Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054

Editor not communicating

• Kanto7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Kanto7 We have a small problem with an editor that will not communicate with others about their mass change of flags and dates in infoboxes. They have been reverted all over by many ediotrs all trying to get them to engage to no avail. Some edits are OK but the vast majority are not and they will not reply to inquiries. They may even be correct in sone cases but won't talk just warring. Let's give this person a small block see if that gets there attention. --Moxy 🍁 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Off topic

Yup. There ain't nothing more frustrating then a bull-headed editor, who refuses to communicate. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Sometimes that will work. I ran across my first Admin that did not care to have any conversations about any closing they did. Actually stated that on their user page, self-waving the requirement, and referring any inquiries to just take to review. I had to look to see if our community standards of having discussions and collaboration had been changed. Otr500 (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Huh? EEng 12:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Otr500, what admin refused to discuss? —valereee (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Reply: Huh? was my thoughts exactly. I had an issue with a closing. We are advised to go to the closer (in this case an Admin) first. I went to the talk page and the wording there made me feel the person either thought they never made mistakes or did not care to offer any explanation, or have any discussion, concerning their decisions, when I read "I consider all my AFD closures carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests. If you object to any of my AFD closures please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive all requirements to discuss with me prior to doing so." It actually bothered me a lot especially when I felt there was a very valid reason for a discussion and I had hit an edit conflict during the closing so my reasoning was more after-the-fact. The impression I got was "don't bother me because it will do no good as I will not change my mind" or "I am never wrong so go somewhere else because my involvement is over. I had to go to work (10 to 12 hours a day) so moved the tabs around in my browser to investigate later. Other editors agreed with my opinion and took steps to remedy the situation so I was not so upset. I had not made a decision to as to if I might open a discussion here and really, for the record, didn't or don't want to communicate with people that, to me, exhibit certain attitudes. I feel if a person is breathing it is possible to make a mistake and think communication, right, wrong, or indifferent, is important. I saw this discussion and thought I would at least mention the incident since it was related to "Editor not communicating". At any rate, I do NOT want to get sucked into drama (this person states they are against) so with that in mind I will post the stuff and others can at least consider why I had the thoughts some usually attribute to WTF! Here is the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oriole, Kentucky and the comments here. A discussion was not "refused" (to me personally) but someone tell me if I could be mistaken in the wording that states "no discussion, take it to Deletion review". Of course I also saw where a discussion was refused so to me it was a warning of advance refusal. I am just thinking that if someone doesn't want the "drama", or to be involved in "a process" and all aspects involved, then why not just stay away from that area? Just a thought though. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC) This is a complete tangent to the issue that's been raised, so I would suggest starting a new thread if you wish to discuss it. SportingFlyer T·C 10:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC) @SportingFlyer: I don't disagree. I made comments that I felt were inline with the discussion. Questions we raised by an editor and I was asked a direct question by an Admin (here) so I answered the line of questioning here. If you would like one of the others to "move" the discussion, that should have likely been directed to my talk page, that would be fine. However, it seems that "you" replied "to me" "here" (if "you" wish to discuss it), and not my talk page either, as I was done with my part "here". Thanks for the comments but if anyone else wishes to make other comments concerning this please use my talk page (a more relevant place) so I will not feel it is implied I am doing something wrong by answering questions. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC) I was pinged to this discussion after you made that post answering the question for reasons I don't entirely understand (I did not participate in that AfD I don't think), so commenting directly on your response here wasn't inappropriate. You also did not tell Stifle that you had commented about them on ANI, even though they haven't done anything wrong, and nobody engaged with them about the AfD you mention. It's completely off topic to the behavioural problem we're trying to solve here, but I really don't appreciate you trying to put this on me when I was specifically pinged to this conversation. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

still at it. sad face.--Moxy 🍁 14:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It would help greatly, if an administrator would check in on @Kanto7:. The lad doesn't seem to be getting the message. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello.? Editors still reverting to their preferred version with no talks.....even adding fake flags. What to do?--Moxy 🍁 00:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: When you take someone to ANI, it is helpful to provide examples in the form of diffs like this that show the editor making a specific change you contest. In addition, explaining what the problem is with that edit is helpful as well, because admins are likely not going to be familiar with the subject area you edit in. So if the editor is changing dates without explanation or references, and those changes contradict certain references, bring all that information. Otherwise, we're sort of asking admins to dig through a person's edit history, familiarise themselves with the subject area, do the research, etc. It's much. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You are correct...just though that the edit history of being revert 90 percent of the time by several editors then reverted back with no talk despite many trying to talk to them was good enough. I am not expert either in the realm of flags or no all the proper dates but can say that adding fictitious flags and changing dates that are sourced is simply bad and needs to stop. Hard to keep up with someone that does not use edit summaries unless they are reverted multiple times. --Moxy 🍁 20:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring and generally uncollaborative behavior

BazingaFountain42 has been edit warring on multiple articles today, but without breaking 3RR. On Cabinet of Joe Biden:[1] [2]; on Antony Blinken: [3] [4] [5]; on Jennifer Granholm [6] [7] [8].

This comes after a long list of warnings (talk page) and a previous editwarring block this month (block log). I think action is needed here to prevent further disruption. Giraffer ^munch 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I should defend myself. On the first article, Cabinet of Joe Biden, I made a post on the talk page about whether or not there should be a new categorization for nominees that haven't been officially announced, but have been reported. The general consensus was to simply put "TBA" where the day they were announced should be. I was following consensus. On the second article, Antony Blinken, I made a mistake. I was confused why it had him as the presumptive nominee, when for every other one of Biden's nominees, it had them as simply the "nominee". Furthermore, "presumptive" implied that, while it wasn't official, it could be confirmed, when Blinken's nomination is official and has been for a while. I kept editing, however, I realized that since my computer had an extension that changed every instance of "Trump" to "Drumpf", so I immediately removed it and corrected the edit. Finally, on the third article, Jennifer Granholm, at first, I was edit warring, but then I immediately realized that it should be resolved on a talk page, so I did that. The consensus was that we should wait until it's official, and I did. It was someone else that put her back as the nominee. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion between BazingaFountain42 and I, which frankly, is going nowhere. Giraffer munch 18:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The 'consensus' on Cabinet of Joe Biden was one user who agreed with you. (discussion) Another user disagreed, and kept changing it back, and you kept reverting. Thus one user agreed and another user didn't, so there was no consensus to back-up your changes. That makes it a content dispute, which you have been editwarring over. Giraffer munch 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Every time the media reported a cabinet nomination that Biden was going to make, but before Biden officially made the nomination, we put "TBA" where the date of announcement was. I thought that we should make a categorization for cabinet nominations that were reported, but not yet official, and only one other user responded. They said that we should just put "TBA" where the announcement date was, which is what was already being done. I was simply following the example and following what the closest thing to a consensus was. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC) I think you are missing my point, which is that you were editwarring in a content dispute where there was no consensus to back you up - not inherently a negative thing (considering that the other party in the edit war wasn't backed by consensus either) - but it meant that you needed to sort it out on the talk page, which you did not do. Please don't try to suggest you were following consensus where there was none. Giraffer munch 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Well, my point is that I was following precedent. Yes, there wasn't a consensus, but since it had been a while since any new responses had been put in for that specific talk page. Essentially, I was trying to keep things consistent with how we were doing things in the past. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, but regardless, you were editwarring over content, and that is what this thread is about. Giraffer munch 17:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Well, I didn't violate 3RR, as you mentioned in your original post. I'll be careful about edit warring again, but it seems that, at least for now, the issues were resolved. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the article Antony Blinken. We've got Nominee in the infoboxes of the bio articles of those people that Biden has chosen for his cabinet (who require Senate confirmation) & yet there's always a dispute at that 'one' bio article (Blinken) over whether it should be Nominee or Presumptive nominee. Why is the Blinken article being treated differently from the others? Need more eyes there, folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The Jennifer Granholm article does not include "nominee" in the infobox, and so you are making false claims about supposed consistency between articles. Also, an RfC at BLPN about Anthony Blinken was split between "presumptive nominee" (or similar language) and removing the infobox entirely (both of which BazingaFountain42 has edit warred to prevent in the Blinken article). GoodDay, you have been edit warring on these articles along with BazingaFountain42 to impose your view that infoboxes should be updated to include nominations before they are official, despite that position only receiving the support of one other person in the RfC. Your hostile attitude in the RfC was not helpful either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't edited the Blinken article for days, out of frustration with your reverts. Again, why aren't you posing your 'reverts' on the other bio articles-in-question? PS - Granholm hasn't been announced as a cabinet nominee, yet. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Spammer

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.

---

This account has been posting nothing but link spam for over a year. They've been warned many times on their talk page but their account appears to serve no other purpose. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 04:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. For what it's worth, you can use WP:AIV to report overt spammers like this. It's sometimes quicker than reporting to this noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2020 (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.

proxy detected

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.

---

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

IP 168.119.101.241 is a proxy or VPN from Germany (see) I recommend a check to verify possible accounts editing from its subnet 168.119.101.0/24 93.146.44.145 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's Hetzner, so I've blocked it. But open proxies should be reported to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2020 (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.

2601:801:4100:E1F0:0:0:0:0/64: Attempt 2

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.

---

• 2601:801:4100:E1F0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Entire edit history has been disruptive redirect overwrites and unsourced changes in the same subject area: mostly children's television. One of the IPs in the range has already been warned of using multiple IPs. No discussion from the IP when edits are contested, either via their User talk pages or via article talk pages.

This is a repost of a previous unreplied thread of this IP, archived here. Since that report, the IP has continued the same behavior described above and has ignored reminders of their report here at ANI, despite multiple attempts at different IPs in the range. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of reverted edits. Blocked for a month. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:19, 17 December 2020 (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.

Nebzpogi

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.

---

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

This user, aside from making disruptive edits, left a message at the help desk that threatened litigious action against a user and Wikipedia itself. I've asked them to recant their statement but they have not done so as of submitting this report. I guess an indefinite block would be the most appropriate in this case? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 07:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats, although based on the few edits they've made, they probably could have also been blocked for WP:NOTHERE as well. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:15, 17 December 2020 (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.

disruptive editing by user:Mugun.cjb

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.

---

Mugun.cjb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi! I think Mugun.cjb may not be fully aware of Wiki conventions on discussion and secondary sources. LeoFrank had reverted certain edits on Coimbatore International Airport which relied on another wiki page while providing feedback. However, user:Mugun.cjb undid the edits while posting certain defensive comments on both pages of user:LeoFrank and mine.

Special:MobileDiff/994352746 Disruptive revert Special:MobileDiff/994352491 Response by Mugun.cjb Special:MobileDiff/994353150 My feedback Special:MobileDiff/994353383 Response by Mugun.cjb to me

Hope @Mugun.cjb: would spend some time to understand WP:5P and continue contributing to the project collaboratively. Vikram Vincent 08:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

response by user:Mugun.cjb

Mugun.cjb (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is false reporting.

What change I have done is RIGHT.

Alliance air wikipage lists Coimbatore as one of destinations. In Chennai airport page also Coimbatore airport is listed on Allaince air destinations. Alliance air Coimbatore-Chennai ia a pre-Covid flight, it will resume once 100% flights are allowed in India. In all airport wikipages pre-Covid flights are retained. In Coimbatore airport page it is removed by someone and I have added it to bring uniformity in all wikipages.

I have a number of issues to register here on Coimbatore airport wikipage which is "KEPT OUTDATED" for years. I will do it later. Mugun.cjb (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mugun.cjb: I understand your enthusiasm to keep articles updated but an antagonistic approach is definitely not the way as it creates a very negative environment for collaborative work. There are different ways to express your opinions even strong ones and I'd urge you to develop those as they will benefit you personally in the long run. Best! Vikram Vincent 07:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

No. You dont need to understand or estimate enthusiasm of someone. Just talk about the updates and mistakes on wikupages.

What antagonisstic approach ?

If a page is not allowed for proper update, then no collaborative work is possible especially when false information is retained and right information is deleted.

Wiki Administrators, I will post all details here. I need some time.Mugun.cjb (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mugun.cjb: As mentioned on your talk page, you need to sign your text when you post a discussion on either your talk pages, others' talk pages or discussion pages. There are certain protocols which you need to follow whether you like them or not. It does not matter if you are the authority, if there is no citation from a valid secondary source then that data does not go there. @Jetstreamer: and @LeoFrank: have reverted your edits and explained reasons. Now unless your intention is to get blocked, my simple good faith suggestion is to spend some time reading about the protocols before further editing Wikipedia. If you need help understanding I am happy to explain in detail. Best! Vikram Vincent 11:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not talk on the issue first? Why diverting it? This is my first complaint.

""Alliance air wikipage lists Coimbatore as one of destinations. In Chennai airport page also Coimbatore airport is listed on Allaince air destinations. Alliance air Coimbatore-Chennai ia a pre-Covid flight, it will resume once 100% flights are allowed in India. In all airport wikipages pre-Covid flights are retained. In Coimbatore airport page it is removed by someone and I have added it to bring uniformity in all wikipages""

But this is reverted.

Tell, on what basis Alliance air was removed from Coimbatore airport wikipage earlier ? Mugun.cjb (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Mugun.cjb what is your secondary source for this data? Also have a look at the way i have indented your content and then mine. Vikram Vincent 12:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I will start a new complaint thread here. Hope it will be easier to understand how Coimbatore airport page was purposely kept "OUTDATED" . I will take few days to post it, Mugun.cjb (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Mugun.cjb the "==" implies heading. Please stop adding those and follow the conventions already established.

You have not responded to my question of the secondary source to support your assertion and hence the rest of your claims are moot.

Feel free to start a complaint but refrain from edit warring of which you have already been warned. Also, this edit message of yours, "I am suggesting the fools Jetstreamer and LeoFrank to try checking the AIrIndia website once. Ref: Booking engine & schedule page - from Special:MobileDiff/945239226 is not civil conversation to even express strong disagreement. Vikram Vincent 06:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The link you have posted is not opening. Not an issue. Because you didn't understand what I am claiming. I will include everything in my new post/thread. No time to continue here. Mugun.cjb (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mugun.cjb: I have removed the confusing link but I think we can close this issue here with the hope that you will be a bit more civil and collaborative in your approach. And please do read WP:5P and specifically WP:Civility because your approach appears to be like you are fighting rather than collaborating. Best! Vikram Vincent 16:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki administrators

I am telling this is false reporting by some one who does not know what is happening in Coimbatore airport page. This user simply tries to support some of the existing editors without any clear understanding simply using one of my reply and seeing few lines of latest edit history. Mugun.cjb (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mugun.cjb: I don't know the the editors LeoFrank or Jetstreamer and in fact if you go to the talk page of LeoFrank(which is where I saw your rude comments) you will see a heated discussion about the article Christ University. Yes, I think this is appropriate time for admin intervention cause your immaturity and inability to read and understand feedback is becoming more evident. Peace! Vikram Vincent 06:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mugun.cjb, I've blocked you for now from editing that article; please go to the article talk page and discuss the changes you want to make with the other editors working there. If your sourcing is good, they'll listen, but you can't simply edit-war because you think you're right. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2020 (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.

File:Disney Junior New Logo.png

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.

---

• Wgtniyrteuiqfhdrpc (talk · contribs)

This 'new user' with less that 20 edits and a keyboard smash username who seems to know how to upload logos with proper rationales uploaded File:Disney Junior New Logo.png, which they claim is the 'new logo' of the network, but outside more defined Mickey Mouse ears in the tittle, the vast majority of viewers (or more importantly, the network's pre-school target audience) would not discern that change from the SVG flat image currently in the Disney Junior article. As I don't want to hit 3RR because they keep adding the image, I'd like to know if this stirs up any red flags to anyone else. Nate • (chatter) 03:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Definitely fishy, and I have issued a stern warning on their talk page about the edit-warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2020 (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.

Rob.weldemichael introducing false information on ethnic groups and religion in Eritrea and Ethiopia

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.

---

Rob.weldemichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly introducing seemingly false information, in particular demographic information, in articles about Eritrea and Ethiopia, and groups in these countries. These statistics often disagree with the source, and I strongly suspect they are false where there are no sources.

Example diffs: [9], [10]

I believe that this topic is covered by the Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions, if that's relevant.

The entirety of the user's edits seem to be on this topic. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 22:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The population of Amahara people is 14-19 million as per 2020. 27% would be 31.4 million as of Wordlometers Ethiopian population statistics.

Sources: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ethiopia-population/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.weldemichael (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment} Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa#Final decision applies. Narky Blert (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment)Regarding Worldometers these discussions at WP:RSN are of interest [11][12].Sjö (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The user only has 25 edits, not a single one was good (and given their persistent repacing Tigrinya with Tigrigna I am tempted to call this vandalism-only account), and their reaction at the talk page was "I will never stop". A poster case of WP:NOTHERE, blocked indefinitely. May be they can post a reasonable unblock request, in which case I am not going to object against an unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2020 (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.

Editor (GeographyInitiative) is ignoring consensus of RfC

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.

---

• Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Democratic Progressive Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The editor in question, User:Geographyinitiative, began edit-warring back in September trying to get simplified characters removed from Democratic Progressive Party. The consensus is pretty clear, which is that this is already covered in the manual of style and that one should include both. The user tagged the entire page with a Template:POV template because of this matter and is reverting all edits that remove this template and bludgeoning all related discussions.

DrIdiot (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've formally closed the RfC, though it hardly needed it. Hope that helps. —valereee (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks. They are still edit-warring, saying the "neutrality discussion" section needs to be closed. But it's not an RfC, it's just a section on the talk page, and it's unclear what it means to close it. Honestly, this person is clearly acting in bad faith at this point. DrIdiot (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• It's worth noting this is not the first time this user has been subjected to discipline for this exact issue. See block log. The user seems determined to re-litigate and bludgeon repeatedly and indefinitely until they get their way. DrIdiot (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • On cue, the editor has (link) "closed" his NPOV tag from September of 2020 and "reopened" it for December 2020. This editor will clearly do this indefinitely. It's exhausting. I won't revert his edits anymore but would really appreciate admin intervention. DrIdiot (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm requesting that User:Geographyinitiative give up his fight on this article and leave it alone for a while. If they don't do so they are risking a block for edit warring. He has admitted that his 'POV' issue is due to the use of simplified characters, a dispute that has now been settled by not one but *two* RfCs. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: Though I did not see this thread on this noticeboard, given their disruption-free productive work elsewhere (i.e. when it doesn't involve Simplified characters in the three regions Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao), I believe the AN3 thread I filed should be enough recourse for now. Consider it the last WP:ROPE before it becomes site-wide. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, I agree. Was not sure where to file. DrIdiot (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Geographyinitiative is now blocked indef per my closure at AN3. Would still offer unblock if they will agree to stop fighting against use of simplified characters at Democratic Progressive Party. There does not appear to be any gentler way of bringing this to an end. User would not accept my offer that he could walk away from this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• And their unblock request is an exquisite example of WP:NOTTHEM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 18 December 2020 (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.

Users excessively posting about Caliphs of Islam at help desk

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.

---

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.

---

Today, while using Huggle for the first time, I saw that certain users (such as Waleed Baloch0000, 42.201.208.30, Hassam Tauqeer, and 103.255.7.30) were repeatedly posting about caliphs on the help desk. I noticed that this was almost exclusively on the help desk, the only non-help desk post I saw was on the main administrators' noticeboard. If you have already seen this incident taking place, I'd like to ask to see what can be done about this situation to prevent this from happening again. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably has something to do with this: [13] See Cullen328's comment. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Caliph-related forum shopping has made it to DRN as well: [14], [15] _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We're also getting a lot of chaff at -en-help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:53, 14 December 2020 (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.

Closed discussion, but some context might be useful to those scrolling by:

Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. The Amadiyya are only about 1% of Muslims and are widely seen as heretical. Google then displays the Wikipedia article, leading true believers to conclude that Wikipedia is responsible for the error. See Qadiani for some insight into the anger this stirs up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(from when this came up at WP:AN earlier in the day) jp×g 08:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

A video was posted on Youtube yesterday walking through that google search, making the usual ethnic/sectarian abusive comments, and instructing viewers how to send complaints (including info-en@ and other routes). DMacks (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we temporarily protect the pages most affected by this or would that be too much? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is really a legendary level of disruption. I have opted to protect the help desk for 6 hours. It will probably need an extension, but I'll be asleep by then. The actual pages in dispute are already under semi or ECP. What I would love is if somebody could find a way to stop them spamming OTRS. I have dealt with well over 200 tickets in the last few hours and they are just flooding in. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not just the help desk. See the talk pages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad. People here don't seem to understand that we're powerless in the matter, and lots of WP:MEAT going around and a few blocks dished out for distruptive behaviour. I won't be surprised to find many more pages which have had the same treatment, maybe google should be contacted. Pahunkat (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

And WP:AN3 and WP:BLP/N. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 09:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected WPIslam 2 days, Mirza talk already protected, gave AN3 and BLPN 3 hours each, but those will likely need extending too. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll be patrolling recent changes to see if any other pages are affected. Is it work putting notices on the users' talk pages? Pahunkat (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

From experience with users with a similar mindset, yes. The vast majority of these are drive-by users who frankly are unlikely to follow-up. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 09:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What are they mad about? Is Google still showing everyone false information, or are they just basing this off a Youtube video which is no longer true? When I search "current caliph of Islam" I get Mirza Masroor Ahmad / The 5th and current Caliph of the Messiah of the Ahmadiyya Community is Mirza Masroor Ahmad. After the death of Ghulam Ahmad, his successors directed the Ahmadiyya Community from Qadian, India which remained the headquarters of the community until 1947 with the creation of Pakistan. / Ahmadiyya Caliphate - Wikipedia. Of course, the clarifying information is in the blurb, but it still shows the guy's name in bold at the top of the page. If this isn't true, it seems like an issue that Google can (and should) be loudly whined at to fix. Is it possible to put a disclaimer somewhere telling people where to go do that? jp×g 09:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears that they're blaming us for this mess, because google displays that the info's taken from wikipedia - even though they've portrayed it in a misleading manner. Leaving messages like this on talk pages: "Whilst we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter." Pahunkat (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Some are on template documentation, worried that they might start editing templates directly sooner or later and break them. Pahunkat (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit filter appears to have worked, but can an admin protect Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate before more people catch on to the fact the protection's just expired? Pahunkat (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector got it. DMacks (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We've got vandals hitting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Masroor Ahmad now (a six-year nom never propagated to the AfD logs that was closed); brought up on RFP, but a heads-up here too. Nate • (chatter) 05:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It happened again there so I've semi'd it for the default time...but really (since it's here and now) is there any reason old AfDs should be editable at all? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got a point - but I guess we never expected people to try to edit those discussions in the first place. They've been targeting all sorts of articles, from Wikipedia:Database reports and Template:No admin backlog/doc which aren't related to the caliph at all. Pahunkat (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2020 Ahmadiyya Caliphate information, by the way. Probably could be linked from the edit notices of any pages semi-protected in response to this. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit filter?

