [173]. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My reply to the IP is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Since User:MarnetteD has been involved with this IP's behavior for as long as I have, I will be notifying them of these threads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to post this for minutes now, but keep getting conflict.

It is curious that this editor User:BeyondmyKen had no problem with the Baby Esther article as it was as of September 2020. [174]. Compare that version to the most recent.. [175] We see in Nov 2020 an unverified photo, whereas now there is a verified one. We see in Nov 2020 that even the dates of Esther's active career were wrong, by years. And we see blatant UNSOURCED claims such as While Kane never publicly admitted her borrowing, Jones' style—as imitated by Kane—went on to become the inspiration for the voice of the cartoon character Betty Boop and Esther was thus recognized as the original scat-singer who inspired Helen Kane to scat-sing. . How about One of the main reasons Baby Esther is not remembered is because she was never a feature attraction in Cab Calloway's New York club; and In addition to adducing Baby Esther's performances, That's all BLATANT OR and totally unsourced. Yet, that's what BeyondMyKen wants.

Here's the WP:RS that BeyondmyKen objects to [176]

And now someone else has reverted to the blanked version [177] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

AN/I is not a place where content disputes are settled - article talk pages are where that happens. AN/I is for behavioral problems. You have reported my behavior -- and I have given my explanation for it -- and I have reported your disruptive behavior across the three articles involved. Others will chime in with their opinions, and, if they decide a sanction needs to be be levied (I have asked for you to be topic banned from the three articles, I'm not sure what action you're looking for, since you don't state one) an admin will do so. In the meantime, some editors may comment on the content dispute, but that's not the purpose of this board. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The content dispute led to the "behaviour". As noted above, the article was a mess, full of UNSOURCED MATERIAL, OUTRIGHT LIES, and worse. So, finally someone comes along, and tries to make three articles more worthy of being on Wikipedia. At which point, people who wanted the articles in their unsourced, fabricated, synthesis manner then started accusing the editor who was tryng to IMPROVE the articles of "disruptive behaviour".

Is the editor trying to add reliable sources, and remove unsourced attack content "disruptive"? OR is the person REMOVING sourced material, and adding unsourced material the "disruptive" one?

Oh, I forgot the best one of all. Blatantly lying about what a [[[WP:RS]] actually said.

This all seems to go back to Robert O'Meally and his book Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies (2004).

The person who created this article(Baby Esther) only used O'Meally as a supposed "source". [178]

The phrase "Jazz studies scholar Robert O'Meally has referred to Jones as 'Betty Boop's black grandmother.'" was on that article until November 2020.

--- But what did Robert O'Meally ACTUALLY say"

From Page 290 of Uptown Conversation:

The climax of the case (a further Ellisonian twist) came when the court viewed archival film brought in by the defense - footage shot in the early days of sound, featuring yet another singer, this time a black cabaret artist billed as Baby Esther, who on film performed a song that contained the heavily debated phrase "boop-boop-a-doop". The Fleischers' lawyers further surprised the court with testimony from Baby Esther's manager, Lou Walton, claiming that Helen Kane and her manager had heard Baby Esther sing in a cabaret in 1928. The point of course was that even if the Fleischers' singer(s) had copied Kane to create Betty Boop, Kane herself, if the evidence could be believed56, was an imitation of black Baby Esther.57 In other words, Boop herself was an imitation of an imitation and had, as it were, a black grandmother in the background.58

Nice, isn't it? But what was that "if the evidence could be believed"? Editors like Beyondmyken never quoted THAT, did she? Let's see what Robert O'Meally says under those references at the book. After all, he wouldn't put that there, if it wasn't important, would he? And what about # 57 and # 58? Let us turn to Page 295 of the exact same book, by the exact same author.

56. Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop. 57. See Klaus Strateman's Louis Armstrong on the Screen (Copenhagen:JazzMedia 1996), pp. 17-26. 58. One can only wonder if there was some sort of sideline deal with Mr Walton. Was Miss Esther paid for her presumed loss of revenue?

In other words, the article stated pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the RS actually stated. Beyondmyken BLATANTLY LIED AND MISREPRESENTED a WP:RS. It wasn't until I quoted O'Meally correctly that the article reflected the truth, at which point Beyondmyken(and others) started attacking me. For correctly quoting O'Meally, rather than lying about what he had written. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (my last) Those of you who do not wish to go through the diffs and links I posted below of the IP's ranting style just got a good sample of it. Even after being told that this is not the place to discuss content, they spout the above, a very good example of what editors on the talk pages of the three articles have been putting up with since September 2020. I think it's quite obvious that this IP is never going to be able to deal with this subject rationally, calmly, judiciously, and fairly, they will always push their point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Simple question: Why did you have NO problem with outright lies, and complete misrepresentations of of RS, for what seems to be eyars, but are now accusing people of being "disruptive" for ADDING RS, and attempting to remove unsourced material? 197.87.63.222 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hilarious... the same person who wrote "e, a very good example of what editors on the talk pages of the three articles have been putting up with since September 2020. I think it's quite obvious that this IP is never going to be able to deal with this subject rationally, calmly, judiciously, and fairly, they will always push their point of view." ALSO wrote " but you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop,"

See? Yet, guess who got blocked? Byebye. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:197.87.63.222

Some old controversies just never die down. This seems to be one of them: the influence (or lack of influence) of the entertainer Baby Esther on Helen Kane and Betty Boop. There was a lawsuit about it in 1932 when Kane sued the Fleischer Studios and the defendants brought up Baby Esther.

The IP editor 197.87.63.222 has been arguing on the talk pages of these articles since September November 2020 that Baby Esther had no influence on Kane. Their position is very pro-Kane and very anti-Esther. They've made these arguments on the talk pages of all three articles, but has never convinced anyone - there has never been anything even close to a scintilla of a consensus for the IP's PoV, yet the IP continues to attempt to skew the articles to his personal PoV.

It's time for this to stop. The IP needs to be topic banned from Boop, Kane and Esther and any related subjects. I have no idea if their editing in other areas is problematic, but in this subject area it most certainly is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

interjection, and my last post here. This person is forcing the idea that "Baby Esther" DID influence Kane. The one source he/she used ,(O'Meally) states that that was NOT the case. And he/she blanked a RS from a 1934 Time Magazine, because it makes his/her claim of "Baby Esther influencing Helen Kane" a chronological impossibility. He/she also makes the Kane vs Fleischer trial all about Esther, when other factors like Gertrude Saunders, Louis Armstrong etc. were far more decisive. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see he got here first by three minutes. I'll combine the two sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

IP has been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP's PoV argumentation:

• Talk:Baby Esther: [179], from "Article is a lot of hot air" (September 2020) through to the bottom of the page, 15 threads, about 11,000 words. Section titles include "Misunderstanding the judge's verdict", "Plagiarism?", "Is this even Wiki-worthy?", "An odd string of coincidences...or garbage?", all of which are to the point that their PoV is the only possibly correct one.
• Talk:Helen Kane: [180]
• Talk:Betty Boop/Archive 1: [181] Start here, with the first collapsed section because the IP was using socks after being blocked collapsed because the IP was suspected of being a sock, and continue to the end of the page, 4 threads, same arguments.
• Talk:Betty Boop#The Kane vs Fleischer section

Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The thing to note is that the IP spouts on and on and on, and never achieves a consensus. In fact, after a while, their ranting is just ignored. Nevertheless, the IP edits as if they have a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

But how is ANY of that relevant to you blanking RELIABLY SOURCED information from a contemporaneous Time Magazine? And, do you stand by the Baby Esther article as it was in November 2020? 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

have already explained that a number of times: the information is about Helen Kane and you're attempting to add it to an article about Betty Boop. It's WP:UNDUE. Three editors have now reverted your addition, doesn't that suggest to you that you do not have the consensus necessary to add it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's about Helen Kane in the context of the Betty Boop trial. By your logic, we can remove any information that's not directly about Betty Boop from the same section then. And I put it in the "Kane vs Fleishcer" paragraph of the Betty Boop article. You have exposed yourself as trying to push a POV now. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, the trial is obviously relevant. The question is how much material on the trial should be in the article, and what kind. It's clear that you want the Time material to be in because it strengthens the hypothesis that Kane was the major influence on the invention of Betty Boop, and, in fact, in order to do that you're cherry-picking facts from the Time article that emphasize points of similarity between them.

I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop, and that Baby Esther was irrelevant. That's your personal viewpoint, which you're allowed to have, but you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia in such a way as to have our articles represent you views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's YOUR POV. You can add what you want from that article too. It';s Time Magazine. You are the one cherry-picking (and as shown elsewhere, blatantly lying about what RS actually state). 197.87.63.222 (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

YOU are the one skewing it. The articles have all been skewed for years. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

and we see the REALITY.

"I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop, and that Baby Esther was irrelevant. That's your personal viewpoint, which you're allowed to have, but you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia in such a way as to have our articles represent you views. "

So, I am attempting to "skew" something "To show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop". Well, I'll just quote Professor Robert O'Meally, on page 295 of his book "Uptown Conversation":

" Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop."

That's not me "skewing", that's what a respected sholar says.

As for "and that Baby Esther was irrelevant". We;;, if Esther was relevant, I'm sure Beyondmyken, or someone else, will happily quote from Judge McGoldrick's ruling where he mentions Esther as part of his ruling. Oh, wait, he never mentioned Esther in his ruling.

And, as stated, this article was created out of whole cloth in 2014. EVERYTHING it said there was a lie. Everything.

Now, have I been a bit emotional in what I have said on discussion pages? Yes. Have I made disruptive edits? No. Have I quoted what RS says, sometimes even being accused of "plagiarism" for writing EXACTLY what the Rs actually state? Yes. Has Beyondmyken now exposed him/herself as the one "skewing the article"? Yes.

Simply, it is NOT disruptive to quote from RS to improve articles. sadly for Beyondmyken, the RS showed that what he/she has been pushing for years, even deliberately misquoting sources(such as O'Meally) is not backed up the actual RS. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Boomerang. But it is disruptive to edit war against several users, and to ignore consensus on talkpages. I have blocked 197.87.63.222 from Betty Boop and Baby Esther for 6 months. They have not edited Helen Kane recently, but if the disruption should move there, the block can, too. I note the same person has edited as 197.89.10.25 and 197.87.63.7 on the same articles — a huge range — so the articles may need to be temporarily semiprotected if this continues. Note also 197.87.63.222's previous block log. (The other IPs I mention have been blocked before also). Bishonen | tålk 08:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC).

For removing unsourced material, for adding sourced material, for removing possible libelous material? And you haven't blocked Beyondmyken? So, he/she can go right back and turn those articles into misinformation, lies, and blatant POV-pushing?

So, I'm getting blocked for trying to improve articles, whereas the people blanking RS, adding blatant mistruths, and lying about what RS actually say are being left untouched? HOW was I the disruptive one? And, if true, how was I the only disruptive one? 197.87.63.222 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

We can always extend the block if you're simply going to be abusive? Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How was that a "personal attack" or "abusive"? If 1 person is trying to source information, remove unsourced material, and repeatedly creating new threads on the discussion pages to discuss article content....while another user ignores the discussion pages, blanket reverts without discussion, removes RS material, threatens rather than discusses, and lies about what a RS says, to push his/her agenda, then who is the disruptive one? But what if more than one person does what the latter user does? Does numerical superiority then give free reign to ignoring discussions, adding unsourced material, and removing sourced material, just because there is a very slim numerical advantage? 197.87.63.222 (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

and note his/her original comment. That I'm "very pro-Kane and very anti-Esther". Nope. I was adding NPOV RS, and Beyondmyken didn't like what they said. Period. So who was skewing articles? I just say, look at what they were like(Beyondmyken's preferred versions) before I started trying to edit them, compared to now. Is that "disruptive"? Who was the one who exposed the BLATANT LIE about what respected scholar Robert O'Meally said? Me. How was it alright for a Wikipedia article to outright fabricate "evidence" from an esteemed scholar, and falsely claim he wrote something that he never wrote? And how is correcting that being "disruptive"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.222 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a PA warning to 197.87.63.222 - this isn't a war that must be won at all costs. Acroterion (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said it was. I was just asking why trying to Reliably Source material, trying to correct unsourced material, and starting threads on discussion pages is "disruptive". That's not a personal attack. All I want is a clear, straight answer. Is it a personal attack to want something to be explained? 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I just want to note that being "Reliably Sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient condition to adding text to an article. When adding new information, the new information needs BOTH be reliably sourced and there needs to be consensus that the new information is relevant and proper to add to the article. You seem to be running into problems with the second part. If you've reached an impasse, invite some uninvolved editors to look into the situation. We've got a dozen or so various noticeboards where you can ask for outside opinions, WP:DR is thataway. WP:BLUDGEONing talk pages and repeatedly trying to force a contested change into an article is not a productive way to move beyond an impasse. --Jayron32 13:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If you beleive you can skirt a PA block by just saying "other editors" are lying, you're mistaken. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I demonstrated that people had been inserting false/fabricated "facts" into articles to force a pov. That is beyond dispute. Compare O'Meally's real quote to what the article used to say he said. The problem is that both Beyondmyken and MarnetteD started reverting any similar edits I made, so I was accused of efit-warring. The articles as they stand now have been tidied up substantially. Yet the latest efit war concerns a Time Magazine article from 1934 that other editors didn't like. Read Beyondmyken's first post on this very dispute to find out why. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll spell it out for you: claims that other editors are willfully adding false information to articles is a personal attack. The content dispute is over, so continuing to repeat those assertions will get you blocked from editing for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Bishonen, Acroterion, and Black Kite: Posted today on Talk:Helen Kane: [182]

• "I proved that they [i.e. myself and MarnetteD] blatantly misrepresented what O'Meally said."
• "They [i.e. me] outright lie about what actual sources say..."

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week, for personal attacks after clear warnings that omitting a specific name from the sentence in which they attack other editors doesn't confer immunity to sanctions. When the block has expired, we'll need to reinstate the partial block, assuming the site block doesn't get extended. Acroterion (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Blatant POV-pushing by Escandar

User:Escandar has made a blatant POV-pushing at the Error has no rights page. He changed sourced information without removing the sources, making it look like those information were sourced. This user:

• completely changed "non-Catholics do not deserve civil or political rights. It was held as late as the 1950s" to "Catholics or non-Catholics ought not to express erroneous opinions. It was promoted by some Church authorities as late as the 1950s", despite what the source given at the time said ("Promotion of religious freedom was inextricably tied to this role, but in this case the Church's break from the past was more abrupt. As late as the 1950s the Church's official position was that since 'error has no rights,' Catholicism, as the true faith, should alone be sanctioned by the state.").
• removed "Catholic theology prior to Vatican II held that the ideal was a confessional state unified with the Church, with the reasoning that the Catholic Church's revealed truth would lead to 'perfect justice', and if the state allowed error to be expressed, it would detract from this." to replace it with a quote from John Paul II from 1993, saying the quote was the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in a page which states very clearly that after 1965 the doctrine had changed.
• He also changed the rest of the previous part to "Prior to Vatican II the social teaching of the Church suggested that the ideal was a confessional state harmonious with the teachings of the Church, with the reasoning that, in Jesus' words, "the Truth shall set you free," and thus be the path to "perfect justice", and if the state allowed the expression of error to get out of hand, it would detract from that goal.", despite what the source given said ("A vital component of the above church-state under standing was the principle that "error had no rights." I think we cannot overestimate the importance of this principle in dealing with the human rights question. In its conception of the ideal society those outside the Catholic church were in principle not entitled to political and civil rights because they lacked the true faith. This viewpoint, faith as the determinant of rights, continued to predominate in official Roman Catholic thinking at the highest levels until it was finally buried, only after the fiercest of struggles, by II Vatican's Declaration on Religious Liberty.").

Veverve (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• This does look like POV pushing. The sources are very clear that there was a shift in Catholic thinking in the twentieth century from being opposed to freedom of speech and human rights to being for them. However, this article has attracted POV pushers who try to make it seem that Catholic doctrine has been consistent over time despite lack of RS. (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuous BLP Violations from 2600:1008:B02E:11B8:148F:58E3:8EA4:FADA

This user has repeatedly violated BLP, after multiple attempts to explain that it violates policy on the user's talk page. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 00:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked them for 24 hours. Let me know if it resumes. This relates to Lil Reese. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III not operating correctly on this page

Lowercase sigmabot III is missing most of the threads it is supposed to be archving on this board, leaving the board to pile up excessively (which reduces engagement and problem-solving). I don't know how long this has been going on, because I've been on a break from the "drama boards" for some months, but when I checked in today, there were more than 68 threads on the board (when ideally there should be less than 35).