We have one - developed in record time. See special:abuselog, it's Filter 1106 and set to disallow. See the filter log of the help desk, for examples of edits that have been disallowed. Pahunkat (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that filter is starting to catch some false positives: [16], [17], [18]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if FP is the right term, because we took a decision to use a large hammer and now we're hitting stuff. But anyway, I've made an adjustment to the filter to tackle this issue. This might affect the dynamic a bit, but feel free to roll out any necessary protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this at all?

This "constroversy" is part of an organised opression of a religious minoroty—Ahmadiyya. Why are we not aplying the obvious recipe: Revert, Block, Ban—no questions asked?

The essay WP:NONAZIS applies perfectly well in this case; it's just an other group that's getting targeted—not the usual ones: jews, gays, blacks, and what-not. Why, exactly, are we not reacting the proper ferocity? —Wasell^(T) 19:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell, some admins are applying that whilst others are trying to interact with the users. Using the recipe of Revert, Block, Ban would bring up a few problems though - it would create a large backlog at WP:AIV (but I can't really comment on this since I'm not an admin), and the sheer volume of accounts they've been using is tremendous. If we wait, the storm might just blow over. Pahunkat (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how this counts as organized oppression or why "ferocity" is required in response. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that Ahmadiyya originates in India, is this within the scope of the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan discretionary sanctions? —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible, but introducing 0RR/1RR sanctions would make it harder to address the issue given that most of the accounts are hit and run, wheras editors are looking to revert the comments. Pahunkat (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That would just make it harder to revert/clean-up anything that slips past the filter as opposed to actually helping the problem, yeah. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

True. But it makes it easier for me to start giving level 4im warnings instead of level 1—or blocking on sight if it's egregious. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If we considered such edits as vandalism and thus subject to the usual exemptions, then maybe this could be a possible solution to minimise disruption. Pahunkat (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And to that end, I just added an edit notice to the Ahmadiyya article, stating that there is consensus for Islam to appear in the article, and removing it can be dealt with as intentional disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's here because admins need to be aware of the situation. I think you need to carefully re-examine the main complaint. From their point of view (though it's wrong), Wikipedia is saying that Mirza Masroor Ahmad is the fifth and current caliph of Islam. That statement is clearly false, and if these people are interested in calmly and politely pointing such an error, you won't find me banning them, regardless of their religious viewpoint. I've helped implement some of the protections and edit filter so I'm not saying it isn't disruptive, and the complaints aren't always free of bigotry, but more often they're just misguided. I don't think just banning everyone is a good solution here, nor are warnings which make no sense. And also, nobody should be penalised for reverting disruption. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I just read your message. Actually the Wikipedia article doesn't state that. It does state that he is the 5th Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but not of Islam as a whole. This is entirely Google's fault. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 03:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This is why I said that their point of view is wrong. But it is undoubtedly their point of view. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Things seem to have quietened down a bit, I think it's the effects of the edit filter. Pahunkat (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It looks like Google has now been pestered enough to change their results, and I've seen talk that some of our various responses are getting through to some influential people. The filter still had 50 hits in the last day (better than the 600 we were getting), so hopefully it might only last another few days. Thanks to everyone involved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 17 December 2020 (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.

Query inappropriate userboxes

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.

---

User:Barumbarumba has a userbox on their page which in my opinion is inappropriate. I consider this to be Wikipedia:Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation. Wondering others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go ahead and delete its occurrence on this persons user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 18 December 2020 (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.

Disruptive editing on Goran Jevtić article by Moelscene/Lancaster10

• Moelscene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Lancaster10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Goran Jevtić (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Moelscene is continuously re-inserting that Goran Jevtić (actor) is a "convicted sex offender" in the introductory sentence of the article. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3

This, after he's been reverted by three different editors. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

In the midst of his edit-warring, an IP reverted back to his version, which suggests he was editing logged out to prevent from breaking the 3RR. Diff here

The last revert came from User:Lancaster10, who has the same pattern of editing and edited the same pages as Moelscene such as Anna Nicole Smith & Milo Yiannopoulos (see their contributions). So he is likely socking in order to continue to push this version. Diff here

It's been explained to him why this is inappropriate due to WP:BLP concerns and why the extreme comparisons with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby don't hold up. @GregorB: has attempted to discuss it with him on his user page as well as the article's talk page but he has refused to engage. Instead he's attacked the involved editors' ethnicity. Diff here Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, engage in honest and good-faith editing and follow Wikipedia guidelines. Only interested in forcefully pushing this piece of information into the lead sentence. --2605:8D80:6C1:2B36:113A:6959:16EA:B4EB (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, many sources state that the victim in this case was 16 years old and not 15, but he is also pushing that he was 15 instead of 16, despite the contradicting information. --2605:8D80:6C1:2B36:113A:6959:16EA:B4EB (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me just note that this may be a matter for WP:BLPN. GregorB (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@GregorB: Should I remove it from here then and post it there instead? Thanks. --2605:8D80:6C1:C82D:5511:78B3:EE9C:DFFD (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's probably not too important, but strictly speaking it's the right forum, so yes. GregorB (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Um, actually I'm not sure, it says "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material", not strictly the case here, as the factual correctness isn't disputed. Let's leave it here then. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a little iffy. But the issue is primarily the user's conduct so I agree I'll leave it here. --2605:8D80:6C1:C82D:5511:78B3:EE9C:DFFD (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed the age from 15 to 16 as that's what the removed source says (I've put the source back). Now, that means User:Lancaster10 removed that source, and then changed the text from 16 to 15. That, to me, flags up someone who shouldn't be editing a BLP, so I will take action here via a partial block. Edit: the other source, added by Moelscene, also says 16, and also uses "illegal sexual acts" instead of "sexual abuse", so I've tweaked to follow the source per BLP. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but Moelscene should probably be blocked as well since I think it's the same user. "Convicted sex offender" should also be removed from the first sentence, since this is a contentious label and only applied maybe in extreme examples such as Weinstein and Cosby. It's not what he's known for and there's no consensus for adding that to the first sentence. His conviction is already covered in the lead and body. --2605:8D80:6C0:11BF:20C1:A0C:FC3:C6BA (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest (a) raising a WP:SPI if you believe the two are the same editor, and trying WP:BLPN as regards the first sentence. My inclination would be to agree with you, but having taken admin action here I'm not going to edit the article further, having fixed the immediate BLP issue of false information. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I used a valid source of information when I mentioned victim's age as 15, Serbian state newspaper Republika. (I have other sources to prove he was 15 when he was abused.) Anonymous user (who reported me) mentioned victim's age 16, Radio Sarajevo as the source. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact he's a sex offender. I mentioned on GJ talk page that people close to him, most likely PR agents, constantly tried to whitewash his biography regarding sex crime conviction. Not to mention the intimidation of naysayers. It's happening since he was sentenced and convicted in 2019; in the era of #MeToo! It's really sad and insulting to all victims of the violence and abuse. Moelscene (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A few sources say 15, most of them from what I gathered said he was 16. Anyway, that's not the issue. The issue is you pushing to add "convicted sex offender" to the first sentence, after it's been explained to you why it's problematic to do so. Adding that requires consensus and it's not something usually done in BLP articles. Using Weinstein and Cosby as justifications for adding it is ridiculous since those are extreme cases and warranted given the abundance of accusations (not merely for one case of "illegal sexual acts" but many sexual assaults/rapes) as well as convictions. None of us are interested in removing information about his conviction. I think we all agree it belongs in the article, and it's both in the lead and body. Yet, as one user already pointed out on the talk page, it might even be undue for the lead itself. --2605:8D80:6C0:5113:5163:EF45:F6A4:DAB7 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources that were in the article (which Lancaster10 removed) gave the age as 16. If other RS give the age as 15, then perhaps the age should be removed completely. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Long-term, on-going history of abuse against MOS and other guidelines

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

I am here to report Mortal Aphrodite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a long-time abuser of Wikipedia MOS and guidelines. User has received multiple warnings—ranging from June 2019 to December 2020. User continues to violate MOS:ACCESS on concert tour articles, predominately, for their own preferred edit, as well as continues to ignore WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE in favour of adding in unsourced content and original research. User previously received two blocks for disruptive editing in this same fashion—the first in December 2019 and second in February 2020, and, since then, has continued their pattern of behaviour. User also refuses to acknowledge their warnings, use an edit summary or even explain why they are making the edits they have been making for the past 19 months, if not longer. It has become clear this user is not here to edit constructively or in a collaborative way. The following pages are where either their most notable or most recent habits of this have happened (listed in alphabetical order):

• The 1989 World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blond Ambition World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Head Above Water Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Madame X Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The MDNA Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• State of the World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sticky & Sweet Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Continued reports to the AIV fail to happen, so naturally, ANI is the next step. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Mortal Aphrodite is against updating concert tour articles to follow WP:ACCESS goals and has been reverting/restoring them to earlier, non-compliant versions. They have been repeatedly reverted and advised/warned to no effect. On this one issue, this has been going since May 2020 and involves most of the articles listed above plus several more. They have not participated in any of the project discussions[19][20][21] and they usually provide no edit summaries/explanations. Their editing on this issue is similar to the blocked users Tape2020 (talk · contribs), Fvcu (talk · contribs), and several IPs 98.213.238.206 (talk · contribs). 2601:802:8300:A280:A86E:A14F:17AA:2D8D (talk · contribs), 96.41.254.88 (talk · contribs), etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Ojorojo and Livelikemusic: Can either or both of you please provide diffs that show the problematic edit(s), along with an explanation of what specifically they did wrong, i.e. which accessibility guideline they contravened? And if there are any other edits that are glaringly problematic, please link to those and note what the problem is. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Mortal Aphrodite changed concert tour article tables that were updated to follow MOS:DTAB (incorporated into WP:CONCERT#Tables, specifically use of ! scope="row" and no column headers in the middle of the table), which were reverted usually with an edit summary advising of project consensus and WP guidelines:
  • The Girlie Show World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24/5/20[22]
  • Madame X Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 15/10/20[23]
  • On the Run Tour (Beyoncé and Jay-Z) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 17/10/20[24]
  • The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 19/10/20[25]
  • Fearless Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 21/11/20[26] & 15/12/20[27] (twice on same article)
  • Sticky & Sweet Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 14/12/20[28]
  • The 1989 World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 15/12/20[29]
  • Speak Now World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 15/12/20[30]
  • The Red Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 15/12/20[31]
  • Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 15/12/20[32]

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have changed these tables so that they are MUCH easier to read than dividing each leg into its own table. There are DOZENS of concert tour articles that have tables like the ones I've made, such artists as: Pink, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Elton John, Cher, U2, Selena Gomez, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, and so on. These tables are easier to read and understand. These new changes are very difficult, one could look no further than The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is a mess and has a column for each continent, rather than a row. When and why this decision to change these ables is unbeknown to me, and for my first edit of a table, if someone had a problem with it, they should've sent me a link to the forum where the decision was made. Please compare the tables on the articles listed above to any of the tables in the concert tour articles of the musicians I mentioned.

—Mortal Aphrodite (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2020

• Over the last several months, discussions regarding changes to concert tables have been initiated at:

• WT:WikiProject Concerts#Accessibility considerations
• WT:WikiProject Madonna#Madonna tour articles
• WT:WikiProject Beyoncé#Beyoncé tour articles & access
• WT:WikiProject Miley Cyrus#Miley Cyrus tour articles & access
• WT:WikiProject Taylor Swift#Tour articles & access

My edits that Mortal Aphrodite reverted/changed included in the edit summaries:

• "updated tables as per WP:CONCERTS#Tables, see Madonna project talk"
• "updated table as per WP:CONCERTS#Tables, see Beyonce project talk"
• "updated as per WP:CONCERT TOUR#Tables (see project talk [linked to WikiProject Taylor Swift])"

Additionally, my reverts of Mortal Aphrodite included in the summaries:

• "rv unexplained changes against consensus and WP guidelines; see also WP:OVERLINKS"
• "restored correct table format (see WP:WikiProject Taylor Swift#Tour articles & access)"

For Mortal Aphrodite to claim that they were not aware of the discussions and reasons for these changes is hard to believe. Input for updating The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour article was solicited at WT:WikiProject Beyoncé#Beyoncé tour articles & access:

All the tour articles are now updated, except for I Am... World Tour and The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour. These tours include some one- or two-city concerts in different continents; using separate tables for these would produce too many or overly complicated tables. Propose to keep the current one-table format that these two use, but move the continents to a column as follows: [example] —Ojorojo (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No one replied, but ten days after the update was made, an IP essentially undid it (with no edit summary); they were reverted with the summary: "rv unexplained changes that don't follow WP:CONCERTS#Tables, see project Beyonce talk; similar to edits by blocked user". Mortal Aphrodite later undid the update, also with no edit summary; they had the opportunity to express their concerns, but chose not to.

Several recent concert tours GAs use the table format outlined at WP:CONCERTS#Tables: The Cry of Love Tour, Hooligans in Wondaland Tour, Blond Ambition World Tour, and the GANs: The Doo-Wops & Hooligans Tour and The 1989 World Tour. Adapting the format for older articles will take time and may require some modification, but to throw it all out is not a solution. Unfortunately, Mortal Aphrodite has not shown any interest in working cooperatively and continues their pattern of ignoring consensus and basic WP policies and guidelines.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Major problem with User:William Allen Simpson

Would like to bring to the admins attention about William Allen Simpson. Over the last week, this user has attempted to undermine this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, and creating personal attacks toward me with threat of "Rfc to remove my editing power" (View the threat here.).

Starting with the first point: undermining the Afd. So the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine Afd took place between December 1-December 8. The user was not a part of the Afd. A similar Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer was created a few hours before the previous afd was closed. The second afd (Gretchen Whitmer afd) is where this user discovered the first Afd (Mike DeWine Afd). So the Mike DeWine Afd ended in a 7 editor unanimous agreement to merge. During the Gretchen Whitmer Afd (Lasted between December 7-December 15), William Allen Simpson and me had a very long discussion related to the article (Discussion was on December 10). He attempted to claim that there was no consensus to merge during the Mike DeWine Afd and that all 6 of the other editors (Excluding me) had voted to delete. He refused to accept that the information was deemed notable and would not accept that Afd's outcome was "Merge", (Admin Missvain was the closing admin in both Afd's.). During the Gretchen Whitmer Afd, William Allen Simpson created This noticeboard which he called "Non-notable impeachment filing nonsense" on Talk:Mike DeWine. On December 15, William Allen Simpson went against the Afd and removed the impeachment resolution information without discussing it on the talk page. (I am not sure how to add a revision via wikilink, so here is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_DeWine&type=revision&diff=994315517&oldid=993648732). All of these edits tell me that he is determined to undermine the process Wikipedia has put into place, aka the Afd process.

The second point I made was about a threat toward me. In the currently on-going RFC, William Allen Simpson made a threat toward me saying "Finally, this attack was coordinated by an interested party with an external site devoted to the topic. Although it was eventually disclosed on his user page, it was not disclosed in every argument (such as this). There should be a further RFC suspending the editing privileges of Elijahandskip (talk · contribs), a self-proclaimed senior in high school, who has demonstrated a meager knowledge of law, legislative procedure, and civics in general. But a prodigious amount of Wikilawyering". The threat toward me is highly uncalled for. I have made tons of attempts to reach out and talk to the user, including here on his talk page. I have received no reply to any of my attempts to reach out and I have been trying to do damage control from all the attempts to threaten me he has created. Point being The User is unwilling to reply and discuss in a reasonable conversation.

Wanting to state, the website he is upset about has been declared on my user page since December 3rd, which is the day it was created. I met this user on December 8th, so as far as I am thinking, the website has been declared through all of our conversations.

I would like this user either highly warned with a block to some editing topics or a ban for the highly unnecessary threat. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, after reading your blog & your alternative Wikipedia website (and Twitter account) and seeing your view that mainstream media, or what Wikipedia would consider "reliable sources", is biased, I'm not sure how to respond to your complaint. William Allen Simpson should respond to any comments you made on his talk page but I'm also questioning your position as an editor on Wikipedia. The outspoken political stance you take and your negative opinions of Gretchen Whitmer and Kamala Harris and as well as the view that Wikipedia is sometimes guilty of "inciting racism" has caught me off-guard. You might rethink whether you want to publicize these outside efforts on your user page. They certainly color my opinion of your competency as an editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Liz here. Forking content from a part of the project that falls under sanctions, especially content that the community has decided to delete, onto an external site and then trying to influence the outcome of a discussion for that topic is a huge red flag for me. I don't see anything wrong with William Allen Simpson calling it out. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Liz thank you for your comment. Every editor has an opinion. I see what you mean by whether I should have it on my user page or not. Back in October, I accidentally mentioned the blog during a massive Rfc discussion (Involved 50+ editors and at the end I did a snipping tool and it was 14 pages in length to print). At that point in time, it wasn't declared so I was in trouble with other editors. At that point in time, I decided to declare it on my user page. I consider it to be the same as a person's opinion. No one can ever say they are "unbiased" as everyone has an opinion. I really do feel bad that it colored your opinion of me. I really have tried and have strived since that incident to edit with a neutral standpoint on Wikipedia. I really didn't want a problem to arise from it again, so I will be rethinking about that declaration. To the admins, Please do not let this blog/opinion writing dictate what you believe about my competency as an editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer thank you for your comment. I actually don't mind him calling it out. The point I tried to say in the original reasoning for this noticeboard was the fact that he stated it without attempting to talk with me about it. The fact that he has created multiple discussions about this and won't respond to my messages unless he is defending a "new discussion" is the main problem. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, the part about stuff the community decided to delete being on an external site. I haven't edited the website is a few days. I will go through and make sure anything quoted from Wikipedia is still a viable quote. Content about the "Impeachment Resolution" being deleted actually is irrelevant. I did original research, so technically, the website has no bearing on Wikipedia decisions (Aside from a possible invalid quote, which I am going to check on). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

E&J, I'm a little flummoxed by the Wikipedia inciting racism blog. I helped create that FAQ. The reason we created it was because we had so many newbies coming in to ask why we had to call out that Chauvin was white. The reason we have to call out that Chauvin is white is that reliable sources think it's important enough to mention it literally in every article. Is what editors here consider to be reliable sources something you can't get behind? I would understand why the average non-WP editor wouldn't understand this basic fact about how WP is edited, but I'm very surprised that you wouldn't understand this. I'm also concerned that you put your "title" on that blog, seeming to indicate you're somehow representing Wikipedia in some official capacity. I think you should remove that. —valereee (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment related to discussion. The political blog has actually been removed. Also, there is no more directly deleted Wikipedia quotes on the website, which is still declared on my user page. Valereee, Liz, and SportingFlyer. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that issues with me are in general solved, with all respect, could the discussion move back to the original reasons for this noticeboard? (Not meant in any sort of way except for the literal meaning). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more unsettled I am. You write "I would not even consider stating any information about a person's race in any of the things I write" ...so, if you're writing about Rosa Parks, do you mention she was black, or is she just someone who got cranky on a bus? If you're writing about a lynching, do we mention it was a black man who was lynched by a white mob because someone thought he winked at a white woman, or is that all beside the point? Was Obama our first black president, or just #44? How do you write about the impact of Jackie Robinson if you don't mention his race? I'm just...—valereee (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Where did you read that? I believe that was on the blog (Which was deleted 10 minutes ago, so that would be completely irrelevant if it is on the blog). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, on the blog. But it's not irrelevant if it's what you believe. —valereee (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I wrote that I think 2 months ago. My views have changed. I also hadn't wrote on the blog in almost a month. I don't believe that anymore. Also, it is irrelevant as it was deleted before you posted the comment. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to commend you on deleting the blog. What's caused you to change your views in the last two months? SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, totally understandable that someone your age can change their belief system quickly as they mature. You now think that the mention of race is okay in articles where reliable sources consider race a factor? Because that's the relevant issue, here. —valereee (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree that for historical purposes, stating race is ok. I still have an opinion about current things (like a breaking news article) stating something like "black man shot by white man". Because, what is the actual value in stating that in a headline other than for clicks. Saying "Man shot by police" would be less clicks for a news outlet, but would definatly be better in my opinion than stating "black/white" in a breaking news headline. After it is no longer a "breaking news/hot topic" event, then I consider stating the race to be ok. That is my new opinion. Hopefully that clears it up. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, my apologies, but I'm going to keep pushing on this. When news outlets were reporting about Rosa Parks being arrested, on the day they reported it, was it important that they note she was black? Or is it only important that in retrospect we note it for historical purposes? Ditto the other examples. IMO the fact the person was black was just as worth noting on the day it happened as it is now. It's part of the story. It was part of the story when it happened. The fact George Floyd was black and Derek Chauvin is white is part of the story. —valereee (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosa parks was a different era with the social problems being slightly different. I see what you mean. I agree with you completely, however, today's media only uses race in headlines when it comes to "black shot by white". If the media used race in majority of headlines relating to inter-race shootings, then my opinion would be a 100% agree. My opinion isn't really about the fact that race is important to a story, it is more against how the media doesn't use race in some instances and does in others. That creates a version of racism IMO. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: This user also appears to have falsely tagged redirects left behind for G10 speedy deletion. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since the previous discussion wasn't over and I believe it is, any chance to have a discussion about the original noticeboard reasons? Elijahandskip (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, so the AfD: that wasn't a "unanimous agreement to merge". That was a consensus that instead of deleting, the info could be merged into Mike DeWine, even though all the info in the impeachment article was already in the DeWine article. That was not some sort of imprimatur. Consensus can change at any time, and the fact the article was merged instead of deleted really doesn't mean anything.

  The RfC. William Allen Simpson could be kinder, especially to younger editors. The fact E&S is a high school senior isn't a tick against them, it's a tick for them. We want young editors to become interested, and as long as they behave maturely, we welcome them. E&S and WAS, I would recommend the two of you discuss, and try to treat each other collegially. —valereee (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just also discovered this user said "because school children like Elijahandskip still rarely host political attack sites. Goodness gracious, hoping the world isn't going that way. But we may be heading to an RFC for banning Elijahandskip". This was stated on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mike DeWine, on December 15. I really am worried about the user. Something like a warning needs to be issued at least. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm happy to warn both of you. William Allen Simpson, please adhere to our policies re: civility. There's no need to call high school seniors, some of whom are actually adults, "school children". IMO that's an obvious attempt to denigrate and tweak. Elijahandskip, you appear to have a fairly strong bias in the area of race in the US that may make you likely to push certain points of view. I suggest you default to using the Walt Street Journal as your reality check on whether or not race is pertinent in a given article. If WSJ is noting someone's race, you can be assured that is not "creating a version of racism." It's acknowledging the racial element in the story. And both of you stop spamming discussions. That's disruptive. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note, if anyone's going to use the Wall Street Journal as a reality check, just make sure it's the Journal's news reporting, which is justly acclaimed, and not its editorials, which can be seriously biased. A good doublecheck would be to look at The New York Times or The Washington Post to see what they do. While both are mildly liberal editorially, their news operations, like that of the Wall Street Journal, are first class. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Agree, opinion should always be taken as opinion, even when it's the editorial board of a completely reliable source. —valereee (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This is now the second time that this user's blog has presented an issue on Wikipedia. Contrary to his claim earlier in this thread that editors were concerned because the blogging wasn't disclosed, the problem was about potential canvassing of outside voices to the discussion of a contentious issue and the naming of specific editors alongside claims those editors were biased (I was one of the editors named); it's getting more difficult to assume good faith with that sort of misrepresentation. There needs to be a formal caution here around the blogging; anyone can blog about whatever they want, but if you want to be part of Wikipedia, you do need to be mindful of WP:OUTING and WP:CANVASS, among others. I don't see that those have been violated yet, but the reappearance of the blog as an issue for this user is a concern. Grandpallama (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• During the Speedy deletion nomination for Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer, a number of IP addresses quickly made a coordinated attack on the Talk page. I'd not known about Elijahandskip's blog, and had no idea that he was possibly canvassing. Yesterday, Doug Weller helpfully deleted the Talk again, but it will be visible to administrators.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, the blog is fully deleted and shouldn't be a problem every again. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing is ever fully deleted. —valereee (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• It is deleted to the point where I can no longer edit it or have any influence on it. The URL also are deleted. That is as good as it can be now a days. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It might help if @Elijahandskip: & @William Allen Simpson: communicated directly to each other, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• @GoodDay: This is not an interpersonal issue. I'm one of those who "unmasked" (many years ago) to edit under my actual published name to help establish credibility for Wikipedia. Elijahandskip's Wikilawyering is just another example why so many of my fellow subject matter experts no longer find contributing worth the effort.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have reached out to him on his talk page two times during all these discussions. Still hasn't replied to me. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Recommend this report be closed, as it's mostly a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User Ke an accusing me of bias and chauvinism

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.

---

• Ke an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The exact citation is "Your bias and chauvinism, low discussion ethics disqualifies you from judging states previously occupied by Russia", taken from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hugo.arg reported by User:Ke an (Result: ). Would anybody please mind looking at the discussion and on my recent edits and see whether the definition is accurate. (I am not asking to close the 3RRN request, this is as far as I am concerned is a different story). For a bit of background, the only time Ke an was blocked, it was because they were edit-warring in an article on a Lithuanian Holocaust perpetrator removing the info on Holocaust crimes and presenting him as a national hero. Well, I understand that being an administrator here requires that I am resistive to all king of shit being thrown out on me, but this particular shit requires some evaluation by third parties. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Indef might be a bit too much, but thanks for taking action.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a high threshold for sending nationalist POV pushers out the door, especially regarding Eastern Europe. Lithuania's history is fraught enough to write about without background noise from such editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as EE nationalistic points of view are concerned, I definitely do not disagree. They are capable of quickly and efficiently making anybody sick.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2020 (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.

Huggle and the rollback restriction

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.

---

A few days ago, user ChipWolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) compiled their own version of Huggle without the rollback restriction. They did this citing WP:IAR in their VPP post, after being denied rollback permissions three times (1st request, 2nd, 3rd). Administrator JJMC89 promptly blocked ChipWolf, with the rationale "Using Huggle without approval – circumvented the requirement to have rollback, which was requested and declined multiple times." After that, administrator ST47 responded on Chip's talk page saying he does not agree with the block rationale, and that If there's a problem with the user's edits, then by all means warn or block them for that. However, it sounds like their modified version of Huggle was used in a read-only mode. JJMC89 then responded saying that They used Huggle to make 3 edits within the last 24 hours, so it wasn't strictly used as read-only. Using restricted software in contravention of community norms (requires rollback) is disruptive, especially when access (via rollback) was requested and declined multiple times. I then responded to ST47 saying that I agreed with the block. The discussion continues on ChipWolf's talk page. Administrator Wugapodes then unblocked ChipWolf stating that I simply cannot in good conscience let this block continue indefinitely. Not only is it without a strong policy basis, it weakens the ability to use free and open source software...Simply, this block contradicts policy and needs to be reversed, so I have unblocked. The discussion on VPP has continued, but I would like more input from other uninvolved administrators on the topic of whether or not the rollback restriction should be enforced to the point of blocking. Thank you. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 02:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on -- how much more time are we going to waste on one harmless edit? There's a discussion at WP:VPP and a discussion on changing the policy to actually make this a violation of PAGs at WT:BOTPOL, and these two alone already have too much WP:MULTI overlap. This is not an incidents issue but a policy issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a dispute that warrants more administrator attention, hence I have posted it on ANI. This is a dispute over whether or not blocking over requirement bypasses is a valid reason, and I feel that it would be best for more administrators to give their opinion. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 03:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sportzpikachu, as you have noted yourself at the end of your report, this mostly seems to be an attempt to have a general discussion about the topic (as opposed to the user's specific behavior). Such an discussion already exists at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Huggle_&_Rollback, and the village pump is indeed more suitable for general discussions. Regarding this specific user's behavior, now that they have agreed not to use Huggle without rollback anymore, the entire concern is gone. All that's left to be had is a general discussion – not at this noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2020 (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.

Attacking other editors

• Jaredscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Jaredscribe has been attacking myself and other editors, accusing us of bias, accusing us of excluding them from editing and using "administrative power" (I don't know what that's about, I'm not an admin)...just generally combative in tone. I asked them to stop [33] and they're keeping on with it, [34]. I don't want to get into any drama with this editor, but they are being disruptive, I just want someone uninvolved to have a friendly word and ask them to please to stop as I'm having no luck. Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Warned for not assuming good faith. —valereee (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Bacondrum (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

valereee Alleging an article of having bias is not a personal attack. Neither is pointing out a difference in privelege. I continue to assume good faith for all other editors. Accusing me (falsely) of personal attack and threatening my account with blockage, is what leads me - correctly I think - to no longer assume good faith about bacondrum. It is a Red herring I continue to allege that this article is stongly biased toward presentism and americanism - the POV that neither history nor the rest of the world matter. Once again, this is not a personal attack; to the extent that it is an "attack", it is aimed a editorial decisions, not at any particular editor's humanity or personal characteristics. It is a valid criticism that should be examined by conscientious editors. Jaredscribe (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Jaredscribe You didn’t allege the article had a bias, you alleged a perceived bias was deliberate. There is a gigantic difference in that, and it qualifies as assuming bad faith, and that is against policy, and you should stop. We all have biases. We recognize that. It doesn’t mean we use them in bad faith, it just means we have to try to overcome them. You did in fact assume bad faith/make a personal attack when you alleged deliberate bias. Also Bacondrum didn't threaten you, they warned you, which is what we do, generally multiple times, before someone else comes along and blocks you. —valereee (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And I gave Jaredscribe a DS alert for American Politics on the 6th -if this doesn't stop a topic ban may be the only solution. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jitazg and article on Zubeen Garg

• Jitazg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Zubeen Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to propose that Jitazg be disallowed from editing Zubeen Garg. The editor has a clear conflict of interest as demonstrated here where after being asked if he knows Garg, he replies "i am in his fan club , i got the privilege to talk to him , and met him many times".

The user has demonstrated several times that their objectivity is severely hampered by their fandom/acquaintanceship with the subject and they have repeatedly demonstrated a desire to take ownership of the article.

• In these edits from July 2020, Jitazg seems to think the |occupation= and |instruments= parameters are to list every single job the guy has had and every instrument he plays. I opened a discussion about these parameters being too bloated here and Jitazg's response was to lobby that "philanthropist" be added on top of the bloat I was complaining about.
• In this edit from August 2020, Jitazg makes the claim that Garg has sung 20,000 songs. It is based on a quote found in this source, where Garg, irritated at a concert organiser says: "I will sing whatever I wish to and you cannot dictate me. I have sung 16,000 songs in the last 25 years of my career, not you". Now, maybe that's literal, maybe it's an exaggeration, I don't know. But Jitazg inflated the figure. When I pressed Jitazg about it, they avoided answering why they inflated the number and they didn't clarify whether this represented songs performed or songs recorded. When you say that someone sang 20,000 songs, I think most people would interpret that to mean unique songs, and probably songs recorded vs. he got on stage and sang the entire Beatles catalog over and over. So, Jitazg provided unclear information, inaccurate data, vague content, and it tends to inflate Garg's importance.
• In these 9 edits, user Unforgettableid makes a series of changes, chopping down the occupation parameter and similar content from the lede, as well as cutting a list of 16 languages Garg has performed in. While maybe that was a bit of an over-pruning, Jitazg reverted the entirety of it. Unforgettableid opened a discussion and cited MOS:ROLEBIO as the rationale for some parts of the trim. Jitazg's response was "Sir would prefer the old long occupation list because he has done this all and i think we should give him that credit what he has contributed and he deserves it." Oh, well sure, let's keep a bloated list of languages in the lede because Garg "deserves it".
• Here Jitazg describes Garg as being considered "one of the most talented and versatile artiste." Um, clearly puffery, and absurdly vague--who called him that? Most talented/versatile in the state of Assam? In India? In the world? Fortunately Jitazg included a single reference. An interview. And apparently the interviewer (assuming it's not a press release) thinks Garg is one of the most talented/versatile in "showbiz". So, a specific statement was ambiguously presented by Jitazg to make Garg look bigger and better.
• In this edit, this edit and these edits, Jitazg makes the claim that Garg "received the title 'Luit Kontho' from the governor of Assam." Well that tends to sound like it was a state-issued award, right? Like a knightship or being given the Padma Shri. But when we look into it, here at a source Jitazg provided, it looks to me like the Gov handed Garg one of the Maya Media Awards, and when looking up that organisation, it's only had 2 ceremonies, one in 2017, one in 2019. Hardly notable. But Jitazg, who is devoted to Garg, considers it a regal bestowment, notes it prominently in the lede, and uses (misuses) the |alias= parameter to try to use it an official state-issued honourific. I opened a discussion, where I detailed all of this, but Jitazg decided not to reply and instead here attempts to explain to me what an honourific is, but completely ignoring the other points raised, before declaring "Here's nothing to elaborate more. They've done that a few times as well--I'll point out multiple things wrong with the content they've submitted, they'll fix one issue and think that's the end of the discussion.

I think the above demonstrates adequately that Jitazg has extraordinary difficulty editing that article objectively or constructively. Note also that at Talk:Zubeen Garg, everybody else has to open the discussion. Jitazg never does. They don't appear to be here to collaborate, at least not with regard to Garg. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I assume you mean Jitazg, as JitazG does not exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)}}
  • @The Bushranger: I'm an idiot. Thanks for the tip. I have amended the above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It happens to the best of us! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• I reluctantly support a topic ban pertaining to this article subject, I agree with Cyphoidbomb that Jitazg appears to be unable to write neutrally and collaboratively about Zubeen Garg, especially as they don't seem to understand the Wikipedia concept of reliable sources. Waggie (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• More examples: Here, Jitazg adds the claim: "Zubeen has recorded 10,000 songs till 2007, 15,000 till 2013, and it is said that he has recorded 20,000 till 2020.

Sources provided?

Extended content

2008 source: "Zubeen, who has rendered 9,000 songs in various languages..."[35] 2007 interview: "I've 9,000 songs under my belt. That answers it all."[36] 2009 partial interview: "...says Garg who has sung more than 10,000 songs in various languages." [37] 2013 source: "He has sung more than 15,000 songs in various languages..." [38] 2013 source: "His feat of more than 15,000 songs in 7 languages over the past 21 years certainly speaks volumes..." [39] 2013 source quoting Garg: "No one should dictate [to] us what we should do. I have sung 15,000 Assamese songs..."[40] Undated Nettv4u.com bio (garbage source): "[41] 2020 interview where he says something, but I'm not watching 36 minutes of video just to realise I don't speak Assamese.[42]

The point: None of the print sources say that Garg recorded this many songs, but Jitazg is comfortable making that claim because it elevates Garg. Jitazg inflated the 2007 figure from 9000 to 10,000 because it elevates Garg. Jitazg is comfortable using primary sources for controversial claims, and a garbage source like Nettv4u. At least they had the courtesy to mark the 20,000 claim as needing better sources. Even though they could have looked for those sources and waited to include them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

TPA abuse

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.

---

Sylvia Lynn Mines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please revoke TPA for the user. Thanks. JavaHurricane 16:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks a lot! JavaHurricane 17:06, 19 December 2020 (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.

IPs using inappropriate language and adding unsourced content at Chennai International Airport

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.

---

• Chennai International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IPs continuously adding unsourced content to this article and using inappropriate language in edit summaries.

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chennai_International_Airport&diff=995000463&oldid=994992254 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chennai_International_Airport&diff=994937929&oldid=994921105

Please help. Thanks! 47.13.131.227 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:RFPP would be better suited for IP vandalism ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 06:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for two weeks, and offensive edit summaries revdel'ed. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2020 (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.

Removal of references at Mary Aloe

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.

---

Hi folks. Basler2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new editor and likely an SPA, is repeatedly removing references and adding unsourced content at Mary Aloe. I'm up to three reverts now.

Diffs: [43], [44], [45] There's also an edit from an IP: [46]

Can someone please assist? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a look and reverted (in two edits, duh!) to your last version. It seems that Basler2000 has currently stopped; i'll keep half an eye on the article in case he or the IP starts up again.

To be honest, there're quite a number of items in those lists which should probably have some referencing to them, though; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Robby.is.on (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've given it two weeks protection, as it was previously protected and it started right back up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:32, 19 December 2020 (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.

70.114.31.252

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.

---

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

Is there someone willing to control this seemingly out of control anonymous user who only wants to create unnecessary wikilinks to redirected subjects? It's starting to become very annoying and disruptive. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that is a shocking amount of mainspace activity in such a short time from an IP editor. Ditto on the unnecessary wikilinks to redirected pages. Happened like a dozen times over the past month on this one page. SWinxy (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Behavior now includes unnecessary links from mainspace to draftspace. I'm not sure what guideline or consensus here on Wikipedia says not to link to drafts from mainspace, but since a draft is not technically an article until it's moved to mainspace, it does not make sense to link from mainspace. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging the previous blocking admin Yamla for input. Now every edit by this IP is starting to become disruptive. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we try to do reverts by hand, or can an admin do mass-rollbacks? SWinxy (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser-blocked for one year. This is a case where mass-rollback would be appropriate, in my opinion, as WP:G5 would apply, though obviously I can't identify the specific blocked user here. --Yamla (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2020 (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:Kridha

• Kridha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Radha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editor is constantly POV-pushing on the page Radha and has shown traits of WP:OWNERSHIP. The user has repeatedly removed a WP:RS (which contradicts his POV) without providing a RS to contest [47]Edit summary as "Seriously, please read more reference and do little bit of your own research about Swaminiji of Pushtimarg. Infact, talk with their people belong to that Pushtimarg". I have requested him to provide a RS backing his POV as the only/ most recognised view, but the user has put no effort on that front. Kridha has contended "I can't help if for people like you reference paper become more important than old scriptures having 1000+ pages on Radha Krishna" [48]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The page has been subject to a slow-motion edit war for weeks now. I suggest reverting to the last stable version (which I'd say is either Redtigerxyz's edit of 10 October or my minor copyedit ten days later) and locking the page, pending discussion on talk.

Redtigerxyz already opened a discussion on the talk page, with which Kridha has yet to engage. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Besides the article talk, an discussion on User_talk:Kridha is ongoing. Dāsānudāsa, I will prefer 17 December version, which incorporates Kridha's POV too and is more referenced, has more referenced material in Description section in particular; however I am okay with the 10 October lead (before edit war, primarily Kridha contested the lead) and article body as of 17 December. Also, User:245CMR has added references and attributed to the balancing of POV in the 17 December version. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It would seem to me that discussion as to which version of the article should take precedence should occur on the talk page of the article. The issue here that is appropriate to ANI is the slow-motion edit war, and the apparent unwillingness for certain parties to engage in discussion at the article's talk page. "Discussing" by reverting and snarky edit summaries isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. If Kridha (or anyone else) isn't willing to collaborate effectively with other editors on the content of the article, then they shouldn't be editing it and a p-block or TBAN should be placed to enforce that until they are ready to collaborate effectively. Waggie (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

There was a request for full protection at WP:RFPP; the problem seems to be limited to one or few users, though. Kridha is now blocked from editing the article Radha for 3 months; I'll decline the protection request for now. I wouldn't object to any administrator deciding that Redtigerxyz was equally involved in disruptive edit warring, and applying a similar block to Redtigerxyz. From my perspective, the problem is solved for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Music genre changes

• SDA6776447644578+7545-7++ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Some genre edit warring (the user knows about the dispute because they changed the hidden comment deliberately) by SDA6776447644578+7545-7++ as the user's only edits. Reeks of a sock banned before, possibly LTA Iloveartrock though no doubt many people are much more familiar with this area than I am. — Bilorv (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the front man for the band in question, The 1975, forcefully rejects the indie rock genre label. This editor seems to be here only to add this genre to coverage of this band. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo and blocking calls

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 have noted that the user CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs) frequently calls for editors with whom they are in conflict to be blocked. [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]. This creates IMHO an unnecessarily hostile and antagonistic editing environment, in which one does not wish to participate. Wikipedia should be a nice and friendly place, where people should get along (yeah, I know this is the drama board). NB: I do not ask for CaradhrasAiguo themselves to be blocked. I simply want someone to tell them that this type of behavior is not helpful at all. FWIW 81.191.204.248 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor in the fifth diff was indeed blocked shortly after said disruption, and the editor in the seventh diff was blocked yesterday for the exact same long-term disruption. The sixth revert did presage a block for that editor's explicit labeling of others as "bad faith". The fourth diff is not even a threat at all. With a miss rate of at least four-nineths, call this report what it is: pettiness in response to the filer being reverted, not once, but twice. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't think it's appropriate to demand blocks like that (or refer to other editor's blocks in edit summaries). I also do not think your bad-faith accusation of me is particularly helpful: I'm not going to revert any further. All I demand is a bit of civility and decent behavior. You have yet to address the other diffs I provided; I suspect these make up only the tip of the iceberg. 81.191.204.248 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A miss rate that high, as well as the complete lack of prior attempts to address the issue with the editor being reported (myself) invalidate the report. The demand (refer to other editor's blocks in edit summaries) that prior sanctions not be mentioned in edit summaries is a no-go: just one of the implications of that is WP:BMB and WP:EDRC are substantially weakened. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I only gleaned those diffs after searching about roughly 2 min. I won't bother digging around for more, as I do not think that is worthy of anyone's time here. I simply noted an discourse pattern I didn't like, a discourse which IMO creates an unnecessarily hostile environment. May I ask you directly: why do you so often talk about other editor's blocks on talk pages and in edit summaries? Why is it helpful? I also do not think you have "invalidated" any of my receipts: regardless of outcome (i.e. whether an editor is subsequently blocked or not), one shouldn't throw around blocking suggestions like that. Keep in mind CIVIL and NPA. 81.191.204.248 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP; that kind of stuff (comments about editors' past or possible future blocks) is for noticeboards and user talk pages, not edit summaries and article talk pages. It doesn't matter how often the prediction is correct. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Deferring to Levivich's judgment in general, not that of the Oslo IP (receipts is something I expect for Twitter 'discourse', not this site). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that CaradhrasAiguo has previously edited as Lieutenant of Melkor (talk · contribs), who has been indefinitely blocked for similar issues. I have opened a SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lieutenant of Melkor. --Pudeo (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Caradhras has indeed now been indefinitely blocked as a sock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pudeo: Deferring to Levivich's judgment in general was a dead giveaway, eh? Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:20, 20 December 2020 (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:PhJ

User:

• PhJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Incidents:

• Casting serious WP:ASPERSIONS against several users - A (and refusing to take down the aspersions when asked - B)
• Ridiculing and belittling users because they're not from a democratic country - diff
• Casting WP:ASPERSIONS against users, claiming they're paid by their governments, mostly because these users didn't agree with PhJ's POV. - diff

I believe the topic these incidents are involved in are covered by WP:ARBAA2, if that's important. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow. It's 5am so I can't dig deeper into this, but I've stuck a G10 on that first page because that is absolutely an attack page on other editors, and claiming "the rules...do not apply" because it's a userpage when called out on it just compounds it. Not to mention the other diffs which paint a truly disturbing picture, and not in the way PhJ intends. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've given PhJ some words of guidance on making unevidenced accusations of improper conduct. Hopefully this will not be repeated. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE user

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.