The automated archiving on this page has long been set to 3 days -- threads which have not received input for more than 72 hours get auto-archived by the bot. Lowercase sigmabot III made this edit today at 12:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC), but it left 19 threads which had had no timestamps in over three days. Many of the threads had been stale for a week or more. None of them had DNAU codes.

This really needs to be fixed so that admin engagement and problem solving can occur efficiently here and admins are not overwhelmed by a board that is 600,000 bytes long and has over 65 threads. I had to go in and one-click archive the very stale threads myself.

I'm posting this here because ANI does not have a dedicated talk page. Also, I'm not sure whether this problem exists on pages other than this one.

In any case, this bot needs to be fixed, and/or retired and a new one created if this one has passed its prime. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it was working fine the morning of 8 May [183], and didn't miss any threads, but then it didn't edit the page again until 13 May [184], where it's ignoring sections that should be archived. Modulus12 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Modulus12, I'm guess you mistyped, because "sections" do not get archived, only entire threads. I agree that the bot was not doing anything at all on this page between May 8 and May 13, so there is a definite malfunction happening by May 8, even though it was operating on other pages between May 8 and May 12: [185]. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is quite the tangent, but my use of "sections" is correct, I'm pretty sure. (See Help:Section.) A section can contain multiple threads, sub-sections, etc. Modulus12 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles have sections. Noticeboards and talkpages -- where editors post and sign their posts -- have threads (see Help:Talk pages), and sections within those threads; sections within threads often get closed prior to the entire thread getting closed, but the sections do not get archived, only the entire thread when it is stale or closed. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Holding a mouse over the "edit" link for this discussion currently shows a URL that includes &action=edit&section=74. Clicking that link would edit section 74 on this page. Someone might call this discussion a thread, or a collapsed sub-discussion a section, but that's just because language is hard to pin down and words get used for convenience. Archiving occurs by section using the &action=edit&section=74 meaning. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigmabot usually does not edit as a result of a) nothing needing to be moved, or b) a blacklisted term/URL being in the source of either the page to be archived or the target archive (rarely a c) Toolforge is down). If it was operating on other pages at that time, then it's probably either a or b. Izno (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's clear there were threads that needed to be archived between May 8 and May 13; that's how the page ballooned to 68 or more threads. It seems to me that, like all archiving bots eventually do, Lowercase Sigmabot III is malfunctioning and may need to be replaced. That's why over the years we've had so many iterations of the original archiving bot under a handful of various names. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of us are chronically lazy so please give the title of, say, two sections which should have been archived but which weren't. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Indefinite block for User:Sportsfanrob", "User:ListeningBronco", "Pigsonthewing et al.". Fram (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In this edit I pointed out, from noon May 13 UTC, Lowercase sigmabot III left out, starting from the top, "Terry Bean", "Co-ordinated off-wiki disruption at Turkish War of Independence", "Film awards WP:NOR from IP range in Georgia, U.S.", "Regarding user Knewdates for bad faith editing and what I see as intimidation Daniel Lee (designer)", "Mikeymikemikey", "Cheesy McGee", and 13 other threads that hadn't been edited in at least three days (most of them hadn't been edited since May 5 UTC). Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a problem to me. I asked for opinions at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The underlying problem is in the wikitext computation library maintained by @The Earwig:. Perhaps you could take a look, Earwig?

The thread titled COVID: SYNTH, BLUDGEON and MEDRS (moved from AE) seems to have consumed 31 of the sections below it, up to and including the one titled User:SteveBenassi persistent disruptive edits: edit warring, refusing to discuss/engage. Sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1022942665

In addition, @Softlavender:, I think there are more conscientious ways of reporting this issue and bringing it to my/our attention. Apology accepted in advance.

Thanks. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I made no apology and I will make none. My aim was to be conscientious and so I was; I'm not sure why you are WP:ABF or have a problem with my report. If a bot that affects so very many users and their on-wiki problems and requests for assistance is not functioning correctly, and has been problematical for several days, I report it as quickly as I can and with as much information as I can. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

k→Σσς. (Sigma) 04:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime I've archived that thread, as there's nothing left to do in there anyway, and it was reopened by an SPA to relitigate a content decision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Sigma. As you know, this is a known bug and not easily fixed. — The Earwig (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Earwig. Have you tried using Parsoid? Legoktm (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The first section to not be archived had an unclosed [[User:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak#Top_quality,_WP:MEDRS_sources|this. The section before the first section to be archived had a matching unopened [Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry]]. The software probably viewed it as one large block which could not be split, and the block included recent signatures so it wasn't archived. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So would "post a helpful error message somewhere if large blocks containing section breaks occur" be a useful feature request so we can fix this issue manually the next time it occurs? —Kusma (t·c) 12:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think PrimeHunter has it right about what's causing the bug, and it's not what I originally thought. This bug is surprising to me, and I will need to look more carefully tonight. If we're going to teach the bot how to identify misparsed section breaks, it would be easy enough to have it handle the breaks correctly rather than report an error. — The Earwig _alt (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a fun failure mode.... Keep that in my sigmabot does things pocket. Izno (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should block The Earwig for wrecking. EEng 07:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Well, it's not an ANI thread without a call to block someone. — The Earwig (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it'd be possible to manually archive some of the very old sections here (like §Francis Schonken, closed five days ago). jp×g 22:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Luckily, User:Σ/Testing facility/Archiver is available to make manual archiving easy. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've released a fix for the specific bug that caused this issue, and asked Sigma to update the bot. If there are more problems, let us know. — The Earwig (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Ziad Tarek 952005

Ziad Tarek 952005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. This user was blocked recently for one week for (unexplained) removal of categories from articles on Egyptian footballers. From their talkpage, this issue has been going on for a bit, with no repsonse from the user concerned. In the past 24 hours or so, they've continued with this disruption. Please can someone block their account? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like vandalism-only...they haven't ever edited a talk page. Maybe we just need to get their attention? —valereee (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

p-blocked from article space to try to get their attention. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - hopefully they start to respond now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Green light3 persistent disruption of Ikigai

• Green light3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did post about this earlier to this noticeboard - Green light3 continues to add the "Criticism" section back to the article Ikigai, which has, as a brief glance over the article history will show, been removed for a reason.

The account doesn't seem to do anything else; it seems to be a pretty sole-purpose vandal. Green light3 has been warned a number of times - I can't decide myself whether this is incompetence or trolling, but either way, it's a constant stream of disruption. Any help? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks. Bishonen | tålk 10:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC).

Standard offer requested by DoctorTexan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• (Active account) DoctorTexan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• (Original account) Mmoates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

DoctorTexan has invoked WP:Standard Offer to request an unblock. See User talk:DoctorTexan/Archive 0#Unblock Req — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I can go so far as to take them at their word that they no longer have the login for the old account. It hasn't been used in some time, and given the number of socks they have used it seems plausible you might loose track of all the passwords. However, this simply is not how clean starts work. You don't get to do a clean start by evading a block. What they should have done is fessed up to their previous accounts with their very first edit and asked for the standard offer. They clearly did not intend to do that, so the standard offer doesn't apply until they go another six months without socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unblock – Sure, he didn't go at this right, but he seems to be serious about wanting to get back to being a positive contributor to WP. Give them some clear instructions and a chance, not another six-month wait. If they screw up after being unblocked, they'll know another indef will likely follow. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lean Unblock This user made three edits before I spotted the sock account. A small number of productive edits under a account should not preclude an unblock. See WP:Standard offer#Variations, WP:Ignore all rules and WP:Assume good faith.

It may be reasonable to impose some WP:Editing restrictions to ensure DoctorTexan remains civil and stays out of edit wars. If DoctorTexan shows a track record of productive contributions, he can ask the community to remove the restrictions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unblock This appears to be a case where we may gain a productive editor, and this editor is showing self-reflection. To state the obvious, a re-block would come quickly if edit warring or incivility resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I've long believed it's dumb to require editors to make an unblock or unban request from the original account. The important thing is that they deal with their block, including declaring any connection before the resume editing. This editor did not do so. I might have sympathy if this editor had simply received a block 6 months or more ago after a small amount of editing, that they didn't understand or had good reason to think they were entitled to a WP:Clean start. However an editor who thinks they are entitled to a clean start after fairly extensive socking clearly still doesn't understand the basics of editing here. For a similar reason, I do not pay much heed to any self-reflection. Not only did they think it okay to do so, but only a few days ago they spent their time arguing at SPI that it was okay and attacking another editor including making accusations of blackmail [186]. I would note also the irony of claiming you were making a clean start followed by making such personal attacks and now telling Beeblebrox they weren't trying to hide anything since they disclosed it on Wikidata. Maybe they've really finally come to sufficient realisation that what they were doing was wrong that it won't be repeated, maybe not. The point of 6 months is to allow an editor to show the self reflection is genuine, but when the editors actions a few days ago showed they had not yet come to the realisation I'm not going to trust that they have now. The fact that they are lucky and got caught within 3 edits, and that the editor they attacked supports an unblock means I won't count these error if they do demonstrate their self-reflection is genuine and stay away for 6 months, but I don't consider it unreasonable to say they at the moment, it's sufficiently doubtful that DoctorTexan can genuinely be a good contributor here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  I admit I didn't look into the apology thing before now. Now that I did (User talk:DoctorTexan/Archive 0), I see Billhpike did actually ask for an apology but while that may have contributed to a misunderstanding, DoctorTexan's response both at SPI and their talk page now that I've looked at the history (also see [187]) is sufficient to continue my major doubts about the likelihood this editor will be productive. As I noted on their talk page, even their most recent unblock request leaves a lot to be desired in my book. While they did later apologise to BillHPike, their unblock request says their contribs with the new account were all productive and not destructive, which while this may be true for those 3 edits to the encyclopaedia, is hard to see for their accusations of stalking and harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lean Unblock as the explanation that they thought the successful unblock request on WikiData was good across projects is a reasonable one. Given that this editor looks to have a major POV they want to push, I don't know if they will actually become a useful editor, but I'm willing to give some WP:ROPE. —valereee (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• weak support Unblock Reasonable explanation, but I have a feeling they may well wind up here again shortly.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock. What admins giveth, admins can taketh away. The editor should be clear that best behaviour will be required once unblocked. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock given that their edits under Wikinews, while faulty, show no indication of malice or using sockpuppets. Leaderboard (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock. User has shown clear remorse and clear understanding that any further disruptions would result in more permanent ban. The history of POV pushing is concerning, but as always, there is WP:ROPE. SunDawn (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moncton Canada music vandal again, new range

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2607:FEA8:F222:9C00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Feb–March 2021: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#Moncton_Canada_music_vandal

Music vandal from Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, is doing the same things again. Please set a rangeblock. Last time when we discussed this person, a larger /40 rangeblock was considered. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Suitably arbitrary block length for such arbitrary screwing around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, this issue involves more than one problem so I've brought it up here. This mainly concerns User:Gianluigi02 and User:Selfstudier who have decided themselves what must be correct, but other users are causing disruption as well. In many conflicts, we have claims from two sides about death tolls. But here in this case neither side is contradicting each other. Of course that doesn't mean both are true.

But Gianluigi is only taking his own conjectures made in conjunction with the Palestinian statements which are being reported as true. For example when earlier Palestinian health officials stated that 30 Palestinians had been killed [188]. But they never claimed they were all civilians. Gianluigi02 however inserted his own claims that 26 civilians had been killed [189], basing his claim Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad deaths of 1 commander [190] and 3 commanders respectively so far [191]

One thing that should be noted that the Palestinian groups have only confirmed prominent deaths ie commanders, they haven't confirmed how many militants or their members have been killed in total. But despite this Gianluigi02 continues to regard that only 4 (now 5 after Israel said it killed another commander) were killed. [192]

Despite me explaining it to him many times that he's solely relying on Palestinian claims of casualties himself, he claimed again only 4 militants died and without proof claimed identity of 15 dead people (excluding 5 militants, 10 children and a woman confirmed dead) is unknown so far and they are suspected to be civilians [193]. I couldn't find any source for his claim, and it's different than his earlier claim of 26 civilians being dead.

I later removed the commanders who have been confirmed as dead from the overall toll so people did not confuse it. [194] Then I added that Israel claimed it had killed 18 militants [195]

But Gianluigi took to reverting me and baselessly claimed that the Israeli source I used (Times of Israel) was false, even though it said it was claim of Israel that 18 militants were killed [196]. Without presenting one thing to contradict it. He also claimed that the death toll of Gazans provided by Palestinian sources is also confirmed by Israelis [197]. I have however not found the IDF or Israeli government saying so.

There have been other user repeating similar claims against Israeli sources like User:Selfstudier, to whom I pointed out that the number of dead Gazans was only based on Palestinian/Gazan health ministry claims and not independent claims [198]. In response he said he has nothing to add beyond what he said [199].

By that I assume I he meant that I should add contradictory claims [200] or the death toll being from the Palestinian health ministry [201]. Thing is I pointed out earlier to him that Palestinians didn't contradict Israel's toll [202] (neither Israel has contradicted Palestinians).

Also I had pointed out that regarding one side's claims as true and the others as false is incorrect way to do things, especially since Gianluigi is himself deciding how many civilians died using only the number of prominent militant commanders confirmed to be killed [203].

Later he got in a long-winded argument with others about Israeli sources like Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post being false [204]. Per his claim Times of Israel was making false reports and did not attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants to IsGov. In addition, he says Jerusalem Post was paid by IsGov to smear BDS [205]. This was said by him after I pointed out to another using disputing the number of Israeli injuries, that you have to prove a website deliberately reporting false news to prove it's unreliable, not it just being wrong sometimes [206].

Selfstudier used a +972 Magazine article claiming that Israeli government had funded Jerusalem Post's supplement against BDS discreetly, which it claims was revealed a freedom of information request. However as AlexEng pointed out the relationship between JPost's supplement and the State of Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy was never hidden [207]. Even in the supplement you can see the logo of the ministry on the last page and the ministry's director-general delivering its introduction [208]. Regardless of that it isn't the only independent newspaper to have a government-funded report once-in-a-while.

Even if we disregard JPost as unreliable, Selfstudier still ridiculously claimed that Times of Israel had made a false claim and didn't attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants in its blog to Israeli government and it had been removed from the article by an editor (which was Gianluigi02 of course) multiple times, in order to discredit the website: [209], [210], [211], [212].

However the source article he refers to quite clearly does attribute the number of dead militants to Israeli government source: Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists.. Me and AlexEng pointed this out clearly to him even with the direct statement [213], [214].

After this however he ridiculously started claiming that just it didn't attribute it because it said "Israel" and since the editor (Dianluigi) who removed it said it was false he agrees with him [215]. After I pointed out that one editor calling it false is not evidence and saying "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists" is attribution just like "India said x number of people died", he took to calling IDF as disinformatory and stated he believes it is likely ToI's source, but it didn't attribute them directly [216]. Thing is no one said they have to specify directly who was it from. In addition IDF as we know is the military arm of the IsGov, and he was also talking about there being no attribution to IsGov.

Now regardless of what you think of IDF's reliability, Palestinian sources can't be blindly relied blindly on either. I did say this clearly earlier how GianLuigi02 is using them openly as factual and was using his own conjecture as to what they meant, but Selfstudier has no issue with it [217] [218].

I'm not going to describe my whole talk with him since it's long but you can see it for yourself on the talk page.

I believe these two users need to be temporarily banned from the topic or have it at least told to him not to be biased towards any source, plus not decide on his own what should be correct. The others there probably need a warning too. The appropriate way to be regard either both as reliable or none as reliable and label which claim is Palestinian or Israeli.

While I don't like to point fingers, it seems clear that there's anti-Israel bias going on, where Palestinian claims are believed and Israeli claims aren't. These two actually aren't the only ones so I think the article needs to be monitored. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: please note that as noted at the top of this page you must notify involved users if you start a discussion about them. I have notified Gianluigi02 and Selfstudier of this discussion. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about the notifying part. Sorry it slipped my mind and I was busy in something else. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) I put a Arab-Israeli DS notice on LKS's talk page; the other mentioned editors have already been notified.

(2) LKS has a very interesting talk page, worth reading.

(3) This appears to be primarily a content dispute with a disagreement about the reliability of sources.

(4) The question of source reliability should be handled at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard; off hand, I can't see the editors there deciding that The Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post or Al Jazeera is unreliable.

(5) Otherwise, the right place for settling the content dispute is on the article talk page, not here.

(6) It seems unlikely that an admin telling a possibly biased editor "Don't be biased" is going to have any positive effect, and also unlikely that anyone is going to be topic banned on the basis of this report, even if everything in it is perfectly accurate and not in itself biased.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(7) This should be at ANI, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(8) So I moved it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it should be at WP:AE. I do not think we can take any action using the current format. Unless somebody wants to launch an investigation of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said that the Times of Israel is spreading fake news. I said however that the IDF is claiming the death of 15 Hamas and PIJ members without proving it. There are no proofs of that. And no, I'm not saying that is false, it can be true that 15 Hamas members are killed by the strikes. However we need proofs, not claims without evidences. For this reason, I added just the death toll (which is at 53 dead now), without specifying how many were civilians and how many were militants. Or at least, now we are specifying those confirmed to be civilians (the 14 children, the three women, the husband of one of the women, five farmers and other civilians killed in cars) and those confirmed to be militants (3 PIJ and 2 Hamas commanders). The identity of the rest of the victims is unknown so far. So we should just update the death toll without specifying the identity until they are proven. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another argument for waiting on events to actually have time to be investigated and reviewed before rushing a half-baked article into main space. Tiderolls 13:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's not so simple Tide. Let me quote exactly what you said Gianluigi when you removed that Times of Israel source: "Also, I'm removing that false Israeli source". Anyone can see exactly what you meant. Whether the identity of others is known or not, I put 18 militants dead specifically as Israeli claim [219]. This presents it in a neutral fashion and claims by both sides are allowed, so I don't get why you removed it.

This is not content dispute as you clearly have a problem with Israeli claims. Your number of dead (53) is directly sourced from Gaza health ministry [220]: Gaza’s ministry of health said the overall death toll since the latest offensive began stood at 53, including 14 children. More than 300 others have been wounded.

So is Gaza health ministry correct for you but Israel is not? Also you have actually reverted more than once on that article in 24 hours. Compare [221] and [222], [223] and [224], [225] and [226], [227] and [228]. Yes partial reverts also count.

Admins please notice this guy is point blank breaking sanctions by reverting to previous versions. He's also cherry-picking which side to use, siding with Gazans over Israelis when we should use both but cautiously. I hope you can punish him now. He has clearly violated the sanctions and rules despite being aware. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But anyway let's believe your claim that you meant IDF and not Times of Israel. Why does IDF need to prove how many it killed? And how exactly will it prove? Do you expect it to release a list of names? Also why is that you're trusting Gaza ministry of health but not the IDF? You yourself said that the identities of many dead Gazans among the 53 is not known. They haven't clarified who they are. But how do you know they are speaking the truth when they haven't provided a list of everyone's names? This is clear open bias. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand what you aim to achieve with this, you are arguing about a source, so this seems like a discussion for WP:RSN. Perhaps make a post there and consensus will agree on whether the sources are reliable or not? Or are you arguing for sanctions because of a content dispute? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think any of the sources are unreliable. I'm ready to use all sides but mark them as Israeli or Palestine in case they are Israeli or Palestinian government claims. Gianluigi however regards Palestinian claims as definitely true. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Could something please be done about Gianluigi02? He is now attacking other editors by calling their edits "false informations" [229], and has now (once again) removed neutral sources (that were discussed on the article's talk page [230]) in order to replace them with Al Jazeera [231], without giving any valid reason to do so. JBchrch (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Gianluigi is breaking rules, attacking edits of others, cherry-picking his own sources, while engaging in a clear edit-war. Can something be done or are we be to held hostage to what he wants? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That user removed the updated death toll of 65, which was confirmed by multiple sources. He said that between 30 and 50 people died, which was not true. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

That's not what your edit had to do with [232]. It was about the number of children killed, changing it from 14 to 16. Another statement you changed it from "35 to 65" to 67 Palestinians killed, that statement wasn't added by JBchrch. You're referring to a previous edit [233] where you changed the Palestinian death to 67, after JBchrch changed death toll from 65 to 53 and of children from 16 to 14, removed Al Jazeera as source [234] because he thinks it's unreliable?

However, he did clearly cite neutral sources for his edit. This 53 death toll was reported by other sources too [235] and dead children as 14 [236]. I'm sure you were aware that was the death toll at one point. A few other sources did refer to the death toll as 65 and dead childdren to 16 [237], but it's much more likely he missed it and didn't check up the latest news. So you trying to claim you called a person who at most committed a mistake or disputing the number of dead children (which it was actually about) as "false" is a bad-faith behaviour. Why are you attacking people and their edits? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia page not extremely suspect? The content's framing and the mono-centric editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El-Baba (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does come off as slanted towards one side given how Israeli casualties are far more focused upon, even if that may not be the intention. It would need re-editing plus more sourcing for its claims. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin LéKashmiriSocialiste, first, please be more concise. Second, please be more precise. Instead of long and vague arguments, post diffs showing policy violations. In the absence of such different, I doubt any admin will want to take any action. Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz I've tried to be as concise while explaining properly. Second I did show diffs, many of them. So I don't know what you're referring to. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at that time it was a false information. At that time, 67 Palestinians were killed, and it was confirmed by multiple sources which I added. Those sources were removed by users who then added a lower death toll, which was not true at that time. So, I'm not in the wrong position. I was adding the correct toll with sources. Then, you are saying that I'm saying that other users are intentionally spreading false news. I never said that, I just said that those informations were false, meaning that they were wrong.Then you are saying that those users didn't saw the updated sources. However I added them and were removed. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

Out-of-date information is not "false" information because it was made using reliable sources. You used something that is often seen as an unreliable source in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (Al Jazeera). And that said false is incendiary since it can imply deceivement. Btw you don't know how many Palestinians were killed because it could be higher than what was reported. So if you fail to use reliable sources, that's on you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to cause offense but I suggest that this be hashed out on the talk page in the usual way. All of the above has been overtaken by events.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried hashing it out with you, but the moment you started misleading was when I shouldn't have proceeded more. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned my name here in your original post. I am still waiting to hear details of any legitimate complaint. Do you have one? If so, please provide appropriate diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think repeatedly being biased against Israeli sources, misleading and claiming a source isn't attributing a claim to IsGov when it is, counts as one. Don't you think? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So no diffs?Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Look at my first comment that started this, you'll find the diffs there: "Even if we disregard JPost as unreliable, Selfstudier still ridiculously claimed that Times of Israel had made a false claim and didn't attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants in its blog to Israeli government and it had been removed from the article by an editor (which was Gianluigi02 of course) multiple times, in order to discredit the website: [238], [239], [240], [241]." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Those diffs are from the talk page. I did not claim that ToI had made a false claim, what I said was that an edit had been made by someone else claiming that ToI had made a false claim. You are insisting that you have a legitimate complaint against me, I dispute that you do. So please file a separate complaint at whatever board is appropriate for the complaint you want to make and I will respond to that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes because I was talking about your talk page behaviour only. But given how much you've misled on it, it's why you deserve to be banned from the article too since you cannot be trusted to maintain neutrality when you try to mislead people so much. You explicitly did claim ToI made a false claim: The false claim (ToI blog for militants killed). Not only that, you did you say you trust Gianluigi when he says it made a false claim you also ridiculously claimed it did not attribute its death toll IsGov. Then when I showed it did, you started claiming saying Israel is not n attribution. Want me to continue? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please file a complaint as I asked, there is no substance to your statements.Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what are you talking about. The number of Palestinians can be higher, or maybe not. I add what is reported by realiable sources, which I added, not only with Al Jazeera source (which is a realiable source despite you are saying it's not), but I added BBC sources too. Then, when I said 'false, I didn't mean that the source were, but that number was not the real numbee at THAT time. The real death toll was of 65 dead and I added it with multiple sources which were removed for no reason. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

Not reliable sources. You are reporting what is said by Gaza ministry of health. So you don't know what is correct and yet you claim the other is "false" because they merely read out-of-date information. You know the reason your edit was removed, Al Jazeera is not a reliable source for JBChrch [242]. What you're doing is bad faith. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over. You accused me of imposing my opinion, but you are the one who's imposing. You say that al jazeera is not a realiable source, while it is realiable. You can say that but I can't say that Times of Israel is not realiable. So what are you talking about exactly? And again, I also added the BBC source. That is not a realiable source too? You are the one who is saying what is realiable and what is not. Then, you are saying that the Gaza ministry of health is not a realiable source. He is the ministry of health of his country, who has those informations also by hospitals and doctors, so is a realiable source. While when I said that the IDF was not reporting any evidence about the toll of the militants killed (which doesen't mean that they were lying or that it was false, but that there were no confirmed evidences), you accused me. And I am the one who is imposing? Am I taking position? Probably, but you are taking position too. I wasted too much time repeating this over and over. Gianluigi02 (talk)

It is you who started this whole thing by dismissing Israel's claims as unreliable and Times of Israel as unreliable. But you are okay with Gazan health ministry's statements as a "fact" even though they can inflate death toll (yes it's not impossible) and it's not necessary they counted every death. You assume that the health ministry is reliable because it has access to its hospitals. How do you know that or know that they can't dress it up? Do you really think hospitals are just calling up with updates of dead or officials are running around in them to record them accurately? Because I've seen many countries fail to count the death toll properly, even the United States. Heck even in the COVID situation. Hamas has also indulged in propaganda before. There's a reason we avoid taking claims of both sides as true. Why would Israel provide you evidence? Did you check whether Gazan health ministry has evidence? No you assumed it is saying the truth. Simple as that. I didn't say though it's unreliable. You are biased, not me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So, to you Gaza's health minister can inflate the death toll...but the IDF and Israel's government can't inflate the number of militants killed? Can they or not? Answer this. Probably you are taking a pro-Israel position, like if Israel is saying all right things and Palestine is lying. This is what are you saying. I report confirmed facts from both sides, not opinions, but facts. Also, the past day you said that I "don't know how many Palestinians were killed because it could be higher than what was reported", now you are saying that it can be inflate. Decide. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

Haven't you ever heard of propaganda and victimization? Yes they can. I never said IDF and Israel might not be lying if you ever cared to notice. Yes now Hamas and PIJ had confirmed that 20 militants died, but earlier they didn't give any numbers. Despite that you started making up your own militant casualty numbers, despite knowing yourself they had only confirmed deaths of their commanders and not every militant. Articles don't operate by your assumptions and demabds of evidence. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Children are dying, civilians are dying in the streets, and you are calling it propaganda and victimization? Are you serious? So now if we follow this thing that you said, we should not belive anything and anyone as everything can be 'inflate', which doesen't make any sense. Then nobody is saying that the Gaza's toll is the right one. This is the confirmed number of victims, it can be higher probably. However it is the confirmed one so far, and I added it. It is our job on Wikipedia. I call to a stop on this discussion as is sensless and we are discussing here from days of a thing that is closed. We are just wasting time. I have my positions, you have yours, and nobody will change his own ideas probably. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

You see there that's the evidence of your bias, you are editing with sympathy to Palestinians. Me on the other hand I'm unattached in editing and want both sides to live in peace. Btw it is known all the dead are not caught and the Gazan health ministry has been suspected as being unreliable about the civilian death toll even by international news agencies [243], [244]. Also get this, many of the dead are actually young men, they are disproportionately more in comparison to their population percentage. Also the ministry does not differentiate militants and civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly alright for Wikipedia editors to be partisan, it's also alright to use biased sources, so I'm not sure why you are making it look like a problem when an editor feels more sympathy for one side of the conflict. Only, we need to abide by verifiability and balance, so as the different existing narratives are represented in articles.

I'm also not getting your comment about young men being killed more. Are you suggesting that it's more ok to kill young men than, say, young women?

A general comment: in any conflict, sides always resort to propaganda. For the IDF, most of those killed will be "terrorists"; for the Palestinian side, most will be "innocent civilians".

Another general comment: the term "militants" is the usual English translation of the Arabic term mujahid. However, this term has a broader meaning, esp. in the religious context, and often denotes all people who fight a just war (jihad), even if in an entirely non-violent manner (e.g., leaflet distribution). We need to keep it in mind when blindly copying "militant" casualties quoted by the media. I suggest that all the statements on casualty numbers are included as direct quotes and always attributed. Discrepancies can be highlighted, too, and the onus of reconciling contradictory reports from the battlefield should not lie with Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! That's the thing. It looks like if I'm the monster, but I'm just adding what sources are saying. If Gaza reports a number of deaths, I add it, so I don't understand what is wrong in this. I also added information about casualties in Israel and I added the updated number there. I just said that the Times of Israel takes position, like when they call Palestinians militants as "terrorists", which is just their point of view and not the absolute truth. I'm adding pro-palestine sources like Al Jazeera? Probably, but I added BBC and The Guardian sources too, which were removed for no reason. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

Yes Kashmiri you can be a partisan in private life. But if you are a partisan it can affect your edits, that's obvious. We can't blindly blame every partisan of bias. For that we need to check the correlation with their editing pattern to see if they are biased. Gianluigi absolutely trusts Gaza health ministry run by Hamas and distrusts IDF. Besides I don't think IDF bombs are specifically going after young men. Or are they? 9% of population accounts for a third of casualties. Why is that?

It's obvious that either Gazan health ministry is not disclosing who is actually a militant or IDF for some reason is selectively committing a genocide disproportionately targeting young men.

Hamas and PIJ launch rockets on Israel without caring for civilian casualties, so does IDF on Gaza at times. I won't call them terrorist on Wikipedia articles as it's prohibited, but Hamas/PIJ and IDF are terrorists. It's the truth.

Besides I never removed Guardian or BBC in your edits. Others might have but they'll likely have their own reasons. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: You are making inexplicable and unsourced assumptions. Firstly, you are assuming that statistical distribution of sexes and ages is uniform across the entire Gaza territory. Which can be easily proven as false. For instance, the majority of warehouse workers are working-age males, so a bomb hitting an industrial estate will affect this category of people disproportionately. That was just an example. Here, a large proportion of Palestinian victims have been simply shot dead by IDF during street protests. Please take a look at who attends street protests in Gaza before you accuse the Palestinian authorities of faking data, or people will tell you that you simply don't grasp the realities on the ground.

Re. bias – as I wrote, there are no unbiased people; everyone has a certain point of view, and people editing in a specific area certainly do tend to have a view on the subject. We also use WP:BIASED sources without problems. What we strive for is to achieve WP:BALANCED coverage of the subject, taking into account the different points of view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Can you tell me how exactly I've made inexplicable and unsourced assumptions when I've provided diffs and exact explanations for Gianluigi's and Selfstudier's behaviour, while also giving you independent sources that reflect the unreliability of Gazan health ministries? That and you yourself provide no sources. Your argument about warehouse workers would have been true if IDF was disproportionately targeting warehouses, but that's not true. The number of dead are mostly dure to airstrikes than IDF shooting them. But anyway, does Washington Post and New York Times doubting the reliability of Gazan health ministry data and plainly saying they don't separate militants, look like only my assumptions? [245], [246]

I don't agree with you on that there are no unbiased people, but anyway let's disregard that. Bias maybe present in many people, but isn't it equally true that many avoid letting it affect their edits? This is why it's said Wikipedia is not a place for your own opinions. We don't use biased sources without any problem, editors are required to check whether they are factual and reliable: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"they'll likely have their own reasons." What are those reasons to you? What it can be the reason for removing realiable sources? Probably because they didn't liked what was written there and so, taking position. To you others can have their own positions and reasons but I can't have mine. I close the discussion with this, bye. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

Either they're mistaken or it can be due to your own edits being wrong and not what the sources claim. Or they themselves might be biased. Not difficult to guess. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You see there that's the evidence of your bias, you are editing with sympathy to Palestinians. Me on the other hand I'm unattached in editing and want both sides to live in peace.

Show me someone who claims to be without bias, and I'll show you a liar.