---

Pmpfilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User:Pmpfilm has been consistently trying to get themselves an article here, and being disruptive in doing so. Within the past week they have:

• Started 7 separate Teahouse threads on getting themselves an article: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]
• Created a speedily deleted article about themselves (A7) [65]
• Created a draft on themselves (presumably a recreation of the A7 deleted article) [66]
• Created a draft in their sandbox, which they incorrectly moved to mainspace (without AfC) [67] [68]
• Created another draft as a user subpage [69]
• Used the help me function as forumshopping [70]

This user is being disruptive, and I think warrants a WP:NOTHERE block. Giraffer ^{(Merry·Christmas)} 15:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly recommending a NOTHERE indef block; competence is required and this user just cannot understand after several explanations that what they are trying to do will not happen. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all the above, user is blantantly here only to promote themselves. I think a WP:NOTHERE block is due. There's only so many times a user can be told to stop. Agent00x (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2020 (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.

Is it wise to cite Wikipedia ON Wikipedia itself?

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.

---

An editor by the name of Keimzelle keeps edit warring with me over some unsourced information on List of English-language films with previous foreign-language film versions. I later suggested to him that he cite a source, but instead of citing a different source, he cited Wikipedia. Do you think Wikipedia should be cited on Wikipedia itself? Call me when you get the chance (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No. See WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, if the Wikipedia article cited has a reference pertinent to the question, it can be used as a source, as long as it can be verified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Call me when you get the chance Incidentally, in the future questions such as this can be asked at the WP:TEAHOUSE, since this board is used to discuss behavioral problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, now Keimzelle is still edit warring with me; he even falsely reported me! He's still not listening! Can't you do anything about him? Call me when you get the chance (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I reported him because he asked for a source, and I replied that the source is literally one click away. Then I added a link to where that source can be easily found. But he's still not happy.--Keimzelle (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't listen to him. He falsely reported me, accused me of being a vandal AND a troll, and is still edit warring with me. Something needs to be done about him, and I mean NOW. Call me when you get the chance (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (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.

Cool a123 misuse of Talk, ignoring community feedback

Cool a123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note, a substantially identical ANI was filed on Dec 13, 2020 with 15+ diffs to which the editor did not respond.[71]

1. Since then, new community feedback about DE editing behavior and Wikipedia:Competence is required.[72],[73],[74],[75],[76].
2. New community feedback re ongoing misuse of WP:OWNTALK with editor removing same without engaging or changing their Talk usage (as sandbox).[77] and [78]. [79] and [80]. [81],[82] and [83] UW Dawgs (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally, I would hate to lose an editor that is interested in contributing. The best outcome is that he will take this as a "wake-up call," acknowledge that what he is doing is causing problems, and stop. I do have a technical solution to the misuse of User: and User-talk, should they be needed:

• For User:, move his current user page to a sandbox without leaving a redirect then create-protect it for 1 month.
• For the User-talk:, create a 1-month-expiration edit filter that would prevent him from inserting more than one distinct section at a time or more than X bytes at a time - where X is something well above what is "normal" and well below what would be needed to create the types of drafts he is creating.

As for him blanking the user talk page, well, unless there is a block notice in it, he's entitled to.

For what it's worth, I've already offered to help him move his User: page to a sandbox if he needs technical help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Martinvince's behavior

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.

---

• Martinvince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Good evening and happy holidays. @Martinvince is a user who joined in 2020, who has made a variety of edits, but most notably on Benjamin Gordon (businessman), on behalf of Gordon, their employer, for which they was paid to do so. Their edits have subsequently been erased, and I applaud them for making his status public and complying with Wikipedia policy. However, since then, the article has been listed for deletion - I have little knowledge of the origins of this nomination, but Martinvince has reported at least six accounts for sockpuppetry, three of which (including me), have voted yes on the nomination to delete Gordon's page.

First of all, here, they accuses the nominator of some sort of paid freelance editor who knows his boss, rather then a user who knows the signs of paid contributions when they see one, quote "Possibly he is also a paid editor from a freelancer site that didn't get the job and now posting as personal vendetta. How else could he have known that I was hired? The client has told me he only invited 5 people to the task he had posted privately, so Krutapidla2 must be one of the 5 people." They also asked, on this basis, for the entire nomination to be deleted, which is entire unreasonable - but not the first time this user has asked the admins to delete or disqualify a valid move by a user based on no evidence.

Second of all, here, the user accuses a user of being a sockpuppet for the nominator and declares that they know the user's "real identity", asking the user to "not post anything" on the page anymore. Quote: "You may be a sockpupepet of the Troll and Nominator, same Pakastani UPE guy. If so, I know your real identity and will not disclose due to Wiki policy ..... I ask you do not post anything here anymore. You have already been reported." Claiming to know someone's identity in a defensive statement is a bit troubling, and no user can ask another "not to post" on an article out of personal opinion, ever.

Third of all, when I voiced my opinion - my right as a Wikipedia user - Martinvince, here, stated that I was yet another sockpoppet for the nominator and warning administrators that my vote was suspicious and asking it to be immediately disqualified, again, entirely unreasonable. Quote: "This vote is very suspect...It would appear this is the same Troll that nominated this page for deletion and sockpuppet account. Please disqualify this vote."

This is ridiculous. Martinvince, a paid editor for the subject of the article nominated for deletion, has instantly accused select "delete" voters of sockpuppetry and demanding that their action be recanted in volatile manner, preventing the article from reaching consensus. It is entirely against WP:CIVIL and WP:Neutral point of view. No amount of defense or even mild-mannered response from other users has prevented these actions from happening.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've commented on Martinvince's talk page and the relevant COIN thread already with very direct reminders about personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry and paid editing without evidence, and bludgeoning. If this continues, there will be a block. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see that before. Thank you for letting them know. Have a wonderful week.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2020 (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:Riyyan Farooq and copyright violations

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.

---

Resolved

User:Riyyan Farooq was warned about copyright violations in July 2019 (User talk:Riyyan Farooq#Copyright violations). They were warned again, in August 2020, by User:Diannaa (User talk:Riyyan Farooq#August 2020). In November, I tagged an article they created, Suhrawardy family, for copyvio. They then claimed to have permission to use the text[84]. When I indicated that this was hardly believable considering their history, they said that they would rewrite the article in their own words[85].

They have now recreated Suhrawardy family, which again turns out to be a copyright violation, from [86]. They removed the CSD notice claiming "The said article has only been used for reference purposes. A few lines have been quoted. That's it."[87]. However, it is clear from comparing the article with the book that it is nearly comletely copied word for word from it (e.g. this or any other sentence you compare).

An unrepentant copyright violator who makes false claims when confronted with their copyright violations, not someone we should allow to continue editing I think. Fram (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked them. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! Fram (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2020 (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.

Requesting protect move for Six months for Draft:Aurats (word)

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.

---

Dear admins

Already we have had more than enough discussion on Draft:Aurats (word) (I am main contributor to the article)and related articles. Users not knowing enough background bring article prematurely in main space and unfortunately the whole things get in to avoidable debate. Can some admin please block move for six months.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Request has been attended. Thanks Bookku (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2020 (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.

Enel X

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.

---

• Enel X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of Italian IPs are edit warring to protect what is essentially an advertisement on the article Enel X. They represent themselves as unrelated accounts, but their behavior suggests that they are working together. Page history shows that these IPs have been fighting to keep this advertisement since at least October. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (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.

Persistent personal attacks

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.

---

• BlueLight05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BlueLight05 has been personally attacking me ever since they joined the project (5 days ago).

• Attacks made under IP, i.e., before they registered an account to continue their edit war.

  one has to be mentally impaired to confuse my personal point of view with an outside point of view.[88]

  again you have to be impaired to think I did.[89]

• Attacks once they registered and after they have been made aware that suck attacks are not tolerated.

  he's clearly trolling or biased[90]

  I also think your a liar and you're hypocritical in your judgement this is a statement of fact. [91]

• Today's attack. After their 3 day block expired, they went straight back to the article to continue the edit war for which they were blocked. Once reverted by another editor, here's their response (about me).

  He is Algerian [92]

I haven't reported the other personal remarks, which you'll see for yourself, and up till today, have ignored the personal attacks, but I have reached the limit of how much abuse I can take from an editor. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Reblocked for two weeks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 21 December 2020 (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 info

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:3C8:4102:94D0:1C74:D873:9ACF:84F2

Second edit gives a phone number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.40.149.206 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit rev-del'd. In the future, you may want to reach out to an admin directly, or send an email to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2020 (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.

Etiquette violation

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.

---

• ApprenticeFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello The User: ApprenticeFan uses rude and unacceptable language due to a disagreement with my edits, calling it a "stupid problem" [93]; the user seems not to understand why of my edits, even though I have made it very clear in the summary[94][95][96]. Insists that 'several sources' confirm the information that is fighting for, however, refuses to refer those sources, in addition to using inappropriate language.--Alex Duilius (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello to you, this is my second report and the first was in Christmas Day 2009 that the administering user on this source from Instagram that does not clarify with the original sources as with the policy of WP:NOTINSTAGRAM and proved that has no intent violations on the editing skills. I am sorry for the incident and will wait for the official sources to claim. I am decided to prematurely end this discussion and done. ApprenticeFan work 05:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Issued warning to ApprenticeFan. While I don't consider their use of "stupid problem" as a personal attack, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around their irritation. They have 74,000 edits under their belt and anyone with that much experience should know that A) you should provide a reference when you make a claim in an article, B) you should provide a reference when someone asks you for a reference, and C) you shouldn't edit-war about it. That was the shape of my warning to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2020 (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.

Vansh tyagi24

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.

---

User:Vansh tyagi24 was block by Rosguill for 24 hours on 20 December for edit-warring on article Sanjeev Tyagi. An unblock request was turned down by 331dot. There was also a question of COI. Since the block has expired the user has resumed the edit-warring at Sanjeev Tyagi. --John B123 (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2020 (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.

revert

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 anyone revert this edit? I can't, it gets blocked by the spam blacklist. --TheImaCow (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 15:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, Thanks! --TheImaCow (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2020 (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.

Woody Allen

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 this edit summary and reverted edit be redacted? Calling someone a "dwarf pedophile" who has never been charged with a crime, was cleared by multiple agencies in two states, and is not a little person seems to fall under "grossly insulting" comments toward a living person.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I also left a sternly worded warning on the talk page of the user that left those nice notes. Hopefully, they will not stray into such terminology in the future. --Jayron32 15:43, 22 December 2020 (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.

Brazil article constant editing clashes

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'd like some administrator attention to the Brazil article. There isently a editing war going on between User:Junperson and User:Moxy on which both reverting each other's editings, and on the specific case of Junperson as it seems, he has been reverting editings by Moxy over accusations of Moxy being some blocked person from Portuguese wikipedia, and not because of bad or unnecessary editing. Furthermore, Junperson seems to be adding politically biased content through all the article, more specifically at the Contemporary Era and Biodiversity and Environment sections. Sometimes the content is repetitive but biased, so added. He has also been undoing other people's edits for no apparent reason, actually he behaves like if he owned the article. But on spite of this, I'm not here demanding punishment for him or whatever, just stating that they're waging an editing war on that article. Whatever I and others brought to the talk page is constantly ignored (actually there was a guy with no account saying the articles are communist propaganda and that's why they need to be biased by the right-wing, lol), so I ask some quick attention to what has been going on there. I'm asking this here because I don't know if all of this falls in ongoing vandalism, or vandalism at all, and given that it is a complex case involving more than one person, I don't know if calls for a edit warrant against a single user is what I should do. RealityIllusion (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2020 (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.

The curious case of the user Normchou

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.

---

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

Wikipedia lurker here. I browse political articles a lot during my free time at work, and had recently gotten into the topic of American-Chinese relations. As I'm looking through the edit history into some of these articles such as American Chamber of Commerce in the People's Republic of China and Zoom Video Communications, a user named "Normchou" caught my eye.

At first glance, they seem active and knowledgeable, etc. Editing is not really my forte but I appreciate the existence of a free encyclopedia, and I can tell Wikipedians are really passionate about improving this website. However, when I looked into their user page, I started to have some questions –

This user claims to have been "on Wikipedia" for more than 10 years, as stated on an infobox. The infobox leads to the creation log, and it seems to definitely check out – This account was created on 17 October 2010. However, the account then laid dormant since 2010 for almost 9 years until 2019, and the user page itself wasn't even created until just 2 months ago on October 2020. That's a good decade between the account being first created and its user page. We can see this here on their public logs.

So while this user being registered a decade ago is true, the user putting that information out on its user page despite being dormant for all these years seems to imply deceptive intent that could potentially mislead users. Furthermore, ever since their "return", this user is only making potentially contentious edits on topics that significantly overlap each other, such as articles relating to China, its politicians and initially the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as edit warring with other users, effectively making it a "de facto" Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.

I'm sure many of you reading this have seen similar cases like this before on other websites such as Reddit and Twitter, where people would purchase accounts that are older so that whenever they use the account for whatever reasons, it would seem "organic" and have more credibility. I'm sure there are many users such as Normchou out and about making edits on Wikipedia, and this is probably just one of many.

I know Wikipedia has a system of catching accounts that are operated by more than one person or a person operating multiple accounts, as seen on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. However, I'm not sure as to who Normchou is a sock of exactly at this moment, or whether they had previously operated under a different account in the past. But I honestly don't buy that between the entire decade from 2010 to 2020, the person operating behind Normchou has not used this website with a different account, considering their advanced knowledge on the website after their "return". But since everything as of right now is just preliminary evidence, I've decided to put it on the ANI instead of bringing this topic onto the SPI, so as to probably get some answers from seasoned Wikipedians and administrators.

In light of this, how does this website deal with users that are potentially involved in off-wiki collusion that includes monetary transactions which at first glance seem authentic at first but definitely raises some eyebrows? Especially in this internet age, I'd assume many people, including those who work for the government of various states, would want to hire people to "rewrite" material on websites such as Wikipedia considering they could potentially be seen by hundreds of thousands of users every week. I'd assume with the rising tensions between countries such as China, India, Russia, and the United States etc, this is probably getting more apparent. Thanks for reading. LemonadeDrinker (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi LemonadeDrinker It is curious indeed that your first non-lurker post is the notice board and second post is the obligatory post on said user's page. Do you have another account? Vikram Vincent 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Intriguing, though mostly evidence-free, speculations. If any part of these speculations is falsifiable, I welcome admins to conduct a thorough investigation into me and my account including CheckUser. On the other hand, here is the genuinely curious case of LemonadeDrinker posting for the first time for the sole purpose of making these speculations. Does WP:BOOMERANG apply in a case like this? Normchou ^💬 20:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, LemonadeDrinker, for a user who states that Editing is not really my forte and that you are basically a lurker or browser first, you seem to know a lot about Wikipedia. That you suggest that an editor is being paid to edit by a government is quite a leap and since you present no evidence in the form of diffs/edits, right now this is just speculation on your part.

If you are concerned about a possible bias in Normchou's edit, it is appropriate to go to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and initiate a discussion there. ANI is for disputes about editor conduct or intractable problems and right now you haven't indicated that Normchou is guilty of any misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 22 December 2020 (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.

Siege of Kut

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.

---

Siege of Kut needs protecting, has been on RPP for an hour already. Besieged by socks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2020 (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:Lauren Cherie Southern

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.

---

• Lauren Cherie Southern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user account belongs to a well known alt-right, white nationalist [97][98], they only seem to be interested in editing their own article to date: Lauren Southern. They are known to espouse extremist ideology, having made public statements like "FUCK ISLAM" and ""Allah is a gay god" and much worse, but I will not republish such vicious language. She has actively promoted the racist White genocide conspiracy theory [99]. She was banned from entering the United Kingdom, after distributing racist material in Luton, UK on 24 February 2018, with the UK Home Office stating that she was “refused on policy grounds that their presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good.” [100]. As per no Nazis the presence as an openly racist public figure on Wikipedia is threatening to many other other editors, it is therefore inconceivable that one who espouses such hateful views could possible abide by Wikipedia:Five pillars and they should be indefinitely banned from editing wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• We don't block people because they are racist, homophobic, or whatever other personality defects they might have, we only block them if they repeat that behaviour on Wikipedia. Southern's account hasn't actually edited her own article, it's only edited the talk page, and both posts were perfectly reasonable comments. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I echo what Black Kite said here. Has she said any of this on Wikipedia yet? If not, then there is nothing to be done. I do not agree with what Ms. Southern's views are in the least, however they need to cross a line before we block them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Piggybacking off of Black Kite's comment, preemptively blocking that account for potential comments it could make is one of the worst things Wikipedia can do, as that can be taken to mean that if one's views do not align with the majority, they are not welcome here, which would most absolutely call Wikipedia's neutrality into question for legitimate reasons. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 01:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Uh, blocking virulently racist people doesn’t call WP’s neutrality into question. She should’ve been blocked the second it was clear it was actually her. Unless you think the multitude of editors that fall into groups she’s relentlessly attacked for years should just smile and take it, of course. We block editors when we find them even dog whistling bigoted views. She’s screamed them from a bullhorn in public. The idea that editors should have to pretend that didn’t happen because she didn’t pull out that bullhorn on WP itself is ridiculous.Capeo (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't block editors for who they are, editors are blocked for violating the policies of Wikipedia. So far, Lauren has not violated any of Wiki's policies. Jerm (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Cherie Southern has not edited since November 22, and what a person does or says outside of Wikipedia is their own business. This report is more of a rant about someone with different views from that of the initiator of this report. I think a speedy close is required. Jerm (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Southern also used Lozza77 account when her own account was blocked on suspicions of impersonation. It posted notices on her article talk page about her positions. It was subsequently blocked when her first account was unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Liz So the blocks were based on username policy, not behavior issues. The blocks have no relevancy to this report. Jerm (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse a speedy close before editors get themselves in trouble with personal attacks, here and on the talk page where the conduct of other editors also was not in conformance with Wikipedia No Personal Attack policy. WP:NONAZIS is a highly persuasive essay but also calls for actual harm to occur on wikipedia, not off site. Slywriter (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Does not seem like there is anything to do just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2020 (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.

Steve Hoffman (businessman)

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.

---

Steve Hoffman's bio is about me. As anyone can see, it's hopelessly outdated. Is it possible to either updated it or remove it. I'd prefer to have it removed since it's not being maintained. Thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Hoffman_(businessman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhoff (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note: now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hoffman (businessman) (2nd nomination). BD2412 T 01:57, 23 December 2020 (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.

Continued personal attacks by Isento shortly after being blocked

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

User Isento has continued to make personal attacks on me (including repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues) and act on his self-confessed intolerance of me shortly after being blocked for such attacks. He has a long history of incivility and personal attacks towards me that I am happy to go through if it would be helpful but I don't want to waste time/space. In August, he received a final warning from Ad Orientem after he told me: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?" Earlier this month, he made further personal attacks and uncivil comments (e.g. here and here) and also modified Israell's comments. I again warned him about his incivility, but he continued. QEDK and BD2412 warned him about the editing of others' comments also. Because of this, I started a discussion on ANI, and Ivanvector blocked him for 72 hours. During the discussion on the noticeboard, he made further personal attacks on me, and admitted his personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), said he wants no further interaction with me multiple times, called the administrators "hypocrites" and called ANI a "kangaroo court".

However, the week after, Isento joined a discussion that I started about an NPOV dispute that I was having with an editor. Rather naively in hindsight, I replied, and he immediately reported me to ANI. Throughout the discussion, I've asked to receive an explanation for what exactly warranted this report, as it is seems to me to be a content dispute where two editors accused each others' edits of bias, yet Isento only reported the one editor who he said he is intolerant of. Further, he didn't even try to solve the dispute using the correct methods, which WP:DR says is to "talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way" and instead automatically assumed bad faith and reported me straight away to ANI. Isento has never actually written a polite message on my talk page, instead only ever repeatedly placing warning templates, including two within 24 hours, and replying sarcastically when I ask him to clarify. He then continued with the personal attacks, condescendingly telling me: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." I wrote a message on his talk page regarding this, but he "replaced" it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today" without responding. He then doubled down on the assertion that I have mental health issues and also told me: "I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego". I am at a loss for what to do, because it is a shame that I can't seem to edit on Wikipedia without being constantly bullied by Isento. Me writing on his talk page many times didn't help, him receiving a final warning from an administrator didn't help, him getting blocked didn't help. I don't know what the best way of resolving this is, but I just want it to stop and would deeply appreciate some assistance. Thank you very much. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you have initiated another thread when there is already an open and active discussion on this notice board about your interactions with this editor. Grandpallama (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Because I was repeatedly told that I shouldn't draw attention to Isento's personal attacks on me in that thread and that doing so is a very reason for me to receive sanctions. For example, I was told "Your responses are stubbornly long and antagonistic, and trying to distract the focus from your behavior to mine when mine has already been addressed in the previous report", and told: "you just did it again, we're not talking about Isento's conduct, we're talking about yours. They already received their 3-day block for it." I am therefore taking their advice and starting a fresh thread to address Isento's new personal attacks on me (and, to clarify, not specifically regarding the ones he received a block for) . Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, since you seem to not understand what I'm getting at, I'll try to be more clear: if someone reports a user and said reported user ignores a lot of the instances in question listed by the reporting user, focusing primarily on the conduct of the reporting user, it can be very problematic. Editors who do this often are attempting to shift blame away from themselves onto others.