Right now, this appears to be a content dispute inflamed by the very real deaths happening in the region. But further claims of "they're biased but I'm not!" are likely to result in sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You can call me biased if you want The Hand That Feeds You. I'm not going to the extra mile to convince you I'm not, I only said I'm unbiased to defend myself from accusations which is my right. That said you're not an admin. Please don't try to appropriate what'll get one sanctioned or not, that too without understanding the situation. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"it can be due to your own edits being wrong and not what the sources claim". Nope, I added what the sources said. So, that users were taking position too. But you are just saying that my positions are wrong and that the positions of those users are good as you agree with them. But again, the topic is closed for me. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

You mean the sources which you use to make-up claims like 5 militants confirmed dead when Hamas and PIJ never confirmed the number of dead militants at that time (only dead commanders) and only believe Gaza's health ministry cited by sources like Al-Jazeera? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

propose speedy close

I propose a speedy close of this matter. This appears to be solely a content dispute, no incidences of behaviour by Gianluigi02 and User:Selfstudier which might warrant sanctions or warnings have been given. ANI is surely the wrong place for this, the talkpage would seem to be the right one. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I support so too. If no admin is interested in taking any action, then it's just time wastage and I'd rather stop discussing this issue fruitlessly. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hectoring comments in a RM discussion by Dicklyon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm concerned about Dicklyon (talk · contribs)'s behaviour regarding the Battle of the Mons Pocket article. They are unhappy with the capitalisation of the article's title. After some move warring ([247]) during an initial talk page discussion, they did the right thing and started a RM discussion. However, during the initial discussion and the RM they have repeatedly insulted me and hectored the other editors who disagree with them about this rather minor issue. Diffs and quotes:

• Insult directed at me [248] ("Maybe you're often distracted by titles?")
• Hectoring an editor who opposed the move while insulting me again [249] ("What do you mean, "per Nick"? You just want to repeat what he said that was demonstrated false?")
• Hectoring another editor who opposed the move while insulting me further [250] ("That's a rather preposterous presumption, given how wrongly he characterized the case usage in the sources he cited. He is obviously not up to speed on WP's capitalization guidelines."

This aggressive behaviour over a minor issue seems utterly unnecessary - it's obviously entirely possible to have differing views about capitalisation of a word without throwing insults around and needing to hector everyone who disagrees with you! Dicklyon has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and this suggests that there is an ongoing problem which I would be grateful if an admin could follow up on. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The "maybe you're often distracted by titles?" comment does not read as an insult to me. I think they were just suggesting that you came to the wrong conclusion because you were misled by some occurrences of the term in the context of titles. (Incidentally, the addition of the "maybe" hedge plus the question mark makes this read as a very mild/polite form of contradiction.) Unless there's some more context missing, I think you've been a bit quick to impute bad faith there. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon is often forceful during move discussions, and I've been on the receiving end of that forcefulness before, but frankly I'm not seeing an issue here. That said, Dicklyon should keep in mind that many Wikipedians are not, in fact, up to speed on capitalization guidelines and that he is often the ambassador for those guidelines. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but even after I subsequently followed his suggestion and started an RM discussion, he repeated the error and two other guys seconded that. Definitely they needed some pushback, as you can see there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If other people support a particular capitalisation then they don't "need pushback". When people disagree with you it may mean that things are not as clear-cut as you believe them to be. According to WP:RM "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested" - given the history of disputes about the capitalisation of this sort of thing you must surely know by now that these moves are likely to be contested. I suggest you use RM from now on. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, since Nick disagreed, we are using the RM process. The guys who joined him without saying why needed pushback because they gave no argument based in sources or guidelines, just an "opinion" that Nick liking capitalization there is better. That's not how an RM discussion is supposed to work. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually provided multiple sources to support the capitalised usage here, so was not relying on my opinion. It is beyond me why this editor is so aggressive about this minor matter and is continuing to attack me and the other editors who oppose the move. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because what you "provided" there was shown to be false, which you have not acknowledged, and the others have failed to account for. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to rehash the merits of the ongoing RM discussion. In my view, as per Mackensen and Colin M, Dicklyon can sometimes have strongly held convictions, but although his comments may not have been especially polite, they seem basically within the bounds of Wikipedia routine discourse. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333 and SnowFire: since your comments at the subject RM are under discussion here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's not "hectoring". The complainant has some history of accusing Dicklyon of aggression, hectoring, etc., when the complainant isn't getting his way. This kind of escalation is a waste of ANI's time. Tony (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't recall ever encountering Dicklyon before, so I'm not sure what history you're referring to. It's a bit odd that you're accusing me of Trumpian escalation while throwing muck at me here. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Probably Tony refers to the section just above the RM, which he chimed in on, where you accused me of insulting you a few days before this "hectoring" accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

      Yeah, that would probably answer it. D'oh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that what's needed at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021 is more hectoring, not less. Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims, not adding anything to the discussion but wind. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"what's needed ... is more hectoring not less" "look at the crap" "not adding anything ... but wind". If that's collegial, good-faith editing then I'm a Dutchman. Dicklyon seems to to be taking every "oppose" as an insult and an opportunity to insult. Just chill, bro, as the Young People say. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my assessment of your arguments there, or you just think I should have found a more polite way to put it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You've already been pointed to WP:BADGER. I'll point you there again ⇒WP:BADGER. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I attempted to suggest above, gently, that as an ambassador you should try to be more polite. Let me be clearer: your approach does not encourage the unconvinced to accept your point of view (and yes, I agree that the MOS is on your side). To the extent that you're seeking to convince people to follow the MOS you should adopt an approach that does so. Failing that, you should at least adopt an approach that doesn't have people muttering darkly on ANI about topic bans. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are the ones to convince. They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc. My comments are really to challenge them to put up or shut up, to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Yes, I have a long history of people who want to ignore the MOS muttering to ANI about me. It's disgusting. Why don't they grow up? If an ambassador is what they need, that's probably not going to be me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims Oh so we're Nick's cabal now? Never occurred to me. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but he did canvas the project to get some of the traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers like SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264 to back him. Thank you for your comments there. We persuaded the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: I'll accept that there are often people at MilHist that share like-minded opinions, but Nick-D's post which you characterized as canvassing was simply Members of this project may want to participate in the requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021. This is a very innocuous message and was liable to be read by everyone in that project, even people who didn't necessarily agree with their interpretation such as myself. I more often than not find myself disagreeing with User:Thewolfchild, but unless you can provide diffs which proves Nick was specifically soliciting the assistance of "SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264" for "traditional Milhist MOS-ignor"ing purposes, you really should do as wolf suggests and apologize. Or at least stop making the accusation. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dicklyon's comment on MilHist of "Fortunately, the vacuous and false arguments of Nick-D, Thewolfchild, Keith-264, SnowFire, DuncanHill, and a few others were weighted appropriately by the closer there. When sources use lowercase, the preference of these editors to use caps should not be what determines the outcome. When Nick-D falsely states what sources use caps, and others simply second him even after the error is pointed out, it degrades the credibility of the project." certainly struck me as inappropriate. I know from experience that they can discuss disagreements collegially. Perhaps they need some encouragement to do so more consistently? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  And Dicklyon didn't even have the courtesy to ping me when he called my arguments "vacuous and false". I'm not a member of the MilHist WP, it's only because of @Gog the Mild: mentioning it above that I saw the comment. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc." "Why don't they grow up?" "to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion." - these phrases don't look like Dicklyon going with the fourth pillar Wikipedia:Civility, and seem to denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments presented. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, you can feel that this whole RM/ANI experience pissed me off pretty good. I'll try to get back to my usual calm self now. And I was not trying to "denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments", but rather to "help RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments" when I pushed back on the opposers and challenged them to say something meaningful. Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• You know, I wasn't actually going to say anything originally, as this seemed like pointless drama for the sake of it - Dicklyon has his stridently held opinions, whatever, move on. And hell, despite voting oppose, if I'd closed that RM, I'd have done the same thing as buidhe and close it as "Moved", so it's not like I think Dicklyon's comments or points are illegitimate. However, apparently Dick has found the time to call me out as part of the "traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers", because anyone who votes differently from him is part of an evil plot, after the RM was already closed. This is some severe sore winner behavior. I almost never look at the MILHIST talk page, and found the RM via the usual way of checking WP:RM's list, and had no idea that Nick-D posted it elsewhere. Additionally, you misrepresent my point in the RM (and probably others). I wasn't saying "ignore the MOS." I was questioning the veracity of whether sources really do predominately lower cap "pocket" and think that for obscure topics, we should defer to the experts, which would be the article creator. And, put bluntly, based on your comments on other RMs, you've made clear that you see any sort of non-capitalized use anywhere as reason to remove the capital letters, so it's hard to just take your word for it that Nick-D is "wrong" on the source usage. Nevertheless, you convinced others that the reliable source usage really was mixed, so whatever, I can move on with my life - maybe you're even right, I'm certainly not an expert myself on the specific battle and its terminology in history.
  As a more general comment, article titles are to some extent arbitrary. Both the Manual of Style and article titling policy are essentially guidelines, suggestions. They aren't irrefutable rules like WP:RS or WP:NPOV. As such, editors can't really be wrong with them. Their opinions are, at worst, different from the prevailing consensus, and consensus can change (the Manual of Style in 2021 is not the same as it was in 2006, and it won't be the same in 2036 - that's healthy and good). As such, people should chill out if somebody is "wrong" in a RM. If they really are out of step with the consensus, than the RM will be closed against them (as arguably happened to Nick-D here!). If the "wrong" side actually succeeds in a well-attended RM, then maybe the consensus was different than expected, but it's no tragedy either way. Dicklyon, if you're reading this, your constant assumption of bad faith in others is frustrating; please accept that not everyone will agree with you every time, and that's okay. You have your opinion, let me have mine. SnowFire (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I hear you justifying that it's OK to ignore the MOS; OK, you can have that opinion. But your comment to trust the article creator, who said 3 of 5 cited sources use caps, even though the actual number was 1 of 5, devalues my own contribution. I wasn't expecting you to necessarily take my word for it if you doubted my creditibility, but if you're not going to look into it you can at least notice that Nick's distraction by titles in the Google book search he linked makes him much less credible. You threw your weight behind a person shown to be spewing falsities. Yeah, like I said, you can feel that I was pissed. Nick opening an AN/I thread in parallel with the RM discussion was a big part of that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Your comment... devalues my own contribution." No! No, it doesn't. We don't round up the "wrong" side of an RFC and mock them for devaluing the "right" side of the RFC with their wrongness. The whole point of these discussions is for editors to offer their authentic, good faith !vote. If it's a weak or unconvincing !vote, the closer gives it little weight. That's it. If there's zero disagreement, there probably wasn't need to open an RFC / RM to begin with. SnowFire (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why should anyone take the word of someone who spews so much bile? Life's too short. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Raising concerns, at a wikiproject, about why participants in that project keep making arguments that defy our WP:P&G and directly contradict the sourcing, is not any kind of problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Also — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [251].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

break

Need to get back on track here. This is not about the RM itself, or which sources said what, this is about Dicklyon's behavior towards others, here, in that now-closed RM, and even now at an otherwise benign notification at milhist about said RM. Just because he doesn't agree with other editors, doesn't give him the right to badger his "opponents" with personal attack after personal attack, all with seeming impunity. Even if he is self-admittedly "pissed off", the MOS does not require such ardent defense that it gives a free pass to violate NPA. This ANI was filed 3 days ago, and as of an hour ago, the battleground mentality of this editor continues as he heaps more insults at others. - wolf 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wolf, I have no problem with good-faith pushback on my MOS work. But this should have been a cut-and-dried case, or at least a simpler RM discussion. Go back and look at how it should have finished up after my May 1 comment. Nick could have checked his "After the Battle" source and noticed that there too he was "distracted by titles"; he could have said OK, done. Instead he took it as an insult and withdrew from the discussion in a huff, so I did the move again. He still objected, so we went to RM, where he again posted "evidence" (from a Google Books search) that was again nothing but being distracted by titles. OK, this happens, I get it. So I pushed back on him, and on those who seconded him without looking at evidence or apparently being aware of capitalization guidelines. OK, this happens, I can deal with it. Then he opens an AN/I case to complain about my "behavior". That's going way beyond any normal discourse that the situation required. Then he invites the Milhist project (which already had it on their article alerts for any of them who cared, so was really an "extra" appeal beyond their ordinary), bringing in more long-time MOS-dislikers like you and @Keith-264:. So, it's me that should take shit for being very pissed off over all this? Sure, pile it on. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So now you're the victim? Have you even read your previous posts here, at the RM, and at MilHist? You abuse all and sundry and then blame your behaviour on them? DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I blame them for most of the drama here and elsewhere, caused by the ridiculous things they wrote. Yes, including you, whose comments I quoted at the project talk page and reaffirmed that I considered them to be "vacuous". And I got to look up both "hectoring" and "vacuous", so it's not all bad. Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Those who make poor arguments are not in a position to complain they're being mistreated when called on the poor quality of those arguments. We do that 24/7, and that is what is happening here. This is an encyclopedia-building project not a social network, so all this overly emotive "hurt feelings" posturing is sorely misplaced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest and Dick is waving a straw man. You should quit while you're ahead. Keith-264 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Huh? You don't seem to have read WP:Conflict of interest or straw man, since neither of them seem to be pertinent to this discussion. Happening to agree with Dicklyon's criticisms of some of the MILHIST participants' transparently bogus and anti-source, anti-guideline argumentation, which increasingly borders on disruptive, is not any kind of conflict of interest, it's simply sensible. Dicklyon making observations that others are unhappy about isn't a straw man, even if they disagree with them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have a short memory. Keith-264 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is just another non sequitur. Do you have any actually meaningful input into this thread, or are you just going to try to pick more fights? This is hardly a good venue for such an activity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by Thewolfchild

In addition to blatantly canvassing his buddies at MILHIST to come to this ANI [252] (cf. WP:POVRAILROAD), Thewolfchild complains about Dicklyon's alleged "behavior towards others". Let's look at some behavior like Thewolfchild calling him a dick [253] and implying that he is incapable of civility, which is obviously a false accusation, and grossly hypocritical. Probably blockworthy in and of itself: he's clearly trying to make a penis joke out of Dicklyon's name, in a addition to calling him a dick in a jerk sense. The WP:DICK shortcut was deprecated years ago, so Thewolfchild is going out of his way to use it in this case, against community consensus to not use it. I have delivered [254] to Thewolfchild a {{Ds/alert|at}}, since this kind of behavior is not permissible in discussions about article titles, which are covered by discretionary sanctions. It's not at all like raising issues, as Dicklyon did, about editors making arguments that defy the sources and the WP:P&G; Thewolfchild's behavior is just verbal aggression for its own sake. If Thewolfchild will not learn from this (questionable, given this childish and again hypocritical tit-for-tat and missing-the-point behavior [255]) and will not refrain from similar uncivil behavior in future article-titling discussions, then it should simply go to WP:ANI for swift resolution next time. Thewolfchild would hardly be the first editor topic-banned from such discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SMcCandlish

In a post which can only be described as hypocritical and disingenuous, SMcCandlish (SMc) has left out his own personal attacks; one the false accusation of canvassing (isn't that how all this started?), the other conveniently hidden in an edit summary on his talk page, while reverting an edit I made so that only I would see it. This is right after abusing a DS sanction notice, with the clear intent of having a chilling effect on further posts by me to this ANI. An ANI he now tries to derail with this sudden "stop-looking-at-my-friend-Dicklyon-and-instead-look-at-the-Thewolfchild!" left turn. WP:DICK is a redirect to an active Meta essay on behavior. As SMc's diff shows, it was used as a redirect, piped with the word "nature", as in "the nature of Dicklyon's behavior is addressed by the 'don't be a jerk' essay". There was absolutely no "dick joke" being made at the expense of Dicklyons first name, I think the accusation is crude and obnoxious, and not only does SMc owe me an apology for this blantant lie, but one to Dicklyon as well, as it seems SMc will stop at nothing, including the humiliation of his own friend, with this nonsense. Lastly, this ANI is about Dicklyon's behavior, not mine. If SMc really feels I committed "blockable behavior", then that should merit it's own ANI report, not an attempt-at-distraction subsection of this report, that had the obvious additional benefit of not requiring a notification to my talk page (I wasn't even pinged). If SMc is going to preach the high road, he should also walk it. - wolf 00:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This kind habitual (see previous diff above) "No I'm not! You are!" schoolyard-style parroting/projection tit-for-tat is not constructive, and is simply further strong evidence of Thewolfchild's ingrained battleground behavior and NOTGETTINGIT approach to criticism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet, I've actually had very little involvement with this entire matter. A !vote at the RM, then a couple of responses to the badgering that was taking place, and then I disengaged. I posted a comment at the milhist notice, was again badgered, and again was the one to disengage. I only posted 4 brief responses in total, on both pages. Then 2 whole days go by. Then I post a single comment here, at the subsection "(break)", asking that this ANI stay on point, and all of a sudden you are on me, with your wiki-wp:essay-salad, battleground attacks, accusations, bogus sanction notices, (iow: threats), all seemingly with zero self-awareness. You keep posting repeated personal attacks while claiming I'm somehow... disrupting... something...

All I can say is, this isn't about me and you need to stop making it about you, this particular report is about your friend, Dicklyon. You seem really desperate to derail this report into the typical tl:dr dreck that admins usually don't bother with. Multiple editors have asked that Dicklyon's behavior be reviewed, how about you just let the process run through without the detours. Can you do that? Can you stop the must-have-last-word-posts with every. single. editor. and just let this report run it's course? I think we're done here. - wolf 07:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's have an RfC and be done with it

This thread seems to be getting to the part of a Monty Python skit where a policeman shows up and stops it because it's getting too silly. Clearly, there are larger issues going on here than this specific editor, or this specific RM.

I'm currently involved in a very long argument with Dicklyon, at Talk:Extremely_Online#Requested_move_27_April_2021 (for the record, I think he's wrong, and that the article's title should be capitalized). Nevertheless, he has made reasonable arguments, and been honorable about it. He's been insistent, which is not the same thing as acting in bad faith. In fact, I wish that everyone I argued with on Wikipedia were this reasonable about it.

One thing I'd like to point out here is that, if you look on his talk page (or even in this thread) you can see that he is far from alone in his opinions about capitalization in titles. Maybe he is right, and maybe he is wrong, but it certainly doesn't seem like he is just some lone yahoo.

Since it doesn't seem like there is a project-wide consensus one way or the other, and everyone seems to think that the PAGs support a different point of view, I think we should have an RfC somewhere (perhaps at WT:MOS) to clarify the scope of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. This seems to me like the only way that anyone is going to be satisfied on the issue (least of all an increasingly Mad Online thread at AN/I). jp×g 05:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess that means you don't have a long memory of all the RFCs we've had on the MOS, including CAPS. There's a pretty strong consensus behind it, historically, though it's a continuing job to uniformly implement it. Almost all new articles that aren't obviously proper names still get created in title case, as most editors just aren't that familiar with the MOS, or they just like to cap things important to them, like Extremely Online. And yes, I appreciate your civil discourse there, though I disagree with the crux of your argument ("There is a difference between a simple conjunction of two words and a coherent concept being referred to by their conjunction.") since that's not how our MOS says to decide what to capitalize. If that was the criterion, almost every two-word concept that we name an article for would get caps, including Mons Pocket. For example, I just clicked "random article" until I found a two-word title not capped: Prague derby; now, I'm sure many will look at that and say that's the name of a thing, it should be capitalized. But if you look at news, or books, you'll see it's usually not; so we leave it lowercase (this one was not created in title case, but many are, and get moved to lowercase, like Extremely Online will). Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the call for a content RfC is outside the scope of this ANI report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Outside the scope, yes, but not a bad idea. To the extent that issues continue to crop up with how policy is interpreted, we should have a process to refine those statements of policy to make it clear how it is to apply in those particular situations. BD2412 T 16:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a bad idea, because it's the wrong process. Article titles are not determined by RfC, but by RM, which are near-identical processes. That is, WP:RM is RfC, for titles. That is to say, the RfC you want to see happen has already happened. Ergo, you are effectively asking for license to WP:Forum shop to a variant process any time someone doesn't like the outcome of the proper process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: That's why I specifically said it should be started somewhere (perhaps at WT:MOS), which is where content disputes (i.e. the majority of this thread, unless I am missing something) belong. jp×g 19:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side point: There is in fact a site-wide consensus on this sort of matter, named MOS:CAPS. The distilled gist of it (and its first rule) is: if reliable sources do not near-consistently capitalize something then it should not be capitalized on Wikipedia. Various editors dislike this rule and will engage in both logic contortions (and in this case even source denial), and a "never give up, never surrender" approach to get their way (in a vein of "It didn't work this time, so I'll try again later, again and again until I WP:WIN"). A few editors make the same already-rejected arguments in favor of over-capitalization dozens of times at RMs spanning years, and refuse to accept the lower-case results that emerge again and again and again. The fact is that as a WP:P&G matter they are in the wrong about the vast majority of capitalization questions. The seemingly dire urge some people exhibit to over-capitalize things (especially jargonistic terms particular to certain fields/interests, because people steeped in them tend to capitalize them when writing to/for other people steeped in the same topic, versus how general-audience sources – like Wikipedia – are written) is the no. 1 cause of disputation about article titles, and also the no. 1 source of strife about all MoS matters combined. This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild, and WP:GANGs of editors at habitually over-capitalizing wikiprojects, get away with aggressive "style warrior" battlegrounding about their pet topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

S, thanks for changing "Many editors" to "A few editors". It really is just a few. The vast majority of Milhist editors are non-problematic (except that maybe they hang back and are afraid to contradict some of their fellows). Some do speak up in favor of following MOS:CAPS on occasion, which is good to see. If I've come across as criticizing the project or its members, I apologize for that. But the project is the place where some of the over-capitalizers find each other and support each other without evidence, sometimes. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the number of "defy the MoS until I die" sorts can be counted on one to two hands; "Many" got left in accidentally because the original setencence was going to begin something like "Many of these problem can be traced to editors who ...". Anyway, it's entirely appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page when they involve what amounts to organized activity on behalf of the wikiproject by some of its more vociferous participants. Wikiprojects – the principle purpose of which is centralizing topical discussion – can't have it both ways. If they want topic-related discussion that makes them happy to be gathered there, they're going to have to accept some critical commentary there as well, when it pertains to more than sole-individual behavior but pertains to group activity, which is the case here. It's always the case (cf. the bird capitalization fiasco, most memorably) that various wikiproject participants are not going along with whatever the "anti-guideline rebellion" is, if one is happening and is centered on a wikiproject. Being critical of the group for entertaining such unconstructive antics is not an individual crticism of much less an attack on every single wikiproject participant. People in wikiprojects also have to remember (and sometimes need to be reminded) that they are not walled gardens, private parties, or separate membership organizations. They are nothing but pages at which editors – any editors – can collaborate, provide information, and raise concerns that are on-topic (or in this case, on-meta-topic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Thank you for clarifying your remarks about MilHist. @SMcCandlish: For the record, I closed the RM discussion notice on MilHist talk because it wasn't about "critical commentary" but a mudslinging contest. And I still strongly object to Nick-D's original comment being characterized as CANVASSing. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that mudslinging. As or the canvassing, I don't know how else to see it. These things get automatically posted to the project's article alerts, and when a member makes an extra special appeal for participation, it brings in mainly those who agree with him, as it did here. Nick-D's notice of 10:05, 4 May 2021 was followed by comments from members Keith-264 and Buckshot06 (and DuncanHill, not a member, who echoed him). They said nothing useful, but added fuel to the fire. Also SnowFire and Thewolfchild seem to be (in my past experience) associated with military stuff, members or not. I don't know who watches that page, but it didn't really need this extra call to action. Thewolfchild perhaps still carries a grudge from when one of his ship names lost its comma after a protracted discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that closing that thread was a good idea. Has anyone suggested otherwise? What is Indy_beetle complaining about, in other words. Well, beyond the repeated obvious: yeah, Indy_beetle, you've made it clear already that you're upset about the canvassing claim. No need to beleaguer the point. And just being huffy about it is not a convincing argument. While the wording of the notice – delivered only to MILHIST not to any other wikiproject or other venue – was neutral, the intent and effect of it clearly was not, or the same notice would have gone to other venues, at bare mimimum WT:WikiProject Belgium. It was a rallying cry to MILHIST. It not having been the worst kind of canvassing doesn't make it non-canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: That wasn't meant as a "complaint". In response to your previous comment involving "appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page", I wanted to make it clear I wasn't attempting to shutdown the expressing of concerns by closing the thread. The point about CANVASS re Nick-D and Milhist is because you are discussing the behavior of Milhist. When you are confused about something I say, you can always just ask me for clarification, instead of posing rhetorical questions to the whole discussion group and then condescend me. FTR, posting notices about RfCs, AfDs, etc. in milhist even though they are already listed at project notifications is a very common thing. Also, MilHist is actually active enough to where a notice will at least be read by someone who will go and comment. Speaking for myself, it usually doesn't occur to me post a notice involving a milhist topic in other wikiprojects because most simply aren't very active. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

MILHIST isn't an entity and doesn't have behavior; it's a page at which any editors may topically collaborate. Much of the problems surrounding wikiprojects is the false feeling of belonging to a private "walled garden" membership organization that makes up its own rules and norms and which exercises control over a category. That is not what wikiprojects are. Anyway, whether a particular kind of low-grade canvassing is common doesn't make it non-canvassing. There's a big difference between notifying all relevant projects and notifying just one stocked to the gills with people who agree with one's "capitalize all this military stuff just because military people like to capitalize it" views.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I posted a single comment about what I felt was an unfounded accusation and personal attack. It seems some others agree with me. I didn't initiate this and there is no ulterior motive. The whole comma thing was five years ago. I'd forgotten about it, perhaps you should let it go. - wolf 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild...". So, specifically naming me and me only? Out of all of this, the ANI, the RM, the MILHIST notice, how do you even remotely justify this? This just equates to another attack, bordering on some bizarre WP:GRUDGE, and if anything is the antithesis of "winding things down". If that is really your intention, then you need to let this go. - wolf 17:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I not-at-all-remotely, but quite clearly, justify it by your behavior standing out as especially crappy, as I've already demonstrated with diffs. I have nothing to let go. I'd already moved on from this conversation to other things. ANI threads many examine the behavior any/all involved parties, and they frequently come to a WP:BOOMERANG conclusion, or to a decision to sanction multiple editors. That either will or will not happen in this case, based on the evidence. If it you escape sanction, this remains evidence that will resurface if your attacky and battlegrounding behavior resumes. That is all. Presenting what amounts to an argument that your behavior should be immune from examination and that ANI participants who choose to examine are doing you a terrible wrong, is not going to have any effect here. That's not how ANI works. Hell, that's not how any of WP works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A contrarian view

Well, I'll call it a contrarian view here, though I'm not sure I wouldn't be in the majority if a truly site-wide survey could somehow be taken. I've never really understood why the editors within major groups of articles, with demonstrated subject-matter expertise, shouldn't be relied upon to decide the capitalization of those articles. A site-wide MOS that avoids repetitious subject-by-subject or article-by-article or even sentence-by-sentence debates over the same issues is desirable on many usage topics. Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki. The efforts for MOS-driven uniformity in this area therefore strike me as unattainable, and the emphasis on the importance of uniformity as excessive. There have always been a handful of editors, I will mention no names, who push for lower-casing of article titles even where the editors active in creating and maintaining the articles, and with the greatest expertise in the subject-matters of the article content, all assert and offer ample evidence that upper-casing is the convention in those areas. For more than ten years, forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has weakened some of their good-feelings for and interest in Wikipedia as a whole. With all respect to everyone's good faith here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that these aggressive forced-capitalization-uniformity efforts are a worthwhile overall contribution to the well-being of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I totally agree. It would be much better for the encyclopedia if those with a super-human interest in fixing six million titles were kept well away from the dwindling community of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, John, if you're referring to me, note that I've created over a hundred articles and uploaded about a thousand photos, among other things. Besides creating content, I have a focus on style. Hope that's OK, too. I don't think I'll get to looking at millions of articles, but I've done case fixes in thousands at least; maybe tens of thousands. Do let me know if you see any I got wrong. Thanks for your interest. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  And that's a farcical false dichotomy of the same sort as "all those liberals should just get a job".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed. Forced uniformity tends to have more downsides on a community level than advantages, especially when our house style is at odds with scholarly style. (The German Wikipedia's disgusting (to me) house style is one reason why I don't contribute to mathematics articles there: they follow some "official" recommendations that nobody else uses). —Kusma (t·c) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree (per my comment below). jp×g 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  If you can take a bit more "hectoring", please say what you agree with here, and why; maybe reference what I said to NYB below. I can see how one might legitimately agree with "I've never really understood...", but are you agreeing that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki."? If so, do you have a reason for such belief? Or do you believe that "forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors" is a sensible thing to assert? Is there any evidence of "forced lowercasing" (against consensus in RM discussions)? I remain puzzled. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: Well, I think most people who've participated in these arguments about page titles have said it's unpleasant, or something which paraphrases to that. As for myself, I don't mind it that much, but I do see it as another item in a litany of strange arguments I have to deal with if I write articles on Wikipedia, especially on out-there subjects like Internet culture. I think the majority of lowercase moves (Winograd Schema Challenge → Winograd schema challenge) are correct, but there's a lot of them that seem to rile people up, as we can see here. Regarding consensus, well, I think we can all admit that consensus is to some extent biased by who shows up. If people were to change the spelling of some word in a thousand articles, and start talk page discussions on each page, I think it's quite likely most of the edits would stick, regardless of how right they were, because most people don't like arguing on talk pages. This would also probably be true if an RfC was filed for each one (and advertised on a list of currently open RfCs regarding capitalization). Most people do not care about arguing on Wikipedia, especially not with editors who are both rhetorically skilled and persistent in making their point; I'd say a majority of talk page arguments get resolved by one of the parties getting tired of responding, rather than a real consensus being reached.

  If you'll excuse me getting personal for a minute, this whole ordeal seems strangely trivial compared to other stuff you've done – for example, I've used dozens of your very excellent aerial photos in my articles about islands in the Bay and in the Delta. Many of your articles are sourced well and written well, despite being about very difficult technical concepts. I hate to say that anything is a waste of talent, since I have myself made tens of thousands of edits doing stuff like recent-changes patrol, but I would much rather be collaborating with you for a featured topic on the hydrology of Santa Clara County than arguing with you on AN/I about page capitalization. jp×g 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  I try to be pretty careful, and usually succeed in not riling people up. About 99% of my moves never get a comment; the ones that go to RM are the controversial ones, and all points of few are heard there. The points of view that just say say "I likes my caps because it's important and unique" shouldn't get much weight, but do tend to get seconded, adding to the noise. Often, a real consensus is reached; sometimes they close without consensus. That shouldn't keep us from trying to improve the encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

NYB, I hear you, and acknowledge that sometimes project members want to have their own project style that deviates from the central consensus as embodied in guidance such as the MOS. But members with that idea have not convinced even the larger project, in discussions where they've tried. And I disagree with your premise that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki." That's not what's happening here. Military historians have varying styles among them, but do not generally capitalize "Mons pocket", or any of the other things that I've worked on moving toward Wikipedia style. A few do, but that's not indicative of anything about the "topic or profession or area of expertise". Rather, what you see is the tendency, in all topic areas, for editors to capitalize what's important to them. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me like there is a "central consensus" in this discussion, or indeed, in most of them, on what constitutes a proper name (which is the subject of most of the contention, if I understand correctly). I think that a guideline (or a guideline section, or a supplement) specifically outlining what a "proper name" is would go a long way toward resolving these; even in the case that consensus wasn't established, having the guideline say "consensus isn't established" would be better than having it say something vague (or nothing at all) which everyone interprets as obviously agreeing with them. jp×g 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, a consensus on "what constitutes a proper name" is a tricky one! That's why at MOS:CAPS the consensus is around the more practical criterion "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason for the kerfluffle here is that an experienced expert editor/admin wouldn't admit that the term he wanted to capitalize was capitalized in only a small minority of sources, argued that it was "close to half" (which it was not, as I showed him) and that that should be enough in spite of the guideline, and then came to AN/I because I pushed back on his nonsense and those who jumped in with support with no reason given. This thread should never have been opened. But as long as you want to keep it going, I'll keep explaining and pushing back on nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to NYB, the line between "expert" and "fanboy" on Wikipedia is not easily discernable, and I don't think it sets a good precedent to allow a small group of people to contravene MOS according to their own style preferences. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The current situation is that there is a small group of people willing to spend days arguing about the capitalization of a title. That small group dominates MOS and then has their own consensus to spread irritation throughout the project. The issue is not whether This Is Bad and this is good—it's whether the benefit of this is good outweighs the disruption. There are lots of gnomes and vandal reverters, but there are not many good editors with specialty knowledge and who are willing to invest time maintaining core articles. Perhaps the benefit of all titles being perfect is not worth irritating those who maintain articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Being among those who maintain articles, I can agree that disruption sometimes wastes my time and is irritating. Like when a user in a simple style dispute complains about it at AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The super-obvious logic problems here are already covered in detail at WP:SSF. The gist is that virtually every specialization likes to over-capitalize a whole lot of stuff, when specialists are writing for other specialists. This capitalization for "signification" emphasis is completely meaningless to non-experts and just looks like shitty writing. It doesn't actually signify anything to them. Meanwhile, the experts are entirely used to the fact that outside their own materials people don't write that way. Just going withi "specialist caps" would have a lot of negative results, including the aformentioend problem of most readers thinking WP editors don't know how to use English properly, to the fact that if nearly every subject's experts like to excessively capitalize within their field, then basically everything under the sun would end up capitalized on WP, since nearly everything is the subject of one specialization or another (sometimes more than one, with conflict over-capitalization habits!). Next "participant in a topical wikiproject" != "subject-matter expert", but Newyorkbrad leads with the opposite assumption, itself transgressive of WP's anti-credentialist norms, and see also WP:OWN and WP:VESTED, and over a decade of ArbCom rulings that a) wikiprojects and other gaggles of editors cannot lay controling claim to any subject or category, and b) they cannot make up their own rules against site-wide policies, guidelines, and norms. Putting a stop to attempts to do so is the very reason we implemented WP:CONLEVEL policy. Finally, the entire purpose of a style guide is consistency, and yes sometimes this comes at the cost of convenience or personal, even professional, preferences.