This is not to say the reporting editor is blameless or doesn't have conduct which needs addressing. It's part of both assuming good faith on behalf of the reporting user and addressing conduct head-on, instead of appearing to shy away from or downplay the accusations.

Additionally, if someone's conduct has already been addressed by the admins, unless something changes (such as the conduct continues or remedies/sanctions are violated), bringing up that again isn't always the best thing to do. It makes it look like you're casting aspersions so we try our best to avoid doing so. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: It's a shame that I am reading comments that I feel are mischaracterisations again, but I'll respond in the other thread, because we're talking about Isento's conduct here, not mine which is discussed in a very long thread above in which I have tried talking about this issue but have not received a response. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, good. It's better we deal with the original subject of the report first, in my opinion. Glad to see you understand. If we're having miscommunications, then it's good that we find a way we can communicate clearly in a way the other understands. I try my best to be very patient with others and hope that they return such to me. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Would a two-way IBAN resolve most, if not all of the problem? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 16:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. To be honest, I've never had experience with bans before so I'm not knowledgeable about when and how different sanctions should be implemented. How does IBAN work if editors edit on the same articles often? Also, I tried reading up on WP:NPA and it says that "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive" and that "escalating blocks may follow", so it seems like some form of block escalating from the previous block can also work as a preventative measure here. Then again, I'm not sure about in which cases IBANs should be used and in which cases blocks should be used. Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• A two-way IBAN seems like a perfect solution. BD2412 T 16:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Having had some interactions with Isento, it is my fair opinion that he is the problematic one, not Bgkc4444. Yes, Isento was disciplined for his actions, but he did not show much remorse, calling ANI a "kangaroo court" [101]. A two-way IBAN would imply Bgkc4444's behaviour is also problematic, which is not the case in my observation. That said, if Isento refrained from interacting with Bgkc4444, I am sure Bgkc4444 would not seek discussion with him. Israell (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, I agree, which is why I proposed it in the original thread above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add to Israell's contribution. After reviewing this issue, I agree that isento is the problematic user here, not Bgkc4444. I have also had a negative experience with isento. The first time I ever responded to them, they responded to me with uncivil comments and personal attacks entailing "Bogus argument", "had you actually read the source", and to "be blinded by one's fandom" [102]. From what I have seen, isento has not, and is unlikely to in future, stop making such attacks on other editors. Their claims of Bgkc4444 having mental health issues only affirms this, and I hope such actions can be stopped. Timeheist (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing that you quoted are personal attacks. The author of the article I cited had said that last quote about being blinded by one's fandom, as I made clear in my comment. And I wasn't exclusively responding to you - my comment was posted under Bgkc4444's, who had said a collaborator had recounted a claim, which was not true: "one interview is referring to the producer's musical idea, the other to the titular concept" It was safe to assume they did not read the source. I don't see how that is a personal attack. isento (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not bring up their mental health as a personal attack. In fact, it was in good faith. If you had read my original comments and set aside your prejudices, you might have seen that. I've apologized either way and took responsibility for the undeniably bad things I've said, so I don't see what any of you are trying to accomplish by continuing to attach bad faith on my part. isento (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, Israell, Timeheist, thank you all for all your comments. Again, I'm no expert on bans and blocks, but from thinking about it after Israell and Timeheist's comments and reading up on WP:NPA, I don't see why a two-way IBAN is the right solution here. As Israell and Timeheist said, Isento is the one who should be disciplined for his personal attacks, not me. Firstly, just focusing on my interactions with Isento, he is the one who has been making - and is continuing to make - deeply offensive personal attacks to me, he is the one declaring an intolerance of me, and he is the one who is doing so after being blocked this month for the exact same actions (it could even be argued that the block was for a 'lesser crime') and is apparently not willing to change his behavior. Secondly, this is not just an interaction problem with me because Isento acts uncivilly, name-calls and makes other horrible personal attacks on many other users, including Israell, Timeheist, BD2412 and the other administrators yourselves, and others such as unassociated Wikipedians who have joined discussions we are in to try give me 'moral support' for being faced with Isento's attacks that they had similarly received from him. I don't believe that this is a problem that can be solved with an interaction ban, and as I said earlier, this problem hasn't been solved with polite talk page messages, final warnings from administrators and 72-hour blocks. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposing editing restriction on B. M. L. Peters

B. M. L. Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to delight in filling up watch lists and article histories with constant fiddling with infoboxes, often to simply re-order ideologies or some other infobox entry based on some arbitrary criteria. Examples;

• 00:36, 4 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 17:07, 5 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 20:01, 5 July 2020 Adds unreferenced infobox ideology at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 00:45, 9 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 08:34, 11 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 01:22, 14 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 02:51, 15 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 02:59, 15 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 22:44, 15 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 04:37, 18 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee with no edit summary
• 01:04, 19 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 01:06, 19 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 01:14, 19 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 04:45, 21 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 18:55, 21 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 22:18, 21 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Social Democrats (Ireland) with no edit summary
• 02:20, 22 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 02:28, 22 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 21:08, 22 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 20:37, 23 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Scottish National Party with no edit summary
• 21:09, 23 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Greens–European Free Alliance with no edit summary
• 21:10, 23 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at European Free Alliance with no edit summary
• 01:47, 24 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 02:23, 24 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with no edit summary
• 06:09, 25 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with an edit summary. It read I think "Populism" should be identified before "Christian democracy", feel free to revert if deemed not acceptable
• 20:52, 26 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with an edit summary. It read Moved populism above Irish nationalism as ideologies on the "Left-Right Spectrum" should always come first, before domestic and foreign policy
• 20:54, 26 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 20:54, 26 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 22:55, 26 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at European Free Alliance with no edit summary
• 00:03, 27 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with no edit summary
• 04:05, 28 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 18:47, 28 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with an edit summary. It read As Autospark said, most sourced ideologies should go first. Moved "Pro-Europeanism" in front of "Irish nationalism". What Autospark actually said was conservatism should go first as it's the most widely-sourced, and well-recognised, ideology for the party, they didn't say the ones with the most footnotes go first, which was the absurd reason for moving "Irish nationalism" below "Pro-Europeanism".
• 04:11, 29 July 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with an edit summary. It read Added another source for "Irish nationalism" and moved it back above "Pro-Europeanism". So now we're back to moving ideologies around by number of footnotes, can anyone else see the end result of ordering that way? Wholly unnecessary footnote clutter as people seek to promote their favoured ideology.
• 00:31, 31 July 2020 Re-orders infobox political alignment at Irish Independent (a newspaper). While obviously not an ideology, shows the problem isn't limited to just those.
• 06:30, 31 July 2020 Re-orders infobox allies at Provisional Irish Republican Army. Ditto for the above.
• 19:25, 4 August 2020 Re-orders infobox countries at Irish Mob. Ditto for the above.
• 20:54, 5 August 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fianna Fáil with an edit summary. It read Minor simplifications
• 04:37, 8 August 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with a misleading edit summary. It read After searching for a week or so, found a new, 2020 source, for Fine Gael's membership figures. It is a primary source, so if a better one is found, please feel free to replace it
• 22:01, 9 August 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at European People's Party with no edit summary
• 18:26, 12 August 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Patriots of Russia with no edit summary
• 23:39, 23 August 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Patriots of Russia with a misleading edit summary. It read 2011 party endorsed the idea of Bill of Rights socialism, which only refers to the unreferenced ideology they added
• 04:59, 25 August 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Irish Parliamentary Party with no edit summary
• 04:30, 4 September 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fine Gael with no edit summary
• 08:09, 7 September 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Scottish National Party with an edit summary. It read Reordered ideologies in infobox based on number of sources. Do I have to point out the sheer stupidity in moving "Social democracy" above "Scottish nationalism" for the SNP?
• 16:13, 7 September 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Fatah with no edit summary
• 01:30, 22 September 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Mebyon Kernow with an edit summary. It read Rearranged infobox ideologies, sourced ideology(s) should be placed first
• 01:33, 22 September 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Mebyon Kernow with an edit summary. It read Ideologies should be ordered by number of available sources, moved "Civic nationalism" to bottom of list
• 18:58, 25 September 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Libertarian Party (United States) with an edit summary. It read Fix to order of ideologies based on numbered source
• 02:01, 2 October 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Libertarian Party (United States) with no edit summary
• 18:12, 16 October 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Black First Land First with no edit summary
• 18:30, 16 October 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Economic Freedom Fighters with an edit summary. It read Ordered ideologies based on number of sources
• 15:03, 17 October 2020 Re-orders infobox ethnic make-up at Irish Mob with no edit summary
• 15:14, 17 October 2020 Re-orders territory at Irish Mob with a misleading edit summary. It read Added images and researched backstory on them to make sure there accurate
• 08:23, 30 October 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies (and makes a small amendment to one) at Economic Party (Italy) with no edit summary
• 02:42, 12 November 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Finns Party with no edit summary
• 12:25, 20 November 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Solidarity–People Before Profit with no edit summary
• 03:50, 2 December 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Aontú with no edit summary
• 19:11, 4 December 2020 Re-orders infobox populations at Irish people with no edit summary
• 03:27, 7 December 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Juntos por el Cambio with no edit summary
• 03:33, 7 December 2020 Re-orders infobox populations at Irish people with an edit summary. It read Undid revision 992343869 by The Banner (talk) Then the U.K would be below Canada but above New Zealand since it has a direct relation, politically in regards to the North, should be directly behind Ireland. This doesn't explain why they made their initial change (see 19:11, 4 December 2020 diff) in ther first place.
• 16:40, 12 December 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Libertarian Party (United States) with no edit summary
• 09:04, 14 December 2020 Re-orders infobox ideologies at Hamas with no edit summary

The following are infobox logo size edits at just one article (Fine Gael), nobody else seems to be changing the image size (except prior to the first 20 December diff) so appears to be constantly edit warring with themself;

• 02:37, 22 July 2020 250 to 275 pixels
• 02:39, 22 July 2020 275 to 300 pixels
• 02:39, 22 July 2020 300 to 350 pixels
• 02:39, 22 July 2020 350 to 325 pixels
• 02:40, 22 July 2020 325 to 300 pixels
• 02:40, 22 July 2020 300 to 305 pixels
• 02:41, 22 July 2020 305 to 300 pixels
• 02:41, 22 July 2020 300 to 301 pixels
• 02:41, 22 July 2020 301 to 302 pixels
• 02:41, 22 July 2020 302 to 325 pixels
• 02:43, 22 July 2020 325 to 305 pixels
• 01:46, 24 July 2020 305 to 315 pixels
• 04:11, 28 July 2020 315 to 300 pixels
• 04:19, 28 July 2020 300 to 275 pixels
• 04:37, 8 August 2020 275 to 305 pixels
• 04:45, 8 August 2020 305 to 275 pixels
• 20:29, 9 August 2020 275 to 305 pixels
• 22:46, 9 August 2020 305 to 275 pixels
• 00:03, 17 September 2020 275 to 305 pixels
• 00:54, 17 September 2020 305 to 325 pixels
• 00:30, 20 December 2020 200 to 300 pixels
• 00:32, 20 December 2020 300 to 250 pixels.

I believe it's time to put a stop to the constant unnecessary fiddling with infoboxes, so I am proposing B. M. L. Peters is banned from making any edit relating to an infobox. FDW777 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The above demonstrates many examples of B. M. L. Peters making rather arbitrary and inconsistent changes to content. Sometimes they move Liberalism up, sometimes they move it down, sometimse they move Christian Democracy above Liberalism, other times they move it below. I'm curious if they have a coherent argument for these, since I tend to agree that over months, these would be irritatingly trivial changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In my defense I never saw it as disruptive, As I often add sources to each labeled ideology, and remove those without them, I put the most sourced ones on top, because there is the most evidence supporting it. In regards to the logo size argument, I have been trying to find the size that will fit the most information in the remaining infobox space with the least empty space remaining, in the name of efficiency. If you can prove by gathering thoughts of users other than your own, that somehow these edits are not helpful, and disruptive, then please do. I will stop once there is a consensus by users that I should, or if a moderator asks me too. As of now I have only heard complaints from one user/moderator, the same one, and a couple of random moderators who will always support the user complaining because he is also a moderator, and must never be wrong, without context. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

At 16:40, 12 December 2020 you re-ordered ideologies for no reason, same at 03:50, 2 December 2020, 08:23, 30 October 2020, 18:12, 16 October 2020 and 02:01, 2 October 2020. I couldn't be bothered checking all the rest from before October, although 20:52, 26 July 2020 stands out like a sore thumb as there are five ideologies and from the top down they have 3, 5, 2, 1 and 2 references respectively. And your reasoning for swapping Irish nationalism and Populism was nothing to do with number of references, for once you said why and it was Moved populism above Irish nationalism as ideologies on the "Left-Right Spectrum" should always come first, before domestic and foreign policy. So the idea that you consistently order infoboxes based on number of references isn't accurate. This is demonstrated again at 02:42, 12 November 2020 at Finns Party you moved Euro-scepticism down below Anti-Islam despite the former having two references and the latter having one. But why didn't you apply your "logic" and move "Finnish nationalism" down from first place despite it having one reference and ones below it having two or three? Is it because there is little doubt Finnish nationalism is their main ideology? If so, why make this edit t 09:04, 14 December 2020 at Hamas where you move "Palestinian nationalism" down to the bottom? People don't feel the need to add multiple references at Hamas to prove their ideology is Palestinian nationalism, because very few in their right mind would say otherwise. Ordering by number of references is completely arbitrary, even if you did it consistently which you don't. There is no consistent, coherent reasoning behind your re-ordering, and even if you did consistently re-order infoboxes by number of references that isn't even a sensible method of sorting ideologies, or anything else, in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand that my changes arent always the same, I use two methods, first number of sources, second socio-economic model, social policy, domestic policy positions (nationalism, pro-anti Europeanism), so perhaps I have not been 100% consistent with all edits regarding the infobox, as I use two methods for placement and ordering. I'll refrain from doing it anymore or if necessary using socio-economic model, social policy, demestic policy positions model, as it makes the most sense and is least controversial, and is used by most infoboxes relating to political parties and/or groups. I still don't see how the size of the infobox being changed is detrimental to the quality of the article. In my opinion its an improvement, to have more words take up less space. However you are the only one with this grievance, gather a consensus and I will stop it all completely, or get a administrator to inform me to stop and I will. I only aim to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@B. M. L. Peters: we don't have moderators, but we do have WP:Administrators and I'm the only one in this thread. I can't order you to stop, but I think it would be better all around if you stopped re-ordering infoboxes. Adding sources is good but not necessary if it's already sourced in the body of the text, removing unsources is fine although if you think it could be sourced a {{cn}} should be added rather than just remove it. Of course a party with "nationalism" in the name wouldn't need a source in the infobox for that, so not quite everything needs sourcing. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wilkja19 marking all edits as minor

• Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wilkja19 (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2018. For an inexplicable reason they began marking all of their edits as minor beginning in 2019, without exception. Most of these edits are not minor (as described in WP:MINOR) and include significant content additions, deletions, and changes. This editor has been asked twice to stop marking all edits as minor: [103], [104]. But they continue doing so undeterred, with no attempt at communicating. I posted a notice of this discussion on their talk page, so I hope they will respond here. Sundayclose (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems that this user has been marking their edits as minor in order to evade from giving an edit summary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. User has not reponded here, and has continued to mark edits as minor while this report was open. Recently, they have even marked a 1,900-byte removal of content as a minor edit. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

1,900 bytes marked as minor? Pah, an amateur. Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The block has expired without comment; let's see what happens next. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Guess what happened next. But it's worth noting this is an editor who edits exclusively on mobile with the iOS app. If you've ever used that app, you know why we should pity this poor editor. They've never made talkspace edits and may be totally unaware of all of their UTP messages or even that a UTP exists. They don't edit every day, so the 24hr block may also have gone unnoticed. This editor may be totally unaware that there is a problem. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is (or used to be) a preference setting, "Mark all edits minor by default". Once in a while an editor turns it on without realizing what he's done. I thought the preference had been elimintated (?) but it remains in effect for those that had it set. (All this according to my never-fail memory, of course.) EEng 01:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Not sure if this is the same editor as (or related to) Toyotaboy13 (talk · contribs), based on editing interest and the fact that said editor created Wilkja19's userpage. That said, given Toyota uses Android (and Wilkja iOS) it may just be that Toyota created their userpage, and they still haven't realised. Which would match up with the non-existent response to talk page messages. If that's the case, imo not worth chastisising this editor over marking as minor. Enough actually problem editors around to block a poor soul for making the mistake of using the iOS app. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a technical issue with the iOS app that needs to be resolved, though. Having editors who are impossible to contact or communicate with is a serious problem (much more serious than the relatively minor issue of someone marking all edits as minor.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh this is doomed. As a test, I just downloaded the app and left myself a message on my UTP using my bot account. No notification in the app at all (push, or alert in app itself, or otherwise). I think the app, at least looking at the screenshots, is built around readers not writers (ie editors). I remember a phab task about making block messages more obvious, but apparently user talk page messages are also quite invisible. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've crossposted this to VPT to see if there's a technical way to deliver them a message. If not, I think we should do nothing here other than tell phab to hurry this up. Communication is required, but if someone is able to do their own thing competently (given their extensive contributions, with no major problems) I think we should forget about this until/unless there's an actual issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The way to fix this is for us to all vote for WMF trustees who will select an ED who will properly fund and staff a development team. If anyone was looking for an example of how amazingly out-of-touch WMF devs are with the project, look no further than an editing app that doesn't provide talk page message or ping notifications. Can you imagine any Wikipedia editor ever approving such a thing for roll-out? It blows my mind.

BTW, mobile-via-browser also has intermittently-working notifications (but at least they do work some of the time, just not 100%) (I guess the desktop isn't 100% either for that matter) (So vote for trustees).

In the meantime, I agree leave this editor alone. Maybe an admin could post a note on their UTP explaining the situation, which at least other editors will see, and maybe this editor will see it one day, too. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What do they actually see when blocked? As Levivich said their editing pattern is too sporadic for us to be confident they would have seen a block. I would assume the iOS app has to show something when you are blocked although it could just say you can't edit this page because your account is blocked without giving the log. If they do see the block log, I don't see the harm in blocking them for longer directing them to their talk page. They are doing something harmful even if it's fairly minor. I thought when I tested the Android app a few weeks ago notifications did work for accounts but maybe I didn't bother to test logged in. Anyway, at least this editor has an account. I've seen plenty of people here complaining about some IP ignoring warnings although a quick check shows the IP has only ever edited from either the app or the mobile site so it's quite likely the IP is simply unaware of any warnings, since how would they know? Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone might want to chime in because on Phab apparently they think it's the Android app that is the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in randomly, but I don't understand what is so wrong about marking all edits as minor, even if you shouldn't? The fact that the user is getting threatened to have his/her rights removed is ridiculous. Restrictions are supposed to prevent, not punish, and I imagine they are suppose to prevent actual damage, not something that people with weird obsessions might find a bit annoying. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

While I can't speak as to why this user was flagged in the first place, marking as WP:ME is technically for edits that shouldn't require review ie typos, formatting-error fixes, vandalism reverts, et cetera. For large changes it would be rather evident from the byte count but if a change is relatively small but with a large change in the meaning of the content then it becomes a bit problematic as one would not be alerted to the qualitative changes without perusing the article or browsing the version history. At issue, it seems this particular problem is further compounded by lack of edit summaries Heliatrope Fish (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's face it. Edits are supposed to be marked as minor if they "could never be the subject of a dispute", but as every experienced editor knows there's no such thing. WP:ME lists capitalization changes as an example of the obviously uncontroversial – ha! EEng 03:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Fair enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni's personal attacks and other disruption

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.

---

• In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Saflieni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:AN3#User:Buidhe reported by User:Saflieni (Result: impasse--no good reason to block one editor but not the other)
• Talk:In Praise of Blood#Reception section and the dialog below it.

A few days ago, Drmies suggested that I to go to ANI due to this editor's behavior.[105] I try to avoid dramaboards but the disruption has continued so I feel I have no other option.