It is never going to happen that any given line item in any style guide will please everyone, or that any given person will agree with every line item in any style guide. Otherwise, there would be no need for style guides to exist, since everyone would already be in agreement. They are compromises, by definition. WP implemented a style guide nearly from the start because squabbling half-to-death over style trivia was consuming too much editorial time and goodwill. These silly anti-MoS posturings that people come up with from time to time (which really amount to "I can't get my way on my favorite pet peeve", or NYB's variant here which resolves to "everyone should get their way on their pet peeves" and which of course falls apart the instant two people have conflictig pet peeves, which is why we have MoS, remember?) rely on a fantasy-land scenario in which MoS is causing style disputes and they would go away if we got rid of MoS (or some big chunk of it). In reality, MoS prevents about 95% of style distputes, and WP's daily activity would consist of little but an endless firehose of style disputes being waged page by page if we did not have MoS. We have as many style disputes as we still do only because a) people don't read MoS (which is long, and is really intended as a "gnome" cleanup reference; we expect that people will just write however they like and someone else will normalize it later), and b) certain processes like RM encourge page-at-a-time argument and, frankly, relitigation. This could in part be fixed by having a rule to speedily close any RM the question of which is already answered by the style guide.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to frame the dispute over uppercasing as happening between serious encyclopedia editors and fanboys (or, indeed, fangirls). Let's say, for example, that an article called "Pradley's Kiki" is renamed to "Pradley's kiki": we'd expect a bunch of kiki enthusiasts (or experts, or fanboys) to show up in the resulting argument. This doesn't imply bad faith: it's just unlikely that anyone else would give a damn about these articles at all. We could then come up with a laundry-list of reasons why their arguments were prima facie not credible, which would always be true regardless of the merits of the move: we could accuse them of being out to advocate for Pradley's Kiki at the expense of the rest of the encyclopedia, since they focus most of their attention on that instead of MoS arguments. If there was one of them we could say "well, look, it's just one person engaging on a lone crusade" and if there were a bunch of them we could say "well, look, this is clearly an organized gang of editors". Moreover, I'm not sure why a group of people who focus a lot of editing attention on the narrowly defined subjects of military history, or electrical engineering, or underwater basket-weaving would be discredited by simple virtue of this, but a group of people who focus a lot of their editing attention on the narrowly defined subject of MoS arguing wouldn't. What does seem true to me is that people disagree about an interpretation of MoS, and having the same argument to convince 20 separate groups of people to agree with one interpretation of a vaguely written guideline seems like a waste of time when you could just do an RfC to change it to a more unambiguous wording (and the more correct you are, the more of a good idea this is). jp×g 22:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

MoS

After reading up on all the various pages, to see what the kerfuffle's about, and yes, I believe that much of this is well-intended, but really, the thought that keeps coming to mind is: are you all intentionally trying for a listing at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars?

If the issue causing contention is some policy or guideline, and in good faith you all believe it should be amended, then please start an RfC at the VP. It doesn't matter how longstanding - if it needs to be amended, then it needs to be amended.

Policy and guidelines are only healthy if they are living documents, not stone-engraved aedifaces. - jc37 07:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're proposing to amend, or in what direction. The MOS is amended continuously based on discussions and RFCs and such, and the capitalization guidance has evolved to have wide consensus support. It is indeed a healthy living document, not a stone tablet. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's no edit war related to this thread, so going for the "lamest" would be lame. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. WT:MOS is one of the most heavily watchlisted and active guideline talk pages on the whole system, and counting the subpages like WT:MOSCAPS, WP:MOSNUM, etc., MoS talk probably dwarfs all the others. The fact that (see above) any given editor is almost certain to wish that some line item or other in MoS said something different, there will always be a large number of people with a generalized bone to pick about "something in MoS", but this does not mean MoS as a whole lacks consensus. By way of analogy, nearly everyone I know is mad at "the government" about something (a different something from person to person), but this does not demonstrate any particular problem with the government, nor mean that anarchy is about to be declared because the public has lost faith in having the government exist and generally do what it does.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Hectoring (capped in honor of my old bud Hector Levesque, author of "The Winograd Schema Challenge"), I just downcased Winograd schema challenge. Is this "forced"? Is it wrong? I don't think so. I do such things every day, and seldom get any pushback, because it's right, within Wikipedia style, to not cap things that aren't consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Good move, per MOS:DOCTCAPS. As an adjuct to Turing test, which we do not capitalize as Turing Test, why would Winograde schema challenge be capitalized? These are not titles of published works, or other sorts of proper noun.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You both appear to have missed what I was saying. I really have no opion / I don't care about the content debate. What I was saying is that (except the very few legal-related ones), no policy or guideline on Wikipedia should be considered sacrosanct/engraved in stone. If in doubt, start an RfC. If there is (or isn't) consensus, that should easily come through. And doing so is far better than edit warring (regardless of whether that is revert warring, or warring on a talk page). - jc37 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, nobody is edit warring. And yes, if someone is in doubt that the current guidelines or policies still have consensus, they can always open an RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Move to close

The underlying move discussion concluded, and there's no ongoing interaction to speak of, and nobody is clamoring to sanction anybody, and people have expressed what they think of the MOS, so could some admin just put this out of its misery? Last call for rejoinders to SMcCandlish's rejoinders... Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lcha2011 and creating hoaxes

• Lcha2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone please have a look at the contributions of this user and decide if a block is required please? This editor has been here since January, but almost every single article and draft they have created since joining has been G3 speedy deleted as a hoax (one was G1'd as incomprehensible nonsense). Most of this user's contributions have been focused around writing articles on flags that they made up and drawn in MS-paint, but they have also created pages on a non-existent disease, a non-existent territory and a nonsensical addition to the manual of style. This editor doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia (i.e. it's not a host for stuff they've made up) and they seem to lack the competence to edit here constructively. There's also a load of hoax flags by this user uploaded to commons which will need cleaning up. Thanks, 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They've had loads of warnings, so a block is appropriate. I'll put a temporary one on for disruptive editing and see if that does the trick. Deb (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They didn't get the message after the earlier deletions and my welcome/warning. Fences&Windows 14:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The definite article

User:Mardus has gotten it into their head that cars (or electronics or other things) with a number in their name do not use the definite article. I.e., they believe that the iPhone 6 does not deserve a "the", nor does the Mercedes 220 or, in the case in question, the GAZ-24. They refer to themselves as an en-3 user but still fully believe that every applicable article on Wikipedia has been grammatically incorrect until they discovered this last week. Please can someone come and weigh in? I just noticed that they started a conversation of sorts HERE, maybe that's the best place to engage. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I pointed him at a more appropriate venue for that proposal. Why are you at AN/I with this? Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure where to go. RFC? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

AN/I is for incidents that need an admin intervention, generally. This sounds more like a simple content dispute. Talk to him first. Then look at WP:DR. If an RFC is needed, then yes, do that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This actually has become a behavioral issue and has become disruptive. I've asked Mardus to stop. —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This one's really gotten under your skin, V. EEng 13:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That's The V to you. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

V for vivacious. EEng 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Or just vicious. I can do both. —valereee (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Definite Article would be a great name for a Wikipedia newsletter. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Flag icon topic ban user:Pyrope

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pyrope began a discussion on my talk page about removing flag icons from some motorsport articles and the documentation of {{Infobox racing driver}}[256][257] Rocknrollmancer contributed and I replied. Pyrope replied. So far so good.

As I was writing a response, addressing the substance of the issues, I ran into an edit conflict because Pyrope had added personal attacks and wild accusations: "I take your threat of bullying quite seriously here, Dennis" accusing me of saying "we can raise more unthinking MoS fundamentalists than you can find people who know what they are talking about" as well as adding "your argument is not only intellectually and morally bankrupt".

These accusations are because I said if they want to propose giving all motorsports an exemption from MOS:FLAG, the WP:Snowball clause likely applies.

This is so bizarre that I decided it was pointless to continue to engage with this person, particularly on my own talk page. I removed their comments from my talk page, with the edit summary "I was going to reply to that first posts but you went and had to add something rude and insulting. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Get off my talk page and don't come back."

Pyrope reverted, with the edit summar "point out the rude bit", which verifies they read my edit summary telling them to stop posting on my talk page. This made it necessary to remove their comments again, and post a warning pointing out they had violated WP:TALK by returning to my talk page after they were aware I had banned them from posting there. What followed was a discussion of civility and talk page rules where Pyrope made several more personal attacks and confirmed that it was pointless to attempt to reason with them. First I was accused of making "threats" when I predicted a dozen editors would oppose an RfC to exempt motorsports from the MOS:FLAG rules.

After a couple days I proceeded with an RfC to clarify whether or not the motorsport WikiProjects wanted an exemption from MOS:FLAG. I was surprised that, at least at first, they said they didn't. Instead they said motorsports in fact met the criteria, which is very hard for me to understand.

After a very lengthy discussion, one editor, Tvx1, seemed to be on the verge of realizing that they really did want an exemption so that motorsports topics didn't have to show direct evidence that competitors are official representatives of a country. Which is actually fine. Their argument seems to be to be guided by the practice of most reliable sources, rather than strictly adhere to the standard of being an official representative.

In any case, this set Pyrope off again, causing them to post as series of insults, accusations and personal attacks, calling me "underhand and disingenuous", accusing me of "saying one thing and trying to do another" and of having "an axe to grind rather than a genuine intention to improve this encyclopedia."

Before coming here, I posted a final warning, asking them to remove the insults and attacks, and focus on content. Unfortunately, they stuck to their accusations.

An order to remove their personal attacks and sin no more might be enough. Or a topic ban on flag icon related issues might be necessary. A ban on motorsports would work but is probably overly broad based on what I've seen. All I'm asking for is to not have to wade through personal attacks while dealing with an already contentious topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I invite anyone who wants to get involved here to please go and actually read all the discussion already entered into, as the description above is littered with misrepresentations and straight falsehoods, as were his previous comments in the discussions in question. In complaining about this behaviour I appear to have irritated Dennis, and his response was to go on the attack. Hey ho, another day at Wikipedia. Pyrope 03:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I also note that his setting up of this AIN as a request for a topic ban (of pretty much the only topic I edit within... nice) rather than a simple complaint about behaviour is rather consistent with the bullying and aggressive manner in which Dennis has so far conducted himself. Pyrope 03:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If you hate the idea of a topic ban so much, how about "delete the personal attacks and don't post any more personal attacks"? You could implement that right now and we'd be done. You're insisting everyone at ANI has to invest their time in this because you won't do that. Why? What's the point? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

As I haven't made any personal attacks (justified criticism is not a personal attack) there is nothing to delete. You've had quite a lengthy say in this ANI already, please now leave it for others to take an independent look. Pyrope 04:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At first, this seems like an ordinary content dispute, but [Dennis Bratland's] argument is not only intellectually and morally bankrupt (diff) and kevball dingbats (Special:Diff/1022465852) are personal attacks, so Pyrope (talk · contribs) has definitely been uncivil in this discussion.

But Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) has also demonstrated a lack of understanding of motorsports, as judged by their comments on Template_talk:Infobox_racing_driver and replies by Tvx1 (talk · contribs). Bratland has repeatedly asserted, based on their interpretation of the official rules, that racing drivers do not officially represent a country in international motorsports, and thus that national flags cannot be assigned to racing drivers per MOS:FLAG. Other users have pointed out that these arguments are incorrect, and I note that Bratland has never used a secondary source to back their argument, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bratland ended up topic-banned from motorsports. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying that an argument is “intellectually and morally bankrupt” isn’t the same as saying Dennis Bratland is intellectually and morally bankrupt. One of those isn’t a personal attack, whatever else it is. I’m not sure what “kevball dingbats” are but even on the assumption that it’s not complimentary, the context doesn’t appear to be that they are calling Dennis Bratland a “kevball dingbat”. Not commenting on the rest of this - except it looks a bit trivial for ANI. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed to a topic ban. I'm pretty appalled that this request was even posted. The accused editor has not made any controversial edits concerning flags so imposing a topic ban would be laughable. This is merely a disagreement over mutual civility. The OP is really overreacting though. I agree with DeCausa that Pyrope's comments relate to the argument, no the person.Tvx1 12:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. What is this even doing here? Criticising someone's argument is not a personal attack, and as above, I'm not sure what kevball dingbats are, but it doesn't sound particularly egregious to me. Not only is Bratland's claim that racing drivers do not represent their countries in international motor racing incorrect, it proves that he has never read any of the acres of discussion about the topic. How on earth any of this merits a discussion about a topic ban, I have no idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Now SSSB is changing key words that are the crux of an open RfC about MOS:FLAG. Seems legit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was reverting an major, yet undiscussed, change of wording, so it is legit.
  SSSB (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

After disingenuously moving the goal posts, you go on insulting me, calling me a hypocrite. I directly quoted the MOS in this simple, one-sentence RfC question. Everyone read it. Tvx1 doubled down again and again on that wording[258][259][260]. They insisted drivers are official representatives. For days I was harangued with taunts from blowhards mansplaining racing to me. I was called names, accused of bad faith and underhanded ulterior motives, and belittled because I don't get motorsports lke they do.[261][262]

Pyrope insisted "International motorsports drivers are just as officially representatives of their nations".

And now, all of a sudden today, you guys realize I was right: motorsports doesn't adhere to the "official representative" standard. Very simple, and we all knew it. I expected you to !vote opposed to the RfC for that simple reason and then we could all proceed to sort this out after making clear where we stood. You're trying to gaslight me.[263] Pretending what you've been saying all along was a whole different standard, proving once more what an ignorant fool I am.

At a minimum, Pyrope, Tvx1 and SSSB need to withdraw their numerous insults and attacks on me, and admit my point from Day 1 was legitimate. They need to admit they were wrong trying to claim drivers officially represent countries, no good sources verify they are official representatives, and what they really want is to either exempt motorsports from MOS:FLAG, or write a different standard altogether.

If these editors refuse to own up to their gaslighting, bullying, dishonest behavior, I think a topic ban from the subject of flag icons is appropriate.

Now that we all agree drivers aren't official representatives (though some of us are unwilling to be honest about it) I think a good solution is possible with a new RfC that gets to the heart of the matter: User:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC. From what I can tell, editors from across many sports-related WikiProjects will support the not-strictly-official option, because that's the de facto standard they follow anyway. It's what they want and they should be happy.

But I don't want to have to continue to deal with the bad faith, disruptive behavior of Pyrope, Tvx1, and SSSB. If they won't retract and admit what they've done, they need to be topic banned so everyone else can resolve this in a civl manner. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian YouTuber CarryMinati and suspected UPE

Two SPAs, U.G sam (talk · contribs) and Krish121 (talk · contribs) are repeatedly adding promotional content and spammy sources to the article CarryMinati, occasionally trying to whitewash the article [264], and name-dropping the subject in other articles, e.g. [265], [266]. The article is about an Indian YouTuber called Ajey Nagar (nicknamed CarryMinati), who has been promoted on Wikipedia by various users over a number of years – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carry Minati and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CarryMinati for some previous discussion of this. The article CarryMinati has now existed since December 2019. Since then it has been edited by sockpuppets of prolific UPE sockmaster Swarup Kumar Solanki (e.g. Vikas.bikaneri, VrajBMT), by Trusha.daware and Abhaas singh, both of whom have been blocked for advertising/UPE, and also by Roopika.n, a Trusha.daware sock. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trusha.daware/Archive, Trusha.daware was connected to the marketing outfit One Digital Entertainment, and CarryMinati is one of their clients, according to One Digital's website.

U.G sam is the more prolific user, with 230 edits of which I think two are not directly related to CarryMinati. Examples of U.G sam's edits include [267] and [268]. Krish121's edits include [269] and [270]. Some of their edits are OK seen in isolation, but the consistent pattern of adding as much trivia as possible, multiple sources that praise the subject, and the latest hype the minute it has been published is telling. I don't think they are sockpuppets since their styles are not quite similar enough, but they are certainly working together: Krish121 made this edit and reverted it again, and five minutes later (literally five minutes, not an exaggeration), U.G sam made this edit.

Both U.G sam and Krish121 have denied being paid, [271], [272], and [273]. They have been warned repeatedly against promotional editing; U.G sam has received three final warnings, Krish121 one, and both of them have edited since. On 15 April I asked both editors to use edit requests, [274] and [275], see also [276] and [277]. They have not done that – U.G. sam occasionally posts to Talk:CarryMinati but also edits the article directly. Today, U.G sam asked me and CptViral to create an article about a song performed by CarryMinati.

I suggest that both accounts should be blocked for UPE/advertising. --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

After posting the above, I saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krish121, where the CU result was "possible", different devices but similar geolocation. I think that tallies with what I say above. --bonadea contributions talk 10:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with this very complete report. Done. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC).

• I reported them to AIV, RFPP'd the page and opened a SPI... but I didn't think to make an AN/I thread about it! Anyway, I'm glad they are dealt with; someone ought to keep an eye on that article going forward because it looks like there have been lots of shenanigans with it lately. jp×g 21:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

108.167.78.36

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could I get a bot or an admin (if there is a tool for that) to do a "mass revert" of this user's edits, please? They are all vandalism, as they have now been blocked 4 seperate times for "vandalism" and "disruptive editing". Their edits, though, remain due to just how many of them there are. Some admin or bot assistance would be greatly appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I'm placing a lot of trust in you, Neutralhomer! I haven't looked at all the edits, obviously, but I have now rolled back all the ones that were the last in the histories (there's a tool for that), thereby seriously bloating my own contribs history. Bishonen | tålk 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: I appreciate that trust, I wouldn't have asked for something this major without just cause and a LOT of research on my end. I understand the pain in the butt that caused you and I appreciate your help. :) Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)

• @Neutralhomer and Bishonen: While a good number of edits were little more than link additions, some of the edits were legitimate, like XHFL-FM (Guanajuato) where the listed URL was replaced with the current one or KXPM-LP where the reliable source cited notes the station mostly airs Relevant Radio programs. Much more sifting through is needed, and I have already had to restore several reversions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Sammi Brie. See, I was worried this would happen. Still, on balance, considering the number of blocks for vandalism the IP has — most recently, a three-month block — and also considering Neutralhomer's research, the most realistic option seemed to be to use the mass rollback script. I've seen your reverts — I get notifications for them — and I was just thinking of posting on your page, to thank you for taking care of the no-good reverts you found, and to discuss the situation generally. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC).

• A lot of them removed very useful information from the pages, for example (the former broke code within the page the user didn't bother fixing). Most made no sense, like here where the anon left the branding in the lede (almost standard in most radio station pages) and would remove them from many other pages. While I'll concede that there may have been a dozen (maybe!) legit edits, the vandalism edits far outweighed anything legit the user added to the project since they got into this editing spree of theirs back in December 2020. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58 on May 15, 2021 (UTC)

• I know I may be affiliated with 108.167.78.36, but I do somewhat agree with Sammie Brie’s point. I know it may look like vandalism when actually it is improving the pages so they look the same as all of the other radio station pages. So I do notice some red flags showing that some of the pages are inaccurate again. Some of the edits are updates on station formats when they change when I don’t see 24.116.55.139 or whoever else making the change at the time. Some of these edits are from the information of the FCC websites and updating the technical information which now includes the frequency pages of the stations on that frequency from edits provided by DJV11181988. 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:adbb:e200:955:ecc7:9433:9750 (talk)

Well, per this and this, the above edit from 2605:A601:ADBB:E200:955:ECC7:9433:9750 is a self-admitted sock of 108.167.78.36. Just mad that they got blocked, for the fourth time, by an admin for vandalism, and their edits all reverted. Block evasion isn't the way to go about this. Any comments could be made in the form of a unblock request on their original talk page.

But the unblock request would have to be about how they won't vandalize the project. This user is talking about how things are "inaccurate" and there are "red flags" and things need "change[d]". That's what got them blocked in the first place....for vandalism. They don't seem to understand that this is the behavior that needs to be curtailed.

Regardless though, breaking block, using a sock, and doing what they are doing will just drag out the original block time, plus add a block to this sock account, which I am requesting. Until the user understands this is something they can not do and "red flags" and "change[s]" are things that got them in trouble in the first place, them editing here isn't a viable option. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Scratch the block request. I did request one via Izno (though I wasn't sure if he was available, hence my request here), but he did block the user for 3 months. Which is fine with me. He did, however, bring to my attention, that the anon user has been using this IPv6 range to circumvent their blocks for awhile now. A CU may be needed to check for further sockpuppets and sleepers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin protecting own talk page pre-emptively

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Favonian just misused their admin tools. Someone should come by and desysop them immediately. This is like blocking someone they’re involved with. --90.235.34.213 (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While, yes, no reason was given, I don't see how this amounts to anything approaching desysop territory. Regardless, our processes do not allow for someone to come by and desysop them immediately. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The report compared this to WP:INVOLVED, which contains a clause where an involved admin can take any obvious action that any other admin would take. In that light, semi-protecting their user talk page is an appropriate response to harassment by unregistered editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That talk page has been the target of an inordinate amount of harassment lately (including from someone from the same country and cellular data provider as you [283]), so it is not purely preemptive. I would have protected the talk page myself, if they had asked me, and another good thing is that they're only protecting it for up to a few hours or one day at a time. Nothing to see here. Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temp block of User:Quantupediholic

I've temporarily blocked Quantupediholic following an out of character edit by in which they dumped several megabytes of signature text into that page together with an intemperate edit comment. They seem to have been a constructive editor until this edit, so I've only blocked them for a short time, with a request for clarification on their talk page. I'm wondering if this might be an account compromise? -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The Anome Should've asked the user first what was going on before you made the block, and the edit you are talking about I assume was the one made at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox. That's a test page which was going to be reset by a bot anyway. Even though the block is short, I think it was the wrong action to take. Jerm (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Just want add that a ANI notice needs to be sent out once you file a report, even if you did ping them. I've sent one to Quantupediholic. Jerm (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My mobile phone froze for 2 minutes when I tried open that diff. One of the LTAs has a habit of spamming extremely large edits to the Sandbox, so I won't blame The Anome in this case for thinking something is fishy. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just discussed it with Quantupediholic, explaining why I made the block. It doesn't look like they've lost control of their account, so I've unblocked them now. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: Thank you; apologies for forgetting to do it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• If the problem was that the large edit might've potentially rendered the sandbox page inaccessible to some, the way to go was to politely explain it to the user; blocking him/her was unnecessary. @The Anome: "discussed with editor" isn't good enough; reading Quantupediholic's block log right now gives one the false impression that the block was justified even though it was anything but, and I suggest that you fix it to prevent your rash actions from eroding the editor's morale any further. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Leaving strange and cryptic messages, being generally disruptive

 Request withdrawn

This user user:InedibleHulk just leaves strange, cryptic messages and edit summaries all over Wikipedia. They recently came to my page with some nonsense about newts. I just thought they were a little weird at first, no problem, I like weird people. But they've been popping up a lot in my watch list recently and it all seems like they just post garbled nonsense. I have come to believe they are simply being disruptive, leaving masses of strange and incomprehensible messages and edit summaries. I'm not sure if they are WP:NOTHERE, or they are just not completely compus mentus? Regardless it needs to stop, surely? A brief look at their contributions will demonstrate what I'm talking about. A great many strange comments and edit summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=InedibleHulk Bacondrum 23:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't nonsense, and it wasn't a newt, it was a salamander (a literal one, in my actual basement). You brought up a strange book about fake newts, no idea why. Then you tell me I'm a good editor, mysteriously strike it, say you want nothing to do with me, then drag me here. I confuse you, you confuse me, let's ignore each other and read what we understand better instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Gladly. However, I think you should stop leaving cryptic messages and edit summaries. It's disruptive, I can't understand what you are on about half the time and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Bacondrum 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

As I recently advised DrewieStewie (no ping, he's studying), the summaries should not be read as a collection. One-for-one, they fairly clearly summarize their edits, but in a row, balderdash. Stick to my content, if anything (and if you can, singular male pronouns, "they" is weird to me). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I had a better look at your contributions and you clearly are a good contributor. I find your comments and summaries annoyingly cryptic and strange, but looks like I was wrong to assume you were doing it to disrupt. I will withdraw the ANI report. All the best. Bacondrum 23:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, when I first started encountering your edit summaries, I was just about as baffled as Bacondrum. I've since come around to "what a colorful Wikipedia character" and am now a fan of the mysterious summaries. There are some cases, still, where I think a more descriptive summary would be helpful. I find that you generally keep the color to talk pages, where I find descriptive edit summaries to be less important, and that your article space edit summaries often briefly describe what was changed and why. When you don't, it can occasionally worsen my editing experience.

All that said, I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who feels this is an "urgent incident" or a "chronic, intractable behavioral problem". I feel even more alienated from the NOTHERE suggestion. What? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've found them roughly the same. Even though we happened upon each other due to disagreeing about something I've found them civil and willing to discuss. A little color on talk pages, and some other project pages never hurt anyone and happening on a joke or interesting quip can often brighten a day. I certainly don't think their summaries or messages are disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers and ScottishFinnishRadish Fair enough, I may have seen malice where there is none, just a quirky sense of humour perhaps? I'll withdraw this report. Cheers. Bacondrum 23:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, it's an easy enough mistake to make when dealing with just text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SteveBenassi WP:NOTHERE: edit warring/intentionally disruptive edits

User:SteveBenassi made several disuptive edits in the past few days. He was blocked for 36 hours for edit warring, but has returned and claimed/admitted to have purposely broken Wikipedia policies to make a scene, with the intention of pushing a POV (stating that it was "worth it").

First he edit warred, adding disputed material (then under discussion at WP:RSN) at/to the Eran Elhaik, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Genetic studies on Jews, and Jewish history pages while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed WP:UNDUE. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion [[284]]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted again. Though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). He then added the disputed material to another page (Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. He later added the same disputed material to two other pages, Genetic studies on Jews and Jewish history (along with other somewhat controversial material, to the leads), and misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), he continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, despite being asked and warned more than once.

He then continued to edit war even more at Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry and was reverted and reported by User:Shrike at the edit warring noticeboard (I had made an earlier report here before that). He was blocked for 36 hours.

After SteveVenassi's temporary block, I thought my earlier ANI report was no longer necessary, and said as much. But User:NonReproBlue informed me that SteveBenassi, far from having erred from an innocent ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, as he claimed at WP:RSN (here [[285]]), had, by his own admission elewhere, used edit warring and refusal to discuss as a calculated tactic to push an agenda (by purposely "making a scene"). On his own Talk page, SteveBenassi admitted: "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue." [[286]], see it also here: [[287]]. That was in direct contradiction to another claim he made around the same time that his policy violations had been the of honest unfamiliarity (being "a newbie" and "not knowing how to use Wikipedia") (here again, as linked above [[288]]), which since he had been repeatedly warned while at that time, seemed unlikely, and given his admission quoted/linked above, now seems less than dishonest.

This is troubling and seems to show that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. (knowingly breaking policy because the punishments were "worth it"). This seems to show that he entered Wikipedia (or at least that section of it) with a battleground mentality, a lack of good faith, and a WP:TENDENTIOUS orientation.

I initially filed a report here ([[289]] In response to the edit warring. Due to this new information, I am filing this new report.

Any attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And now he has gone right back to re-adding the same edit with the same summary [290]. Hopefully an admin takes a look at this soon as there is no sign that he will stop the tendentious editing. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ohnoitsjamie:, the admin who issued the block, they should probably be informed. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: and @Ohnoitsjamie:, I noticed here [[291]], though SteveBenassi claims he will no longer edit (because he accomplished what he wanted by "making a scene"). But also again states his WP:TENDENTIOUS/partisan/WP:BATTLEGROUND intentions, when he says, speaking of his earlier edit warring, that "I did this for you and Elhaik" (Elhaik being a highly controversial researcher). It is concerning. Not surprisingly he is edit warring again. Skllagyook (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: @Tritomex: @NonReproBlue: @Ohnoitsjamie: @Skllagyook:

See ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User%3ASteveBenassi_persistent_disruptive_edits%3A_edit_warring%2C_refusing_to_discuss%2Fengage.

@Tritomex: I respectfully disagree. I haven't used Wikipedia in years. I felt I was being bullied unfairly, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours. Openly admitted twice in public what I was doing. I apologized. And will not do it again. See bottom of this post, I asked @NonReproBlue to make an edit for me. I have learned from my mistakes. Note: 3 people are bullying me, twisting my comments and lying about me. Thank You SteveBenassi (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

See ... search Benassi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eran_Elhaik

Also ... See ... search Benassi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eran_Elhaik

SteveBenassi (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@SteveBenassi: What you say above does not seem to be the case. Your statements and behavior speak for themselves. You clearly stated that you broke the rules to make a scene (despite saying the opposite at the WP:RSN noticeboard. No one (as far as I can see) is bullying you. You (in your own admission) knew what you were doing and intentionally broke rules for WP:TENDENTIOUS purposes. Your statement again was: "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked."

You had been warned about edit warring (by me and others) at Eran Elhaik and asked to use the Talk page and you refused/cobtinued to edit war. I don't see how any of it could have been an honest mistake. (In addition, you said you were not interested in editing again, right before reinstating the same disputed edit re Ostrer to the Elhaik page.)

Again, please see WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Skllagyook (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Stop bullying me, stop twisting my comments, stop lying about me, and stop repeating your lies over and over. Leave me alone. I have been on Wikipedia for about a week now, for the first time in years. I am still learning. I will not post again until someone tells me I can on the Palestine-Israel pages. I asked NonReproBlue to make an edit for me recently. Leave me alone, you are a Bully. SteveBenassi (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your words are right there quoted (and here [[292]]). Nothing's being twisted. I'm not sure what lies you're referring to. It's there for anyone to see in the links I added above. Skllagyook (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: That was 3 days ago. You are Bullying me, twisting my comments, lying about me, and repeating your lies over and over. Leave me alone, you are a Bully SteveBenassi (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, you are not being "bullied". You are being held accountable for your behaviour on an appropriate noticeboard, for the attention of admins such as myself. Your editing by your own admission was deliberately disruptive and you were rightly blocked for it. The block has expired, you have apologised, and you have not resumed disruptive editing, so I do not believe we need to take further action against you for now - but if similar problems resume then you may expect further sanctions. However, your accusations of others lying and bullying counts as WP:ASPERSIONS and you need to stop making such groundless assertions. Fences&Windows 14:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thank you for your feedback, I agree with you 100%. Finally I get a third party opinion. I can't tell who is an Administrator or not. Is @Huldra or @Nishidani an Administrator. And why are Administrators also allowed to edit? An administrator can abuse a new user whose POV is anathema to them, which is happening here, and let slide those they agree with. They wave flags like ARBPIA and it is not clear to me if really does apply to me. So I will work to get 500 edits on other subjects, so no one can wave that flag at me ever again. I do two things really well, Israel and Archaeology. I am on Israeli news sites every day for the past 10-15 years. I am very knowledgeable on this subject. See ...

@Alaexis: Yardumian and Schurr are Reliable Sources for the Eran Elhaik Wikipedia page. I made two edits to the Eran Elhaik page, one on Ostrer "will not defame Jews" comment, and another on The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis paper, causing this debate. The point I am trying to make is, in layman's terms, are Jews a race or not a race. Ostrer and his camp say Jews are a race, they are more homogenous than not, they are closely related, and they are mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant. Elhaik, Yardumian and Schurr say no, Jews are not a race, they are more heterogenous than not, they are not closely related, they are not mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant, but are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism outside of the the Levant. Elhaik is a Zionist but is not biased in his research, he says his intention was not to disprove a connection to biblical Jews, but rather "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe". Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. I think we should modify this to reflect the above "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews. " SteveBenassi (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the paper of Yardumian and Schurr. It is a secondary source by two qualified authors published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The authors openly disagree with the conclusions drawn by some of the papers they review and give reasons for their disagreement; this is how science works and it isn't our business to take sides. I don't want to comment on exactly how it is used in articles, but I don't see the slightest reason to prohibit its use. Zerotalk 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral editors please note that the use of this perfectly normal academic article is being edited out of several pages: not only at the Eran Elhaik page, which is crammed with references hostile to the author (in violation of wiki bio's NPOV policy) but also at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry here by Skllagyook, and then by User:Shrike (here and at Genetic studies on Jews here by Skllagyook, and at Jewish History here, again by Skllagyook.