• Personal attacks: They repeatedly accuse other editors of lying, eg. "Stop making things up. It's clear that you're not interested in creating a balanced Wikipage at all ..."[106] "Drmies condones every lie you and buidhe have been telling about me and about others. What's your agenda?"[107] (Sadly, that is not the complete list). Even an uninvolved editor politely asking them to be civil, without referring to any past incident, results in the accusation of "pollute my Talk page with false accusations"[108]
• They also seem to have issues with WP:CIR, as Drmies pointed out here[109] and here[110]
• There is also an issue of WP:OWN behavior, implying that other users need to get Saflieni's permission to make edits: "I have asked you to discuss further edits on the Talk Page. You didn't."[111] and "Restored previous version. The edits were not agreed upon."[112]

Earlier today Drmies stated, "you [Saflieni] are contributing nothing at all to this discussion or to this article"[113] which pretty much sums it up. Despite multiple warnings and requests to change their behavior,[114][115] it has gone on. Because Saflieni has become a net negative on this topic and has prevented other editors from moving forward with improvements to the article, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban from the topic of In Praise of Blood and its author, Judi Rever. (t · c) buidhe 11:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Drmies went ballistic [116] when I tried to correct an error of judgment by using the phrase "you are wrong" before explaining the misunderstanding [117], referring to [118] [119]. It went downhill from there [120] and I've been insulted several times, him talking down at me: "As for your 'question', you can ask it until the sun goes down," and, without considering my explanations, telling me: "you may not be competent enough in working in a collaborative environment". Then when I complained on his Talk page about his jumping to conclusions and unfriendly attitude, he accused me of "gaslighting" [121]. This is not the conduct one expects from an administrator, according to [122]. But he continued on [123] where Drmies suggested a consensus on a disputed phrase by ignoring my input on what the literature says [124] and ignoring my suggestion to read the relevant section in the source. [125]. It went on by Drmies siding with the other two by deliberately misunderstanding my objections to HouseOfChange using an unverifiable twitter gossip to discredit a source and he continued to insult me by dismissing my elaborate efforts to explain content as only adding a lot of bytes [126].

As for you: take a look in the mirror. While I was trying to edit the article based on information from reliable sources you were consistently reverting them, accusing me of misleading, dismissing an expert source as "not notable", repeatedly accusing me of POV, suggesting in the edit summary that edits discussed on Talk were "unexplained removals", "BLP violations" that weren't and finally outright edit warring [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132][133] [134] [135] [136]. I went out of my way to discuss content. Even a couple of factual mistakes I corrected, which were very easy to verify, took multiple discussions and unpleasantries to get accepted by you. And then HouseOfChange came along, not contributing but simply deleting my edits without discussing on the Talk page [137] [138] [139] [140], and the story started all over again. He had already flagged my edits as "this page has come under attack" and he responded to my call for a discussion by immediately accusing me of edit warring and biased editing [141]. This attitude never changed. Both now started to attack, accusing me of pushing my opinion, of misquoting the literature, of taking stabs at book reviewers, e.g. [142]; [143]; [144]. In the latter diff they lie that I had changed the text of one of Buidhe's edits to attack a reviewer, but the history makes it clear that I never touched it. It goes on and on. After some of my edits had been reverted thirteen times the page was put under protection, but I haven't seen any positive attitudes from any of you towards resolving the dispute. Saflieni (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been insulted several times, which is not the conduct one expects from an administrator You are expected to provide diffs to back up any accusations you choose to make on this forum. Otherwise they are likely to be treated as groundless. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Supporting Buidhe, Saflieni is wasting the time and patience of other editors who want to improve the article In Praise of Blood.

• He expands criticism of the book, removes positive comments, removes material that supports claims in the book, and reverts multiple edits by others to keep his own POV predominant. Some diffs: (greatly expand criticism from one source) (remove positive quote) (remove material that supports claims made in the book) (revert multiple edits claiming "due to biased uncooperative editor")

• Instead of focusing on improving the article in a collegial way, he attacks those who disagree with him. For example, "More interesting is why Drmies condones every lie you and buidhe have been telling about me and about others. What's your agenda?"[145]

• Even a simple talk page edit request discussion, where both Buidhe and Drmies agreed with my request to remove one phrase from a sentence, and not one person agreed with him that the phrase should remain, he first generates walls of text and then does not recognize the consensus of all other editors.[146]

The book In Praise of Blood is controversial. The article about it "must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." This goal has not been advanced by a WP:POVFIGHTER working to introduce multiple examples of people referring to its author as a genocide denier, a claim the article now parrots four times, with a single pushback by Rever saying she isn't. (Her book, whose subtitle is "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front," focuses on crimes of the RPF rather than on the 1994 genocide in Rwanda by Hutus killing Tutsis. But the book, in fact, devotes some space to confirming that the 1994 genocide against Tutsis did occur and was a terrible thing.) What the current Wikipedia article doesn't include is the fact that these "specialists" are using the expression "genocide denial" in a way that does not in fact mean denying a genocide-- they intend a specialized meaning that Saflieni describes on the Talk Page: "Rever's book fits Stanley Cohen's definition of implicatory genocide denial." [147] Now to me the meaning of "implicatory genocide denial" should be made clear if the article wants to accuse Rever of it four times. Many people have called Hillary Clinton the "butcher of Benghazi," but if the article Hillary Clinton included four examples of people calling her that, surely WP:BLP would give clarification beyond "Clinton says she is not the butcher of Benghazi because she did not ever own a butcher shop." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of a little wrinkle in my RfA, where I got two opposes because I wouldn't block editor X after some ANI thread or something--one from the editor who wanted editor X blocked, and one from editor X. The current timesink started with an ANEW report (and the attendant retaliatory report), which I closed saying, essentially, that there was an impasse and that there was no good reason to block one and not the other. Saflieni can't let anything go, and continued their protests/comments/insults for days--the same MO they're using on that talk page. I am not quite sure where I went "ballistic"; I did ban them from my talk page because of their incessant whining. I am convinced, by now, that they are a net negative. Nothing good can happen to that article as long as they're around, with their accusations of BLP violations, libel, and what not, with their continued harping and producing walls of texts, with their bad-faith accusations (including that buidhe and House are like tag-teaming and must be in cahoots).

  After I closed that ANEW report, and after I responded to a half dozen more of Saflieni's comments in that thread, I took to the article talk page because I felt that there were mistakes made by both parties, in terms of what reviews could and could not do, etc. In that same comment I mentioned that I was not speaking or acting as an administrator, so that Safliene keeps referring to me in this regard as an administrator is really just gaslighting, an attempt to stack the deck. That's why I specifically asked for EdJohnston to look at an edit request (Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page). Again, the only thing I've done as an admin is not block Saflieni or their opponents; in hindsight I regret that since there was copious evidence of edit warring, but I thought that they were able to work things out in a collaborative way. Anyone who looks over my comments at ANEW and at the article talk page will see that I have been plenty critical of buidhe and House--but they, to a much greater extent than Saflieni, acknowledge that this is a collaborative project. Saflieni needs to be blocked from that article and the talk page, at the very least, and they deserve a block for disruption and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The problem which is central to this discussion, and I have tried to point this out from the start, is a knowledge gap. I've been accused of misquoting and POV etc. by two editors and an administrator who have not read most of the relevant documents, such as the book and several other sources. They treat a couple of layman's reviews as authoritive (because those they have read) and are skeptical about the majority view among specialized scholars, researchers and investigative journalists with decades of experience in the field, not to mention independent eye witnesses. Regarding the Epstein dispute, I have twice requested Drmies to read the relevant section of the journal article from which I have selected the quote. It's open access [148] so anyone can check if I misquote or misrepresent the author by simply reading it without bias. There's no excuse to keep accusing me even here of "Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page," based on nothing but an uninformed guess and then tell me I'm not cooperative. There still are sixteen references in the article to the reviews by Epstein and Garrett, and their praise is also still there. All I did was remove a few erroneous and contentious remarks and added a nuancing quote from a prominent scholar. I can't believe the fuzz and the hatred that these and similar honest edits have generated. And I find the highlighting of my responses to the endless reverts and obstructions and insults, which I admit should not have reflected my growing irritation the way they did, to be one-sided and unfair. Saflieni (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Despite its length, the section Talk:In_Praise_of_Blood#Edit_request is clear enough: the article contains a highly critical remark about one reviewer--but leaving out the rest of the comment, which indicates that the reviewer does need to be taken seriously. I don't know why Saflieni is claiming that somehow this is difficult: the partial quote is a misrepresentation, and "uninformed guess" is just nonsense. FWIW both Saflieni and House are very, very wordy, but at least House doesn't constantly badger and accuse people. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not highly critical, it simply states a true fact. That whole section in Caplan's article is highly critical of Epstein [149], which is why I chose this neutral quote. Let someone else decide here. For HouseOfChange I have only this to say: I have invited you several times to go over my edits together, here for instance [150], so we could discuss them. But you have refused my offer. Now you bring those issues up again, not understanding that for instance Bisesero isn't mentioned anywhere in the book, so I removed that reference, or that Garrett's bit about witnesses at the ICTR is erroneous because Rever didn't write that and the correct version of the information is outdated, which would require adding extra information. And so on. But you all rather speculate about my ulterior motives. There's nothing I can do about that. Saflieni (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Here's Saflieni's MO again: deflect and sidetrack. Introduce extra extraneous material that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and flood the page. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My "MO" was to reply to the diffs in HouseOfChange's comment, this one especially: [151]. And I've inserted a diff which explains Caplan's section "Rever has a fan" to make it easy for you. Here it is again: [152]. You've been accusing me of personal attacks and other misconduct but it's the same as with the other two: the pot calling the kettle black over and over. Saflieni (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I added some links to the head of this report. This is a confusing AN3 case. At the start of the case, some admins might have considered User:Buidhe and User:Saflieni to be equally in the wrong , but in my opinion Saflieni has been digging the hole deeper by his ongoing conduct. (The page is now under full protection for a week). Though Buidhe may have some good arguments, this ANI complaint (which he opened) is so murky that I am doubtful ANI will be able to do much with it. If anyone who is concerned with the article would like suggestions of how to resolve the dispute, please post on User talk:EdJohnston since I do have some ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I do hope that whoever decides on this case will check if the diffs presented by the plaintiffs really support their allegations and context, especially the ones in Drmies' comments. EdJohnston: When information is rejected before it's been considered this is not acceptable to anyone. You were there when I presented my argument on the Talk page which was then ignored and not taken into account when the "consensus" was reached. It was ignored again each of the three times I repeated it, such as here: [153]. On this page I'm still falsely accused of misquoting which is a serious accusation so I repeated my argument three times again with links to the source. See what happened. This has been the general attitude on that Talk page. Am I digging holes or are people digging them for me? Saflieni (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Speaking as an uninvolved party: You're digging holes. Replying to every comment here looks more bludgeoning than helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm under attack from different sides but I shouldn't defend myself. Brilliant. Well, if nobody's prepared to look at the content of my arguments and it's all about how things "look" I can see where this is heading. You won't find me here again. Saflieni (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am willingly working to get agreement on a neutral version of the article (and grateful to EdJohnston's help.) But Saflieni does not hear people's objections to his behavior at the article and on the talk page. So I hope we can wait before closing this. I am no longer asking that he be blocked from the talk page, where he does make some good suggestions, but I want to see better behavior in his actual editing of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

requesting a block I have tried to be collegial, even offering to replace my own draft of "Content" with his (subject to some consensus-based edits) but Saflieni has not moved on from rejecting ideas that change even a phrase of his own preferred content. After days of his uncivil attacks, with edit summaries like "do not pretend to know better than senior scholars please", "Contradicting is not discussing", "Please read the book properly", and most recently "No censoring essential information please," I request that somebody block him for a week. My goal here is to improve articles, not fend off accusations on talk pages. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Need some help here: To overcome the endless quarrels I have drafted a better version of the Wikipedia page that is neutral, captures the book's content, and fairly describes the responses by experts and non-experts, positive and critical, leaving the last word to the author.[154] On request I have inserted references to the bookpages where the author makes claims which are contested by the other two editors. However, HouseOfChange has come out of the closet as a superfan of In Praise of Blood and its author Judi Rever. We're still not getting anywhere because of it. HoC uses polarizing phrases such as "anti-Rever militants" to describe the experts who criticize the book (senior scholars, reputable researchers and renowned investigative journalists).[155] And even though HoC is a layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book, he keeps pushing his personal view even though the author herself contradicts it, such as on the double genocide thesis.[156][157][158][159] HoC dismisses the expert's arguments as "RPF talking points"[160] and calls experts who discuss the author's fringe theories "her angriest critics", accuses them of engaging in "groupthink" and "cherry picking", all to suggest they speak on behalf of the Rwandan government rather than analysing the book on the basis of their research and the scholarly literature.[161]. I have tried to explain everything as best I could, latest here [162] and [163]. However, HoC has now appointed himself to be the editor-in-chief of the article and proceeds to edit the article without consensus, circumventing NPOV by moving non-expert opinions to the Reference section,[164] and stealing bits and pieces from my draft that benefit his POV in the process.[165] Because we had agreed to try to make a new, neutral version and not edit without consensus,[166] I have reverted the changes that were made without prior consent, hoping that a neutral administrator will step in and rescue my efforts to create an article that is factually correct, neutral, fair, and gives due weight to the majority view amongst experts. I don't want this to backfire again. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promoting fringe theories. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni has a content dispute with me and with Buidhe. We have tried to resolve it on the talk page. Saflieni edit-wars to focus the article, including its Contents section, on controversy about the 1994 Rwandan genocide. We say, the book's topic is a decade of (alleged) war crimes starting in 1990. We do not dispute that criticism of Rever's controversial claims belongs in the "Reception" section.

Re the current complaint: as EdJohnston suggested, first I and later Saflieni created drafts for a new "Contents" section. Saflieni has filed this complaint in response to my putting into the article a version of HIS draft (with citations added), calling this "stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission". So now after four days of work, trying to compromise and build consensus, Saflieni has reverted to the version before any change to the "Contents". This article could use a few more editors, if anyone's willing. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that User:Saflieni is going to win this argument on the basis of his personal charm. His latest remark to HouseOfChange is:

Besides, the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus. What you did was badly written, biased, and showed no understanding of the subject again. Why don't you find another, less demanding project? [167].

It doesn't seems as though Saflieni's position enjoys support from anyone else. (So much for his demand for 'consensus'). He seems to want the author of the book to be considered a Rwandan genocide denier. The other main participants in this discussion are User:HouseOfChange and User:Buidhe. When HouseOfChange took some excerpts from Salfieni's version and added them to the article, Saflieni objected to this 'stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission'. Does he know about the copyright release that appears under the edit window whenever you hit 'Save'? Saflieni considers HouseOfChange's work to be 'badly written and biased'. He says that HoC is a 'layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book'. If Saflieni isn't able to edit neutrally about Rwanda and to avoid personalizing disputes, I question if he should be participating on this article. Either a ban of Saflieni or another period of full protection seem to be the main options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Is anybody ever going to look at the content in this dispute? We're discussing a controversial book about genocide, show some respect please. Do you want to get the correct information into Wikipedia or turn it into a fanclub page for fringe theories? I doubt I would get treated like this if I was in a dispute over Andrew Wakefield's book with two anti-vaxxers... Saflieni (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni: looking at Buidhe's userpage I can imagine few editors less likely to dismiss the seriousness of genocide. But thanks for yet another demonstration that you are too emotionally-invested to try to get consensus on content, so instead you attack other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Really, after all the hours I've put in trying to educate you on this subject, which is a complete mystery to you, you have the audacity to say this. My point is that you would need at least some basic knowledge to be able to recognize the limits of your competence. You lack that basic knowledge. That is not an attack. That's the reality which has been at the heart of this dispute from the beginning.Saflieni (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm getting mixed messages here, not helpful ones. I have again read WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, but don't see which guidelines I violate in [168]. It seems to me that I follow them almost to the letter. On the other hand, I can't say the same of the Buidhe and HoC versions. Could a neutral administrator who is not exclusively focused on my likeability please discuss this discrepancy with me, away from the current 'block and ban'-debates preferably? Thank you. And could Buidhe and HoC for once refrain from commenting, please? Saflieni (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This ANI was filed long before Saflieni wrote those drafts. Nobody files an ANI for a content dispute or "likeability." Look instead at his POV-pushing at one edit request, filed when the article was "fully protected." I asked to remove ONE PHRASE. Buidhe and Drmies agreed with me that the phrase was misleading and POV. Only Saflieni argued to keep the phrase. What happened next (as the meme-pushers say) will shock you... Dec 4Dec 5Dec 10 HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is actually a good demonstration of my point. You were violating a Wikipedia guideline, as explained here [169] : "Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value." However, to get your way you managed to convince two administrators of the falsehood that I was using a partial quote to mislead people (see the earlier discussion above). Had they (Drmies and EdJohnston) bothered to verify the allegation as I requested, they and everybody else would've known better. Saflieni (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not "concealing relevant information" to remove inaccurate well-poisoning-- yet you still are demanding that we keep it, verbatim, a phrase that does not fairly represent either Caplan or Epstein. In 2017 alone both The Guardian and The Nation published long articles about Kagame and the RPF written by Helen Epstein. Caplan also expressed respect for Epstein's past work, even if he was apparently ignorant of her Rwanda credentials. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not repeating that whole discussion. Suffice it to say that Epstein is not an expert on the subject but a journalist who is notable for something very different: her work on HIV/AIDS. Credibility depends on whether the expert's disciplinary specialization matches the topic at hand. [170] A couple of newspaper articles don't change that. One isn't even about the subject, the other isn't very accurate. What's troubling is that you try to elevate non-experts to the status of experts because they praise the book while you spend a lot of time on the Talk page trying to discredit specialized scholars who criticize the book, some administrators supporting that. Saflieni (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The topic in dispute was your advocacy for the phrase "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert." Nobody asked to describe her as a Rwanda scholar. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

EdJohnston, I cannot praise you enough for doing what you tried to do here--and yet you seem to have reached the same conclusion I did: the community and the article would benefit from Saflieni's absence. I believe I proposed a topic ban from this article and the talk page before, and I'm wondering how many administrators would have the patience to go through all this wikilawyering, all these misrepresentations, all this chatter before hitting the block button. I get the feeling that you are so invested in this that you are not going to push that button, or impose that topic ban, and as you know I have stated I wouldn't act as an admin here. I think we should post a note on WP:AN asking for a totally uninvolved admin to have a look at this (we'll need to make them a sandwich) and decide on it. Thank you for your effort. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I've been asking for a neutral admin for a month, haven't I? Someone less judgmental and more on topic please. Saflieni (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This ANI thread was opened to address User:Saflieni's personal attacks. I'm planning to warn User:Saflieni that they may be blocked if they use any more ad hominem language in their discussions about In Praise of Blood. That would mean they would be blocked if they re-state any of the criticisms seen above:

• 'My point is that you would need at least some basic knowledge to be able to recognize the limits of your competence.'
• 'The problem which is central to this discussion, and I have tried to point this out from the start, is a knowledge gap'
• 'HouseOfChange has come out of the closet as a superfan of In Praise of Blood'
• 'HoC is a layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book'
• 'Why don't you find another, less demanding project?'

I'll also let User:Saflieni know that if he expects admins to have read the book in question before they take any action on this matter, he will be disappointed. We don't need to read the book to determine whether editors are discussing in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Reading your threat, one might believe that I made these comments out of the blue for the sole purpose of hurting someone's feelings, instead of reaching a conclusion after a month of fruitless debate in which I've repeatedly been called a liar with a hidden agenda in different wordings - which is fine by you apparently - and having each of my arguments and explanations contradicted with uninformed assumptions. Not to mention their demeaning language regarding respectable scientists, in attempts to frame them as politically motivated "militants" - also fine apparently. And in between I'm getting more insults from Drmies (look at all the things he wrote on this page) and then you despite my many requests to check the information before judging me. Did you ever check the truth of: "The partial quote is a misrepresentation."? How many times did I ask? And it only takes a few seconds to check that one, quicker than writing this threat. Does anyone care about the actual subject of the dispute? Apparently not. Shame! Saflieni (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Last word on this. One of the mixed messages I'm getting is that the repeated false accusations against me constitute harrassment, according to this: [171] - "It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly." Yet my calls to put a stop to it are not heeded because they make me a nuissance.

Ok, having said that, I'm leaving the following diffs behind for a neutral uninvolved administrator to look at, which will show that from the start I was trying to clear the article of elements that were not conforming with Wikipedia policies, esp. the ones regarding fringe theories, due weight, accuracy, NPOV, and so on, and that I made efforts to replace them with relevant information from RS: [172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183]

And the discussion about the double genocide theme of the book that led up to the incompetence remarks: [184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191] and: [192] Saflieni (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the need to drag this out any further. Its quite clear Saflieni is WP:NOTHERE, plus the WP:NPA violations. I'm confident everyone here knows what I'm gesturing. Jerm (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Jerm No offense but if I'm WP:NOTHERE how do you explain the fact that I've created a (proposed) better version of the entire article in my sandbox? [193]. One that is neutral, balanced, contains all the different viewpoints according to due weight, takes into account the wishes of the other two contributors, and accurately but modestly cautions Wikipedia readers that the book promotes a fringe theory. Please note that on this page I have already admitted to having inappropriately vented my irritation. I have no problem apologizing for that. I'm only asking to take into account the context: the baiting (not to excuse my response to it), the pattern of reverting my contributions and contradicting my arguments before I eventually began restoring my edits, the POV, BLP and COI accusations I get each time I insert scholarly literature, when I correct errors, and so on. The unsubstantiated accusations of gaslighting, misquoting, wikilawyering, not cooperating, biased editing, etc.[194] by an administrator are not very helping to resolve the dispute, which is between two editors who have read a book they don't fully comprehend (or a few reviews) and have been convinced by its argument, and another editor who tries to give due weight to the majority view among scientists and historians. Saflieni (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni You’re more focused on content rather than your own behavior. ANI is not meant to resolve content disputes. ANI is meant for resolving behavior issues of an editor, and you have plenty of behavior issues. You have been registered for many years, but despite that fact, you are oblivious to the behavior policies of Wikipedia. But then again, you’ve barely made any edits since being registered. The community won’t be taking a loss if you were indefinitely blocked. Jerm (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Jerm I've acknowledged that I've been too direct in my language during the Talk page discussions. I believe I just apologized for that. But I don't agree with the accusations of real misconduct such as false charges of dishonesty and disruption. I am not guilty of those. False accusations are against Wikipedia policy, and I believe that gives me the right to request that someone checks the facts beyond a superficial glance. Anyone can make accusations but that doesn't mean they're true or that the examples aren't taken out of context. Besides, I'm singled out as the bad guy here when the other editors' behaviour (and Drmies') hasn't been any better. I can list dozens of examples of aggressive attitude, personal attacks and false dishonesty claims by HouseOfChange alone, not just against me but also against reputable scientists who have written something HoC doesn't appreciate. ANI shouldn't be a tool for editors to get rid of dissenting voices so they can own an article. I have edited other Wikipedia projects btw (and have a job). Not everything is what it seems from the outside. Saflieni (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aside from Saflieni's contempt for everyone else, there are two problems. One is that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to do battle against "the campaign by some editors on Wikipedia - some of whom are self-declared anti RPF activists - to introduce unscientific and sometimes demonstrably false content to pages related to the genocide and the wars in Africa's Great Lakes region." (emphasis mine[195] On his userpage also: he is a Rwanda genocide-expert coming here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The other problem is that, despite his best efforts, he can't write impartially. E.g., his draft for the article, which he wants to use verbatim is full of POV. Saflieni is correct that his POV is that of the majority of people who write about the Rwanda genocide. But his emotional investment in that POV causes repeated problems. He should not be writing about the RPF or Rwanda in Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And the tsunami of false accusations keeps rolling in. Saflieni (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: And the PAs against other editors keep rolling in. 10 edits on December 18--here are 3:

• You're still avoiding a sensible discussion of my draft and are both trying to side-track me again..[196]
• The unsubstantiated accusations ..by an administrator are not very helping to resolve the dispute, which is between [Saflieni and] two editors who have read a book they don't fully comprehend[197] (Drmies is the target of this and a wikilink to Wikipedia:WikiBullying#False_accusations
• I'm talking about your tendentious remarks...This is the kind of personal attacks and allegations that I've been getting from the other two editors .. and is not something I expect from the admin.[198] (EdJohnston is targeted here)

But not one edit today (so far) aimed at improving the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Having fun, HouseOfChange? Why don't you tell these folks how you've been searching on Twitter, looking for dirt on a reseacher in your attempts to discredit a peer reviewed journal article you didn't like. That's how Wikipedia is built nowadays. Mud slinging and framing people to get what you want. Saflieni (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A recap of the case from my perspective and then I'll leave you all to it: I came to the article, which is about a controversial book/fringe theory, five weeks ago to assist the creator because I'm knowledgeable about the subject and had noticed factual errors and misrepresented sources. They rejected my input, reverted my edits time and again, refused to cooperate, and continued to add more erroneous content. When I insisted on cleaning up the article they ran to the Noticeboards to discredit me. And look where we are now. Nothing's changed except now there are two editors unschooled in this subject but with an illusory superiority bias, knowing everything better than even the author of the book herself, not tolerating dissenting voices, pushing their POV because their two to one majority, according to the administrator, means consensus. Meanwhile this mob mentality [199] is developing so I guess there's nothing more I can say or do than to refer to the POV Railroading, False accusations, Misrepresentation, Wikihounding, and other bullying tactics employed here.[200] Saflieni (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

See also: Filing of this ANI and WP:IDHT. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget: WP:CIR e.g. "avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." And HouseOfChange please read the parts of WP:IDHT which apply to your own behaviour, such as: "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits," by dismissing my sincere efforts to explain content and start a dialogue about the edits as "walls of text." I will further comment on your Talk page because I really hope we could stop the endless back and forths over here. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni I am not a Judi Rever fan, I do not believe in any "double genocide" theory, (therefore I am not plotting to create a fan page for double genocide theory.) I am a retired academic who has read, written, and refereed many scholarly articles. Repeatedly, Buidhe and I have put your good ideas into the article. When we try to balance your POV, you respond with reverts and with insults. So your flooding this ANI page with attacks on anyone who disagrees with you--it's not offtopic! You're just illustrating why we started this ANI. Please do continue abusing me at ANI. The admins must love hearing all this--since nobody has blocked you. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Where's the reality in all this? You're twisting my words again, giving false accounts of what happened... Don't forget you were already accusing me of bad faith even before you got involved in the editing, which you started by reverting a number of my edits using vague references to BLP and NPOV as weapons. I bent over backwards to get a dialogue going - anyone can check this - but failed and got frustrated. I admit that I shouldn't have but we're all guilty here. Posting tons of accusations out of context and even lies to get me booted is bullying and not helping to improve the article or any other related articles which I can't edit because you're keeping me tied up in the endless discussions and Noticeboard complaints. Look at how this works: You and Buidhe have used BLP accusations against me more than twenty times. I referred to it once (correctly in my opinion) and was immediately accused of Wikilawyering by an administrator. I'm not perfect but can we all get back to reality, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Briefly:

• @Saflieni:
• My first edit to the article (21:21, 2020 November 30) tried to change what I saw as a serious BLP issue: using Wikipedia's voice to accuse a living person of "conspiracy theories and denial." In haste, I changed the phrase to something less pejorative.
• Four more Dec. 1 article edits, all text changes, not one revert, nor did I know if any text was your edit.
• My first edit to the talk page (21:33, 2020 December 1)‎ was criticizing changes I saw in the article.
• You then "bent over backward to get a dialog going" by 1) on the article, reverting all 5 of my edits, with no edit summaries; then 2) on the talk page you personalize the dispute saying "It looks like you try to remove anything critical of the book" and calling me "policeman HouseOfChange."
• In fact, I try to stay civil but it isn't easy. Apparently I attacked Saflieni just yesterday by saying "Let's improve the article!" on the article talk page. To which Saflieni replied: You've repeated this line so often after an uninformed but dismissive discussion of my edits or arguments, suggesting that I don't try to improve the article, that I'm taking it as a personal insult. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, just one correction before I give up: On the Talk page you noted that "the article has come under attack," and "... it has been turned into an attack page against [the book's] author." This was before you started reverting my edits or which you thought were mine (one wasn't but you made another harsh accusation based on that mistake). When I restored the edits and invited you to discuss them with me, offering explanations (diffs on this already posted several times), you instead accused me of all kinds of misdeeds: edit-warring, trying to own the article, demanding compliance, and so on. My fault was that I forgot to fill in the edit summary when I restored, something you keep bringing up until the end of days. This overall negative attitude found immediate support with Buidhe: [201]. I asked then and a couple of times since for a constructve dialogue, here for instance [202]. Your reverts were misguided, btw. What you call Wikipedia voice was actually a (translated) phrase taken from the source. Altering that phrase into something the source did not say wasn't appropriate. We could have solved that by discussing it. Whatever. This is never going to stop, is it? Saflieni (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Saflieni: 1) What you call Wikipedia voice was actually a (translated) phrase taken from the source. I called it "Wikipedia voice" because it wasn't in quotation marks, to mark it as an opinion from that source rather than as a fact about Judi Rever endorsed by Wikipedia.
• 2) "conspiracy theories and denial" is not a (translated) phrase taken from the source. Paragraph 4 (which you need to subscribe to Le Soir in order to see) comes close, quoting the group letter as saying "En promouvant les théories du complot de Judi Rever, vous avez donné lʼimpression de soutenir le négationnisme et le déni." Why make claims about sources without checking first what they say?
• 3) Altering that phrase into something the source did not say wasn't appropriate. I changed 'conspiracy theories and denial' to '"double genocide" theory.' From the very first paragraph of the group letter: "Judi Rever est l'auteure d'un livre, « In Praise of Blood » (Penguin Random House Canada 2018), qui fait la promotion d'une théorie du double génocide." According to me and to Google Translate, the source did say "a theory of double genocide." Why make claims about sources without checking first what they say?
• 4) Yes, you have made many good faith efforts, but they do not make up for the distraction caused by your BATTLEGROUND accusations, or for stalemate at the article when you enforce with reverts your belief that only edits approved by you should go into the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban per buidhe's proposal from two weeks ago, way at the top of this thread. The two weeks of discussion in the interim convinced me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban I took time to read through the discussion here and on the article talk page as an uninvolved editor. I think Saflieni is right now very emotionally invested in the article and it may be better for a temporary time out. Vikram Vincent 05:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this should go to arbitration. I have pointed at the many false accusations that were posted here even by two administrators but nobody seems to be bothered by that. Somebody should check the facts of the allegations. Moreover, a remark by one of the two administrators I refer to suggested elsewhere that regular editors are being treated differently than irregular editors. That's not right. And about emotional involvement: I'm not the one who goes looking for dirt on twitter to discredit scientists, nor do I repeatedly post abusive and tendentious remarks about them, and I don't obsessively try to turn non-RS into RS in order to manipulate the content of the article, nor do I hide questions about these issues posted by other editors on the Talk page, and so forth. Dishonesty stirs up emotions, not the article itself (my draft should tell you that). Saflieni (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: May I suggest publishing your review in full as an article outside Wikipedia? That way it will get the justice it deserves. I personally feel that the accusations you are making in the above paragraph are toxic and hence, with due respect, it might be better to take some time out. It is just a wiki article. Let it be for a while. Peace! Vikram Vincent 06:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing peaceful about WP:POVRAILROAD. I'm not making things up. Taking the easy way out won't solve anything. Saflieni (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: I use the word 'peace' as a greeting like 'thanks'/'best'/'regards'. May I suggest tagging the person you want to respond to rather than making indirect references. Further, your comments throughout the discussion and on the talk page indicate you are very stressed out and definitely need a wiki break. Best! Vikram Vincent 09:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent. You dismiss my information as "toxic" without checking. That's not very polite, smart, or fair, is it? I have said it before: this is mob psychology. Someone starts pointing and then everyone walks in that direction without looking where they're going or who they're following. Saflieni (talk) 09:29, 21 December 20)

Saflieni you may be factually correct in the academic aspect of the article and maybe the other editors are wrong but it seems that you find it difficult to enagage with others without attacking them. A simple example is that you question whether I am smart, fair or polite. You bring in phrases like "mob psychology" which is problematic cause I know I did my independent reading, analysis and conclusion. While your unfair categorisation of me might be perceived as antagonistic, I can empathise with you as being very stressed out, emotionally very close to your work and unable to let go. Maybe you are dealing with something personal which none of us can understand. Unfortunately, this notice board is about behavioural issues and not content and my perception is that you find it difficult to restrain yourself from insulting others while putting across your point and hence my vote to have you temporarily topic banned. Vikram Vincent 09:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent: Your responses reflect a general pattern among Wikipedia users of not responding to what I'm actually saying but to focus on one or a couple of words and then use them to further their own arguments. My point was that you insult me by qualifying my information as toxic without having checked my information first. I wasn't talking about the academic aspect of the article but about the false allegations posted here and elsewhere and the bullying to WP:POVRAILROAD me. It's tiresome that several people like yourself try to attribute (or project their own) emotions and motivations to my edits but never to those of other editors, even when they're glaringly obvious. That's one aspect of the mob psychology. Because someone put me in the spotlight everything else is obscured from view. Your comments are not very different from what HoC wrote: "... his draft for the article, which he wants to use verbatim is full of POV. Saflieni is correct that his POV is that of the majority of people who write about the Rwanda genocide. But his emotional investment in that POV causes repeated problems." But did I ever say that I want my draft to be used verbatim? No, I suggested to use it as the basis for the new article (EdJohnston's idea was to write a new article), and to refine and expand it together. The draft is not my POV and I'm not emotionally attached to it. Most of the accusations here are out of context, twisted or invented, which is why I'm suggesting to take it to Arbitration. Saflieni (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni If you scroll to the top of the page you will see the following sentence as the first issue: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." So yes, we are focused on the way you are behaving rather than the content of your article. Content is discussed on the respective talk page. I spent reasonable time reading the entire discussion including your points. If you feel that we are all a mob then you are free to move away peacefully. I already suggested you publishing your full review outside Wikipedia. Who knows, maybe some editor may quote you here. Vikram Vincent 12:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent: Misconstruing my arguments is a popular pastime over here. What I ask you and everyone else is to check the content (facts) of the accusations and their context. Some of the accusations against me include references to the article, which is why it is mentioned but that's different from what you're suggesting. This is like EdJohnston writing on this page that I expect administrators to read the book, something I never said nor suggested. People make up a story and then they stick to it no matter what. False accusations are personal attacks too, you know: "... unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly."[[203]] Btw I didn't call you a mob, just called attention to normal group dynamics. There's a whole scholarship on the subject [204]. But go on, get rid of the critic. As if that improves Wikipedia. Saflieni (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: How can it be that Buidhe and I, DrMies and EdJohnston, TheHandThatFeedsYou and Jerm (followed by admins Levivich and Vincentvikram) all tell you that your behavior is wrong -- but instead we're all wrong? WP:CONSENSUS is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies" (including AGF and NPA.) Saflieni, can you give a few examples where you thought even one of concerns Buidhe or I expressed about your draft was legitimate? Here's the article talk page history to make it easy. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Levivich and Vincenvikram aren't sysops. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 01:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Dohhhh! I guess that was just wishful thinking on my part. thanks, Tenryuu! HouseOfChange (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: Before writing this note I went back to the article talk page to see if my observations could be wrong. Even your latest edits on the article talk page are shifting between bully and victim mode. They are very aggressive and antagonistic. Looking at all the discussions you have engaged in, this appears to be the main pattern. Despite all our intervention if you are unable to change your attitude then we may have to let you go for the interest of the community. Changing vote to indef topic ban Vikram Vincent 10:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Let us examine the latest question posted by HouseOfChange:

1. Behaviour: I have already acknowledged on this page (five times I believe) that I've used language which is too strong and I'm making efforts to adjust that. But I'm asking others not to provoke because that's a constant reality I'm facing with them running to the Noticeboards the moment they succeed. Even if they don't they just post partial quotes. Being rude themselves while using acceptable wording isn't helping either.
2. False allegations: I have referred to the tsunami of false allegations against me which are in fact personal attacks and examples of disruptive behaviour too, and part of a WP:POVRAILROAD campaign.
3. Others joining the party: Making false allegations is apparently contagious. Why do Drmies and EdJohnston post false accounts of what happened? They are the only ones who can answer that question. I can only refer to facts, which I have done with several examples already. I'm asking third parties to consider the facts without prejudice. I could add several more examples, like: Drmies accusing me of gaslighting for calling him an administrator when, according to him, he wasn't. But the moment I said something he didn't like he immediately put on his administrator cap and and ran to my Talk page to issue a warning. Or EdJohnston who mocks me on this page about my "demand" for 'consensus', when I was in fact abiding by his own proposition to stop editing the article unless several people had given their explicit approval.[205] We all agreed to that but as soon as the ban on the article was lifted they were editing the article again according to their own POV.
4. Context matters: Many of the so-called ad hominems I'm accused of were not ad hominems but responses to personal attacks. For example: HoC accused me in a provocative tone of biased editing, COI, doing Wikipedia a disservice, etc. because I wanted to expand a little the information from a peer reviewed source. I responded to their suggestions by pointing at their own campaign to give a non-expert source a prominent place in the article, and asked them: 'what's your agenda'?[206] Isolating my remarks makes them look like random attacks when they are on topic and part of a defence against an attack, even though I could have phrased things differently.
5. Current behaviour: I decided not to respond to new allegations posted by HoC to manipulate the general opinion, but to instead address one at the Talk page of the article by suggesting a compromise. Although my compromise was accepted, it immediately led to new allegatios of wrongdoing - I was now falsely accusing others - which needed a reply which will no doubt set off new discussions.
6. Consensus: WP:CON says consensus is not a vote, but that's the approach taken by the other two contributors to push their POV. Consensus building states: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." This is where the competence issue, which I've mentioned several times, comes in WP:CIR.
7. Commenters on the Noticeboard: See the relevant discussions. Saflieni (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: My latest question was can you give a few examples where you thought even one of concerns Buidhe or I expressed about your draft was legitimate? Again, here is the article talk page history. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to admire HouseOfChange's skills in framing people and throwing discussions off track. Their last question is not genuine because we are still in the middle of the discussion at the article's Talk page. And look at posts like this one: [207]. Not a single one of those allegations is true but they're suggestive enough for visitors of this page to buy into the fiction. Saflieni (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni you have more than earned a site ban. Your behavior is getting worse, not better, when (even at ANI and under scrutiny) gentle criticism from previously-uninvolved Vincentvikram provokes That's not very polite, smart, or fair. Wikipedia's other articles will not benefit from having your attitude descend on them. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Saflieni one week for personal attacks, based on the accusation of lying: " And please stop posting lies on my Talk page and on Noticeboards. Saflieni (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC). It may be that Saflieni cannot edit neutrally on In Praise of Blood. I am not attempting to decide that second question now. But the attacks on other editors are obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2020 (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.

Reoccurring Vandalism and edit wars of a previously banned User.

Hello, A few weeks ago User:Callanecc was the admin who partially banned User:Kami2018 for his disruptive and extreme edit warring on the article of the Khalji dynasty[208]. He was having an extreme edit war against several users because he did not want to have the term "Afghan" in the article. Since the ban his behavior did not improve, he does the exact same edits on the Khalji Dynasty[209] and does not engage in any talk for his edits either. This vandalizing behavior of him wanting to remove the term "Afghan" from historical articles is what his Wikipedia account is all about, he vandalizes articles related to the Pashtun people with the sole purpose of removing the term "Afghan" from the article[210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222]. This is very disruptive, the list goes on and on but I thought this was enough, you can further look into his edits, since his account was created the vast majority of his edits are simply removing the term "Afghan" from articles. The term "Afghan" is the historic term for the Pashtun people and used as a synonym, this should be the most basic knowledge for someone who thinks he has the right to edit war his non-historical POV on articles by vandalizing them. I would really appreciate an intervention regarding this issue, its simply going way too far,a behavior like this should not be tolerated on Wikipedia . --Xerxes931 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Per the definition of Afghan, Kami2018's edits does not look disruptive or POV-pushing unless Kami2018 removes sourced terms and replaces them with unsourced ones. Afghan has both pre-modern and modern usages/definitions. So does Kami2018 remove and change sourced content? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Afghan has both modern and pre-modern meanings, maybe I didn’t really word my comment well, but in a historic context Afghan refers to Pashtuns. He’s also removing sourced information which can be seen in his edits but also blindly just removing Afghan from every Pashtun-related empire. Just an example, Pashtun empires like the Lodhis or Suris, even the Durranis, are usually never referred to as “Pashtuns” in historic sources(mostly not even in modern sources) but rather as “Afghan”. Pashtun/Paxtun is rather the endonym which Pashtuns themselves use but is usually never used in a historic context, thus removing the term “Afghan” from those articles is clearly historical revisionism and going against the sources. I can add authentic sources for every single article of an empire or noble where he removed the term “Afghan” for them being Afghan if you want me to do that, I would just need a bit of time.--Xerxes931 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xerxes931: It was better to clarify the provided diffs/evidences; e.g. if Kami2018 removed a sourced info about ethnicity/background in this edit[223], then his edit is disruptive and problematic without a doubt. So if all of provided diffs are disruptive and POV-pushing, then I suggest topic ban, one month block (minimum), or a final warning by an admin. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly a disruptive pattern. Going through the editor's last ban, I can clearly see that the editor is editing against sourced material. Looking at only edit: 172 & 170 clearly shows the motives which is removing the word "Afghan" everywhere. I think Xerxes931 did not word it well but the editor Kami2018 is clearly editing against sourced material without explanation. Casperti (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly User:Xerxes931 needs to understand that references are very important and if there is no reference then a reference is needed to support the information. One such example of his behavior out of many is what he mentioned himself : [224] - Maybe User:Xerxes931 needs to look at the references and self revert himself as the references say otherwise. Reference in the article clearly states "They were, therefore, ″wrongly looked upon″ as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks." Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The report clearly includes the removal of sourced information as well, you don’t seem to really understand what you are doing wrong. You are removing the term “Afghan” in every occasion you have from historical articles, it doesn’t matter for you if it’s sourced or not[225] [226]. For your other POV-pushing edits: References are important of course, but if there is an article which literally talks about an Afghan noble, king, general or historical person, you will not need a source for every single time the term Afghan is mentioned there, people well known with the topic would already know the background of the person, that’s why no one changes it besides you, but if your edits really are of good faith, which is hard for me to believe, you can simply put in a “citation needed” for every time you want to remove “Afghan” from an article, I will be there and provide one, but you never chose that as an option but just kept removing “Afghan” from every article you came across which is clearly POV-pushing, removal of sourced information and simply vandalism. --Xerxes931 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is a complaint about an editor going around and removing mentions of Pashtuns as "Afghans", but if I remember correctly, these mentions were not always reliably sourced to begin with (or were sourced to texts that don't support them). – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The editor in question also deletes sourced "Afghan" mentioning see here: [227]. It is not only the replacement of the word "Afghan", It is clearly that the editor deletes the word "Afghan" everywhere where it sees it. For example in this edit it does not replace the word "Afghan" with "Pashtun" but just deletes "Afghan people": [228]. Furthermore, the user does not care about modern or old definitions of "Afghan" the user deletes the word whenever it can. Does the user only replace the word with Pashtun: No - Does the user delete sourced information: Yes , that said it is pretty clear now that the editor is deleting the word Afghan without giving sources and without starting Talk pages Casperti (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

To be justice on Nay Shwe Thway Aung

• Nay Shwe Thway Aung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nay Shwe Thway Aung

Hello dear editors and admins,

Firstly, I don't like Nay Shwe Thway Aung even I don't hate it! Former dictator Than Shwe's grandson Nay Shwe Thway Aung is the most hated person in Myanmar. Because he used abusive powers during his grandfather's rule. Do a Google search for more information. 95% of Burmese hate him. Now, his Wikipedia article put in AfD by SOCKLEGIT account. His actions are dishonest because the nominator removed many contents from the article after AfD. I'm not sure What does he want to do?