It would appear in all four cases that Skllagyook has taken it upon himself to disallow a new perfectly normal piece of academic research to be cited for its conclusions anywhere on Wikipedia; That they do so because they are convinced the majority view is tantamount to the truth and not a contestable opinion. That is not only abusive POV pushing. It is outright censorship of any dissonant voice, one in this case, coming from perfectly respectable scholars. I.e. we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship suffering interdiction from appearing on Wikipedia because an editor has arrogated the right to step in an assume the mantle of ultimate judge on what can, and cannot be thought, about the topic. An editor of unknown background is acting as if they knew more about the topic of population statistics, genetics and Jewish history than the scholars who specialize in it or the peer-review committee who approved its publication on vetting it. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Again. SteveBenassi (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, you can tell who an admin is via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Fences%20and%20windows or equivalent. Neither Nishidani nor Huldra are admins. Admins are also editors, we just have community trust to use tools like blocks, protection, and deletion. However, admins may not use their tools or close discussions when they have been involved in a dispute. See WP:INVOLVED.

Please don't repost long extracts of talk page discussions - your point is unclear and this is not the venue to discuss article content.

ARBPIA is not a weapon used against editors, it is a formal restriction to prevent newer accounts, who tend to cause more disruption, from editing relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. ArbCom introduced this to reduce problem editing after years of disputes. You will have been made aware of this so you do not inadvertently edit contrary to these general sanctions, because you have edited in adjacent areas. Fences&Windows 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: It is not clear to me if I have violated ARBPIA. I can't find much about this topic on Wikipedia. The impression I get is that it is not so much the pages that are out of bounds, but what you say on the pages. For example, the Eran Elhaik Wikipedia page, is that a page I cannot edit on, or I can edit on it as long as I don't say specific words or phrases? What are the "adjacent areas" you mention. Is there a specific page that has all this information. The ones I am finding are useless. Thank You. SteveBenassi (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you have breached ARBPIA, SteveBenassi. The genetics of Jewish populations are not per se related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - but if it were to spill into which modern people has a claim to Israel and Palestine based on genetic ancestry then it would be related. The latest ruling from ArbCom is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Remedies. They say "the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing a) the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and b) edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")." It's intentionally vague as we can't possibly codify all such relevant articles and edits. Fences&Windows 20:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows:The parts that seemed to me to break ARBPIA are the edit summaries, which say "Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect" and talk page comments like "Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA". Just for clarification, are things like this really not covered by the ARBPIA sanctions? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: The edit war involved 5 people over 1 edit, @Huldra and myself vs two administrators @Skllagyook and @NonReproBlue and user @Shrike, over the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eran_Elhaik&type=revision&diff=1023216318&oldid=1023185193 . @Huldra asked @NonReproBlue to "Please take it to a RfC if you disagree", @NonReproBlue refused and continued to edit war, shutting down the debate, which is not allowed according to your words above. @NonReproBlue and @Skllagyook object to my edit comments "Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect. See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms" Did I violate ARBPIA, and why am I solely blamed for this edit war? What we have here are two administrators with unknown backgrounds, objecting to a new paper, The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis, that goes against their POV, while also protecting Harry Ostrer who refuses to share his data with Eran Elhaik, because it endangers a major justification for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. SteveBenassi (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, NonReproBlue.

So, SteveBenassi, you were indeed in breach of the ARBPIA general sanctions. I had missed that connection of your editing. You weren't aware then but you are aware now and yet you've literally just breached the ArbCom ruling again with your latest post here. You are not extended confirmed, so you do not get to discuss this here. You were already blocked for edit warring and we are not going to block anyone else for that dispute. Drop this now or I will block you again. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GREATWRONGS; we do not need this kind of approach to editing. You need to learn to be collaborative and not adversarial. You can consider this a final warning. Fences&Windows 12:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

98.200.8.248 claim to engage in criminal activity

In this particular diff an IP editor 98.200.8.248 (talk · contribs) has claimed that he has engaged in an off-wiki criminal activity. While he has been reported to AIV, and I am sure that he will be blocked, I think his multiple claims of his crime should be rev-delled. Thank you. SunDawn (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need to do more than revert and block for edit warring, as has been done. The IP is not saying they did it; they could be retelling some legendary story about the software (involving a hacker allegedly doing something at the request of a friend of the hacker). The material does not reveal anything that needs revision deletion IMHO although if someone wants to do, that's fine. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Check out all of the IP's contributions: they are indeed claiming ownership of the misdeeds. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Might want to check this one it may cross that line. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but it looks like a rant to me. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Other admins are welcome to have a look and rev-delete the IP's edits/comments if wanted but I don't see a need. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I revdelled two edits as serious BLP violations and the rest as purely disruptive: "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations...". Fences&Windows 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is our tolerance on ethnic slurs? The more I looked at this, the more I thought there should be zero tolerance.--- Possibly (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly when used as part of a vandalistic edit they should not be tolerated. I suggest a block is in order, and rev-del. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have revision deleted the linked diff and indefinitely blocked the editor per WP:NOTHERE. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sychonic

• Sychonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J Hutton Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerning the Republican "audit" of electoral votes in Maricopa County, Sychonic believes that Media sources, the exact ones you refer to, are no longer credible on this issue (and most to others), they have consistently shown bias in their reporting and this is further indicia of it. As distinct from the numerous elections before, they squelch any mention of possible fraudulent activity in the 2020 election even though there is voluminous material indicating possible malfeasance.. As a result he is edit-warring to a version of the article that treats the "audit" as a legitimate exercise, in defiance of sources including one of the sources he prefers, "Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on", but also reintroducing Vision Times, a Falun Gong newspaper indistinguishable from Epoch Times. diff, diff, diff, diff. Three editors - MjolnirPants (via MPants at work), MrOllie and I - have reverted.

Pulitzer is a colourful character (see CueCat) but the sources here appear unambiguous: his input in the Arizona "audit" is political activism, not a genuine contribution to electoral integrity. Sychonic sees it differently, and that seems to be a fringe view under the circumstances, and certainly not one supported by the sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the diffs, I feel an AP2 topic-ban for Sychonic is necessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

____

The issue related to this article is not the subject involved, J. Pulitzer, but rather the characterization of the audit being conducted in Arizona by the State Legislature there. The contention is between my edit, which I believe is neutral, and the edit proposed by the person bringing this request. My edit proposes to use primarily information from the Wikipedia article on the 2020 election in Arizona as a general matter, and its reference to the audit being conducted while the that replaced it is pure partisan politics, using language such as "Big Lie" as if this were an appropriate and common term rather than a talking point. I believe that Wikipedia should remain above the fray in issues like this, and insist on strict impartiality on all aspects of politics and simply report as an encyclopedia should -- factual matter. It is being increasingly used by editors for their own personal agendas, seeking to change the world of their point of view, and Wikipedia should not allow itself to become that.

I have added references from sources that are both hostile to the audit (USA Today) and one that contained an interesting quote from the subject of the article -- purely as a reference for that quote, which is real. I do not particularly care for either publication in my personal reading, but neither is particularly reliable when it comes to reporting facts, and this has become a large problem, a broader problem when heretofore reliable news sources have clearly shed their impartial nature and litter their "news" section with unabashed opinions. One has to read everything with a grain of salt, and perhaps more, to get at the truth.

If Wikipedia becomes indistinguishable from the Huffington Post, or another of the online, low-brow political rags, then it will be a great loss to all concerned. This is a small matter about a minor figure, one who can best be called, in American idiom, "flaky". On this topic, though, the references to "big lie" and "partisan" and other rhetorical matters should be minimized, and I believe my edits have done that, and done so in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to arguments that minority or even fringe viewpoints be accurately described, but that isn't what we have here. We have one person making truly ludicrous claims that are being sourced to a site with severe credibility problems. When there is reliable commentary on ludicrous claims (looking for bamboo in ballots to detect a Chinese conspiracy), it may be worth discussing in some detail. When there is not such commentary, the details aren't relevant to any page on Wikipedia, as multiple editors who have reverted you have already stated. You cannot keep edit-warring and accusing everyone else of being biased. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

力, I think that sums it up well. The core of the issue here is that sources Wikipedia considers reliable, do not accord the Arizona fraudit any credibility at all, but Sychonic repudiates their reliability because they don't. I'm not sure there's anyway of forming a consensus between reality and what is described in reliable sources - including some of the sources he himself cites - as nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

While this conversation is ongoing, it is probably unwise for you to continue edit warring at the article, as you just did in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Sychonic for 31 hours for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, alas, I think he is unlikely to take the hint - but thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, longer blocks are certainly possible if disruptive editing continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to close an RFC

Hi. An RfC on article heading was opened at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on 13 April, and it has had no additional input since 9 May. Could an uninvolved admin drop by and close it, please? Thanks in advance, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please use WP:ANRFC and please request an uninvolved editor, not administrator, unless you have a specific reason why an admin is needed. Politrukki (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad - thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ninve67

• Ninve67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Owl House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Constant WP:DE behavior, also making an ongoing edit war to make others frustrated. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan, p-blocked from the article for 31 hours, but do take into account this is a very new editor who may have a language challenge, and be kind. Try to figure out what it is they're trying to do. They don't seem ill-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, this user wanted to make changes to article because he thinks that it would look cooler, but it is not the page users are used too, and is inserting WP:FAN. In fact, he was making inappropriate MOS:BOLD to the overall columns in the episode list. He did make discussion on the talk page, but shortly after, he continued to edit the article by adding a third season cell in the series overview, but no known episodes of that season was confirmed officially. This user was also discussing how he prefers the use of bold on overall columns to episode lists of any show, but he has to read WP:OTHER.

This is what the user was trying to do, I understand that he maybe new here and isn't well-intentioned, but he needs to follow the guidelines. That is what I got so far, if you want more, I will try digging deeper. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969

Backstory: On May 16, ‎DrChuck68 did a really good job of creating an article for KWDC-LP. In less than 24 hours, Onel5969 came through and restored the redirect to the college that owns the station claiming "does not meet WP:BCAST". This is incorrect, but I will get to that in a moment.

DrChuck68 posted on the WP:WPRS talk page and asked for help. At the same time, he created a DRAFT for the article as well. I saw the WP:WPRS post, responded, and set off to work. I made my edits to the DRAFT and reverted the redirect. My revert of the redirect happened 22:50. I was in the process of uploading a logo (which does take a minute) and did at 22:53. Onel5969 AfD'd the article at 22:54 before I made my improvement edits at 22:57. 7 minutes.

I asked Onel5969 almost immediately at 23:00 about the AfD. Even saying "you never let me finish. Next edit, fully updated page." In the the AfD Onel5969 claims it was "De-prodded without rationale or improvement". As stated, it was never a dePROD, it was unredirect. Onel5969 claims "nope. You don't simply revert without improving the article." Even though I did improve the article. I mention this (whilst breaking the new Beta "reply" feature) and mention the dePROD issue. They respond with the oddest reply: "yes I did notice, still doesn't pass bcast. And I never said it was a deProd, simply said you reverted without improvement." Huh?

So, they notice my improvements, but they still are stuck on I reverted without improvement, and my improvements don't pass BCAST. OK? I'm confused. So I post this, specifically asking for clarification. I receive no response, I change the timestamp to light up the talk page alert in case it was missed (it happens) and it is reverted. That lets me know my previous questions were seen and ignored. I even say this, even if, admittedly, a little snarky. With a "Bugs Bunny" insult (seriously, "what a maroon"?), that since I have nothing "cogent" to add to the conversation that Onel5969 "declin[ing] to participate" and I am not longer post on their talk page. Knowing full well it will be deleted, I respond with this, as I am still trying to engage the user in constructive conversation. It is, unsurprisingly, reverting with the edit summary "rev ignorance".

Crux of the Problem: Now, I have made further edits to the page, adding more reliable third-party sources, including some from local newspapers. This is my area of expertise. Onel5969 has added nothing to the article, added nothing to the conversation, and really added nothing but confusion.

This isn't the only time Onel5969 has done this. Just two threads down on his talk page from mine this user asks for clarification and Onel5969 responds almost the same way he did with me.

This is unconstructive editing with other users, not just myself, not playing well with others, just all around being cranky when you could be a little nicer. Flies/honey argument. Not sure what the answer is here, but something needs to be done else this user is going to wind up in some trouble....and soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at this as someone uninvolved, and I just do not think your summary of the events here is particularly fair. The only thing Onel5969 did that was wrong is the mistaken AfD statement that the article was de-prodded, rather than unredirected, and I'd encourage them to correct that. After that, the two of you seem to have had a very mild argument on Onel5969's talk page, but I can't really criticise them requesting you to stop posting there as it seems clear productive discussion between the two of you had concluded, and AfD is the correct venue for the content dispute. There seems to be some honest disagreement over the application of WP:BCAST here, and it seems perfectly correct for it to be discussed at AfD.

DrChuck68's creation of the article was fine, as a worthy attempt to demonstrate notability. Onel5969 waited for more than a day after it stopped being editing before, as is permitted, restoring the redirect per WP:BRD as they disagreed as to its notability, which is also fine. You, disagreeing with that, reverted - which is also fine, within reason. At that point, discussion is required if disagreements continue - and you hadn't improved the article when Onel5969 did just that, by taking it to AfD. Yes, you very shortly later did make some improvements, but you had given no indication you were going to. Process-wise there just doesn't seem to be a problem except for a mild talk-page fracas.

I don't think your interpretation of WP:BCAST is anywhere near as universally agreed as you seem to be implying. There is a valid notability dispute here, and I am not seeing admin actionable conduct issues. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KWDC-LP can solve what needs to be solved, and I suggest you disengage and avoid personalising this. ~ mazca ^talk 09:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Mazca, thanks ... have made the slight correction to the AfD as per your suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mazca: Just to answer the "[my] interpretation of WP:BCAST is anywhere near as universally agreed as [I] seem to be implying" upfront, please see: WP:BCASTOUTCOMES.

Now, while I appreciate that Onel5969 has taken the time to change AfD statement, even though I already mentioned that to them and they claimed it "never said it was a deProd". So, at least it's a start.

When shown the improvements made, though, regardless of the steps made to get there (let's not get into a semantics argument, please), Onel5969 refused to back down. When shown even more improvements, I was ignored, "insulted", then banished from their talk page. It is a little difficult to converse with someone who refuses to answer even the most basic questions and won't acknowledge improvements. That's not a "mild talk-page fracas", that's not even stubborness, that's just outright bull. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would assert that if this wasn't a "mild talk-page fracas", the person at fault was you. This is a content dispute over something that demonstrably by the AfD participation, is a controversial notability guideline. I feel you are the one that's personalised it. If Onel5969 does not want to get involved with the specifics of your article improvements (which, I agree, were improvements, but did not particularly assist in demonstrating notability via reliable-source coverage), then the AfD can do that. Presumption of notability based on criteria beyond reliable-source coverage remains controversial (see the endless tide of acrimonious AfD arguments surrounding WP:NCRIC in recent months), and I just don't see this issue the same way you seem to. I'd appreciate any other uninvolved admin having a look at this. ~ mazca ^talk 21:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mazca: Just a note "mild talk-page fracas" were your words, not mine. :) This ANI thread is not to discuss the notability of radio stations or TV stations. To do so would bring WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, WP:BCAST, WP:NMEDIA, and a few hundred AfDs into question, plus a TON of community consensus (gonna put the BURDEN on you for that one). I'm beginning to feel this is more about the notability of NMEDIA than the article itself.

I would pull this ANI thread, my support in the AfD, and userspace the article in question, before I would risk the project I and many others before me (including admin and founder Dravecky), and far many others after me, have put far too much time and effort into working on and bringing it to what it is today to have it lost. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Virulently racist comment at Talk:Black Lives Matter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Venalhype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The comment speaks for itself: [293]. Seems to be a clear candidate for revision deletion.

The account is apparently single-use, but could of course be blocked as a precaution. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Revdeled and indeffed. Nothing else to see here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.