I think this is not a problem yet. But the real problem is many IP addresses (nothing edit on other articles) are trying to vote 'Delete' on the AfD. There is clearly WP:IDONTLIKE. IMO, He is clearly notable as a Public figure and tycoon. He had power when Than Shwe was in power. He has a lot of significant coverage and reliable source enough for GNG and WP:BASIC, see the source in AfD discussion. So I would like to CU request on IPs and accounts in the AfD discussion. I think this Afd is not fair. Votes from Myanmar Users and IPs should not be counted. Only editors from other countries should determine his notability. I'm fine that this article was deleted, but I want it to be fair. 65.18.127.111 (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. AfD is not a popularity contest, but a strength of argument and Wikipedia policies. Nothing will be deleted because a bunch of new accounts or IPs vote to delete it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that some people !voting have had their votes struckthrough apparently just for being SPAs instead of confirmed socks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

well, by common sense the same ip range.... it does not pass duck test? (the same faking as registered user in the signature) You can ask admin to have their opinion in WP:SPI, but general user of the wiki can idenify them as duck....Matthew hk (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Matthew hk about the Burmese IPs. I created a single-purpose account called User:SSH remoteserver to do the deletion and hide my main account (due to incidents involving the subject of that article attacking people in real life). However, a Burmese IP soon created an account named TDH Skypaper and copied everything from my userpage. Then, socks descended to that deletion discussion. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To admin: The attacks by the IP 65.18.127.111 (in Burmese) are extremely vicious and threatening. He also outed User:Hybernator for no reason. I am not User:Hybernator at all. You can use Google Translate to get a general sense of it but you won't know the real meaning unless you speak Burmese. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well Well, The Best Wikipedia Actor Award to 73.170.255.4. Burmese IPs and all accounts are members of your group. I already know that. (Hybernator လို့လဲ ငါ အစထဲကမထင်ဘူး (သူMilitary ဆောင်ပါးတွေနဲ့ စစ်သင်္ဘောအကြောင်း editတာ လူတိုင်းသိတယ်) ငါက နင့်ကို အားနာပြီး စကားလမ်းကြောင်း လွဲလိုက်တာ, Just cmt, no rude) 65.18.126.147 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Also As a pro-editor, Matthew hk is seen to be biased on this case. Shameless. see. 03:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is really bizarre. I've never edited the article; I didn't even know it existed until moments ago. The message in Burmese is indeed very rude and a bunch of rambling ad hominem attacks. Somehow the IP is bragging that his arguments should stick because he/she is so wealthy and privileged. What kind of logic is this!? Ok, you're wealthy. So what? Anyway, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know the subject well enough to comment either way. Hybernator (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hybernator နင် မဟုတ်ဘူးလို့ ငါအပေါ်မေ ပြောထားတယ်လေ? ±ဘာတွေ ပေရှည်နေတာလဲ? ပွဲ မကြီးကြီးအောင်မလုပ်နဲ့ ငါလဲ ဒီကိစ္စဝင်မပါတော့ဘူးပြောထားတေလေ, adminတေ ဆူံးဖြတ်လိမ့်မယ် ကို့ဘာသာ ဆောင်းပါးရေးနေလိုက် ပွဲ လာမရှာနဲ့ ငါက အခွင့်ထူးခံအနေနဲ့ ဒီပွဲကိုရပ်ဖို့ ချိန်းခြောက်တယ် ဆိုပဲ ဟာသနော် ငါ ဘယ်မှာပြောခဲ့လဲ မတရားတာကို မတရားလို့ ဝင်ပါတာ, နင်လဲ မတရားတာသိသိနဲ့ မီးလောင်ရာလေပင့်နေတာ ရှက်သင့်တယ်65.18.126.147 (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@65.18.126.147: This is the English language Wikipedia. Please communicate in English. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to get involved in these problems anymore, it is life threatening for me! Because of my real identity. I'm leaving now. Good bye. 65.18.126.147 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway the Afd nominator seems not a legit use of sock , as the account did not disclose the master account as required by policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification. Filed a SPI. Matthew hk (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Petebutt

• Petebutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It is with a very heavy heart that I have finally been forced to ask for admin help at this venue. I have been editing Wikipedia for just over 13 years and this is the first time that I have had to submit an ANI report, I would appreciate it if my concerns are taken seriously. If I am told 'to move on and not worry about it' then that will be the end of my voluntary contributions on Wikipedia.

User:Petebutt has a long history of editing against consensus, non-use of edit summaries, frequently moving pages and templates without discussion (often requiring admin assistance to undo the move to an erroneous title). Other odd behaviour includes use of convert templates to produce conversions to five or more decimal places (false precision) and filling articles with unencyclopedic jargon/technical details.

A very pressing problem is the continual changing of established citation style against WP:CITEVAR. The user firmly believes that cite templates are mandatory because 'they are provided' as some kind of editing tool (which I can't find myself). In addition to changing the format of citations the bibliography sections are also being changed to list books and other sources in a templated style. A very clear example of this is here, I am aware that I created this article but do not own it, in common with the other articles that I have created.

This problem has been highlighted many times on the user talk page by myself and other editors (including User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Nigel Ish and User:NiD.29). My visits to that talk page are listed here, they go back to 2011. More recently the CITEVAR guideline text was highlighted directly, another editor highlights the same problem, a different editor requests the same here.

Another editor comments here and here with the reply 'I use what is mandated in the edittools'. An entry on my own talk page highlights problems and incivility with reversion of mistakes and citation style.

Resolution: The user to be reminded of CITEVAR conventions and to strictly abide by them in future, to use edit summaries and discontinue moving article pages and templates without discussion (there is an active community of very informed and sensible editors at WT:AIR, it is rare that an aircraft article page needs moving as conventions are very well established.) I believe it is fair to say that multiple polite requests to change this behaviour have failed and that fair warning of ANI reporting has been given . Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since this is here, I will comment that in my (sometimes spotty) editing over the years I have not observed any change in Petebutt's editing style over that entire time, despite numerous pleas when his edits are reverted for making articles less readable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's equally strange to continue the behaviour by edit warring after notice of an incident report has been given. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Further... this, this, and this indicate a profound misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I wanted to avoid mentioning WP:COMPETENCE but I've thought of it when reverting Pete's edits in the past and frankly those two make it an unavoidable postulation, especially since nearly two years after the first claim he re-makes the same claim after being told he was wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Continued edit warring with a personal attack in the edit summary. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I have had to deal with this editor for more than the last decade and we have had many discussions about his editing. I have had to revert his edits on many, many occasions, as non-constructive. I have had to fix his edits on literally thousands of occasions. I have had to reverse his illogical page moves on many occasions, too. Overall this editor's few useful contributions are overshadowed by the huge amount of work he creates in dealing with his bad edits. This is not a new problem for Wikipedia, as it is precisely outlined in observation #3 in User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. In far more than a decade that this editor has been working on WikiProject Aircraft the one outstanding feature has been his complete resistance to comply with consensus or, in fact to any input at all. Leaving him talk page notes results in sort of vague apologies and no improvements at all. As Antandrus notes, after all this time it is probably time to seriously look at an indef block, so the rest of us can spend more time writing then encyclopedia instead of endlessly correcting his inability to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy, guidance, consensus or in fact to change at all. There is a persistent WP:COMPETENCE issue here that won't be simply addressed with a "good talking to". - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there's a competence issue; I have no idea what he means by "edittools" and if the APA style is required that's news to me. That said, I do not understand preferring manual conversions to using {{convert}}. I'm not doubting that the manual conversions are correct, but why? That's a change I would make on any article, in all innocence, and not expect any trouble over it (same for citations, frankly, but if only because manual citations tend to be incomplete and I appreciate that's not the case here). Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the primary issue is that it often produces too many decimal points of precision in the conversion, at least the way Pete uses it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that @Petebutt: has continued to edit ignoring this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The Bushranger is correct on conversion template usage, there are two reasons for this, Template:Aircraft specs had a fault where feet, inches and fractions of inches could produce a metric output of up to seven decimal places e.g. 1.0000001 metres. This would normally be spotted by using 'show preview' and reading through, there is provision in the template to manually enter a sensible conversion and a recent fix was to add a significant figure limit parameter. The second reason is that Template:Convert has various rounding options and usually defaults to the rounding of the input value. When this template is used by Petebutt the rounding parameter is edited to produce the opposite effect resulting in false precision.

After this discussion a bot found approximately 2,000 articles with broken template coding, it was able to repair approximately 1,500 and the remainder were corrected by myself and other editors over a couple of days. The main result of the broken template coding was to hide converted values completely. The editor in this report has been replacing this deprecated template at high speed, introducing errors. In this April 2019 edit (with no edit summary) lb and kg were transposed, an IP editor spotted it recently and I corrected it. I could not say exactly how many of these templates were added by this editor (my priority was to repair them, not research who added them), a high proportion would be my best estimate.

This editor uses a form of Template:Aircraft specs with extra parameters of their own pre-loaded (which do not have inbuilt conversion function), the template was developed with consensus to determine an encyclopedic level of completable fields, we can not add every single known specification detail of an aircraft per WP:NOTMANUAL.

Ordinarily I would not contest the use of Template:Convert (as mentioned above) but as this editor uses them inappropriately and makes mistakes they all have to be checked and corrected, this has become too time consuming so the practical solution is to undo the whole edit (this also undoes the citation style changes introduced in the same edit). To my knowledge the wording of Template:Convert usage is 'can be used', not must, shall or should be used. Apologies if this explanation is on the long side but the details of the problems need to be explained in context for them to be appreciated. I ought to add a note (before I am told) that I am not perfect myself, it is very easy to make mistakes in technical articles but I am quite happy to be corrected by others without protest if and when it happens. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nimbus227, thank you for that very thorough explanation, I understand the problem now and your approach to addressing it. It's easy to forget that there's a whole context surrounding an edit that's lost when looking at a solitary diff. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to me that an indefinite block is appropriate, with the unblock condition being that the user acknowledge the issues with their behaviour and explain in detail how they will act in future. I see no other solution with a user who continues making mass edits with unchanged behaviour after editors try their hardest to explain the issues and raise discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly support that action now despite my earlier, over hopeful, resolution suggestions. Continuing to edit and ignore this incident report shows that there is no respect for the community and no intention to change behaviour. It is clear now that all the talk page requests to follow convention were actually a complete waste of everyone's time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have blocked Petebutt from editing (article) space, at least until them come here and discuss the issue and hopefully provide assurances that things will improve. The block may be modified as appropriate without consulting me further. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor calling Omarosa Manigault Newman and Kimberly Klacik "tokens" and discussing their "look"

Editors User talk:Praxidicae and User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x have been making editing the Kimberly Klacik article, but they have expressed a hatred and animus against her and Omarosa Manigault Newman, based upon their "look" and have called both of them "tokens". This discussion can be reviewed here: Space4Time3Continuum2x's token comment and comments on their "looks". This discussion between Praxidicae and S4T3C2x is derogatory, disrespectful language that borders on worse. The exact wording is as follows: Seems fairly obvious that she’s not seriously running for office. She’s applying for Omarosa’s job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, she’s got the mandatory look down. Praxidicae did not tell S4T3C2x that the comments were disrespectful and inappropriate. Praxidicae did not tell S4T3C2x to take down the comments, have them removed. S4T3C2x should remove the comment immediately. Neither of these editors should be working on Klacik's article. This discussion shows an antipathy toward the subject of the article, an animus that is ugly and unacceptable. I asked Praxidicae a series of questions and I will ask these questions again. Why do we have discretionary sanctions on politics articles if nothing is not done some like these becomes clear to other editors? Why didn't Praxidicae tell the fellow editor, S4T3C2x not to engage in such horrible talk? User talk:Praxidicae and Space4Time3Continuum2x probably shouldn't be editing the Klacik article whatsoever since both of them seem to have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject. Why are they discussing Klacik's looks or Omarosa's looks? And why are they assuming that Klacik and Omarosa are just "tokens"? Why are they using Wikipedia to comment on Klacik's and Omarosa's looks? These editors should disengage from the Klacik article and stop using the article to attack the subject. Please work to have these horrible, disrespectful comments about Omarosa and Klacik about their looks and race removed from Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page. Those comments go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be for. Both of these editors should stop editing the Klacik article since there is a real animus issue toward Klacik's and Omarosa's "looks" and status. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It's this same kind of combative, unproductive behavior that got them (CharlesShirley) banned from Elizabeth Warren (referesher, since they've forgotten [229] [230])

Now they've taken to whitewashing Kim Klacik and then attacking editors who question their edits, when they remove sourced information, then obfuscate their answer and accuse others of racism among other things.

Praxidicae No, I don't take advice from editors that engage in discussions where you and Space4Time3Continuum2x call Klacik and Omarosa Manigault Newman "tokens", which is derogatory, disrespectful language that borders on worse. The exact wording is as follows: Seems fairly obvious that she’s not seriously running for office. She’s applying for Omarosa’s job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, she’s got the mandatory look down. Sorry that I repeated such horrible, nasty talk, but how else can I call you and Space4Time3Continuum2x's behavior and attitudes to the carpet? This wording needs to be removed after we come to a way to fix this BS talk and POV editing. Afterward there is some kind of resolution of this horrible, disrespectful BS then we can just point to this edit: Space4Time3Continuum2x's token comment and comments on their "looks". Why didn't you tell your fellow critic of Klacik not to engage in such horrible talk? I guess since you didn't tell Space4Time3Continuum2x to cutout the disrespectful talk then you clearly agree with it. You and Space4Time3Continuum2x probably shouldn't be editing this article whatsoever since both of you have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject. Why are either of you discussing Klacik's looks or Omarosa's looks? And why are assuming that they are just "tokens"? Why are using Wikipedia to comment on their looks? You should disengage and stop using the article to attack the subject. Your intentions from your comments are clear. Who put you two in charge of who and who isn't a token? Who put you in charge to discuss Klacik and Omarosa looks? Why are either one of you judging the subjects on their race? And why are working so hard to put false and defamatory information in the article? Whatever you answer is it doesn't look good. Please work to have these horrible, disrespectful comments about Omarosa and Klacik about their looks and race removed from Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page. Those comments go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be for. And both of you should stop editing the article since there is a real animus issue toward Klacik's and Omarosa's "looks" and status. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 9:13 pm, Today (UTC−5)

And now, the pièce de résistance, accusing me of saying something I never said, supporting something I never said I agreed with and demanding I become the keeper of another editor? I think this warrants a boomerang in the form of an AP2 ban. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: For clarity, since you've now dragged your baseless personal attacks against me to ANI, please provide diffs where I have said anything about either of the two individuals "status" or "looks". Thanks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, you've made very serious and unsupported accusations that Praxidicae has taken part in these comments about "token" and "look", but I see zero evidence that she has done so. I strongly suggest that you either provide evidence now or immediately retract your statements both here and on the article's talk page. I also see that your attitude on the talk page appears...less than constructive and collaborative. You need to work towards solutions, not create drama and make unfounded accusations. I'm not impressed by Space4Time3Continuum2x's comments on their talk page either, but it still does not warrant you being so combative and it does not warrant accusations towards Praxidicae. Waggie (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• It is apparent that CharlesShirley has no interest in collaboration in the area of AP2 topics, they are still editing and attacking other editors with baseless accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS and they've failed to substantiate anything even here. I would propose an AP2 topic ban, it's evident that they cannot conduct themselves in a civil and collaborative manner. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• The bolded quote is me voicing an opinion on my talk page where CharlesShirley didn't leave a message. There was no discussion of anyone’s looks, race, or status, and I did not make any "horrible, disrespectful comments" there or anywhere else. If I showed "hatred and antipathy" or "attacked" Klacik or inserted "false and defamatory information" in her article, CharlesShirley should point out those incidences. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's still not cool. Your opinion on your talk page is sill publically visible to anyone that happens across it. Saying "Token Black Woman" is all kinds of problematic. I thought you might be quoting the snopes article but it is not mentioned there. BLP applies to talk pages too (see WP:BLPTALK). Be more careful. Praxidicae has done nothing wrong that I can see. You are not obliged to point out bad behaviour on others talk pages. AIRcorn (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources for my three sentences: [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Either way, CharlesShirley has not responded to what I feel is a perfectly reasonable request for them to support or retract their accusations towards Praxidicae. Even though they are clearly active on Wikipedia. As they do not seem interested in participating in an ANI thread they started, and also seem to feel it is appropriate to continue on with similar behavior elsewhere, I think that a WP:NPA block is appropriate, or at the very least, an indefinite AP2 TBAN as suggested above. WP:BOOMERANG applies, IMHO. Waggie (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Either way? So Praxidicae is not guilty of aiding and abetting, but it’s OK for the editor to misquote what I wrote about a dozen times ("looks" ain’t the same as "the look", and "a job as Token" ain’t the same as being one), make assumptions about me and my alleged attitudes, call me racist, and accuse me of having put false and defamatory information in the article? Maybe I should I take this to teacher ANI. Oh wait - I’m already there, and it seems I’m the bad guy. Gee, thanks. A lengthy argument between CharlesShirley and Praxidicae took place from 20:24 UTC to 23.38 (UTC) which seems to have gotten more and more heated. Then at 02:24 UTC this, at 02:59 this, and at 02:41 UTC the notification on my Talk page. I wasn’t aware of CharlesShirley’s accusations until 10 hours later, and—what with the numerous pings CharlesShirley had sent from the Klacik talk page—I didn’t notice the admin board complaint and the notification on my talk page until an hour after that. If the editor had asked me to delete the remark on my talk page I would have done so without arguing about it because what would have been the point. They didn’t, the sh*t hit the fan (sure brought a lot of traffic to my talk page), and now I am arguing. What I wrote is neither racist nor sexist/lookist (whatever), not even borderline, and I haven’t added any false or defamatory information to the Klacik page. Either way? You don’t know anything about me, so please don’t make any assumptions about me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think the issue is that if you were quoting someone, the use of quotation marks or a similar identifier on your talk page would have cleared up any misunderstandings. As it is, it looks as if those are your own ideas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, why are you angry with me? I am expressing concerns about CharlesShirley's attitude, and you seem to attack me because my concerns aren't the exact same as yours? I've made no assumptions about you, perhaps you've made some of your own? Waggie (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on my comments. Touché about the assumptions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• This turned out to be a classic case of WP:GRENADE, it would seem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block or TBAN for CharlesShirley

• proposal it has been 4 days since @CharlesShirley: opened this thread and 4 days (plus some) since they made egregious claims, cast aspersions and created personal attacks and have still failed to substantiate a single one of them, as they continue to edit and ignore the mess they've made here. I am proposing this thread be closed with a block or a topic ban given this users past conduct and inability to collaborate in areas where AP2 is involved. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I've created a sub-section for this following Prax's proposal. CharlesShirley has been both pinged in this discussion and active on Wikipedia, but has not responded to requests for evidence regarding their accusations against Praxidicae. CharlesShirley stated: "...[Praxidicae and Space4Time3Continuum2x] have expressed a hatred and animus against her and Omarosa Manigault Newman, based upon their "look" and have called both of them "tokens"." CharlesShirley also stated: "[The discussion on Space4Time3Continuum2x's talk page] shows an antipathy toward the subject of the article, an animus that is ugly and unacceptable." and "...since both of them seem to have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject." While stating that Prax's complicity is because she "...did not tell S4T3C2x to take down the comments, have them removed." Praxidicae is under no obligation to call out other editors on their behavior (correct or not), and should not be attacked based on the behavior of other editors. Additionally, per WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia editors are expected to remain civil and professional even when they find another editor's behavior to be objectionable. I personally think a TBAN from AP2 would be most appropriate here, since they do seem to have the most difficulty in maintaining a constructive attitude in this particular topic area. Waggie (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TBAN per Waggie. starship.paint (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. If anything, we should restrict or sanction editors who refer to women of color as “token black” women. Please close and let’s move on. Saying “she’s got the mandatory look down” could be grossly offensive to those who “look” like that. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not necessarily opposed to this, but I don't like that we are overlooking the other bad behaviour. Sure bringing Praxidicae into this was wrong, but the original complaint against Space4Time was fair enough. And Spaces responses here suggest they don't understand what is wrong with their comments and if anything is doubling down. Ban both or ban neither. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Persistent editing without consensus

• JorgeLaArdilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Dear admins, need advice dealing with JorgeLaArdilla. Recently the user made a string of similar edits to articles about Quranic chapters. I disagree with the edits and started a discussion here [237]. Since then other editors have weighed in and at least two other editors found the edits problematic (with different reasons) and no other editors seemed to support his edits (as of this writing): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras. JorgeLaArdilla responded to the thread, but does not address the point in his replies, started engaging in theological arguments [238], bringing up irrelevant edits not under dispute [239], [240], or even acting borderline inappropriate such as removing criticism against his edits in the talk page [241] or moving them around [242], or calling me "troll" [243]. As for his edits, he continued restoring his contested edits [244] and even adding new ones with the same problems in other articles [245][246][247]. When I reverted the edit, pointing him to the discussion and asking him to not restore without consensus[248], he simply restored the content again without explanation: [249]. When I reverted his modification of other editor's writing in talk page, [250], he also persistently reverted his modification back [251], [252]. I need advice or help dealing with this behavior. Ideally, I think these edits should be discussed and not restored until getting consensus, but it's hard to achieve that when one side keeps restoring the disputed content. HaEr48 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48, I'm sorry, it all sounds pretty disruptive, but fifteen diffs is a lot to carefully investigate. It would help to know what is the primary complaint here, can you give us four or five, or do we really need to investigate all fifteen to understand what's going on? —valereee (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thank you for looking and sorry for too many diffs. I think the primary complain is that the user persists on making massive edits against consensus, and it's been impossible for a normal editor to undo the damage because he keeps restoring the edits when reverted. Example [253][254][255] I don't mind having to discuss the arguments for/against the changes in Talk, and I have been doing that in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras, but it becomes disruptive when the user insists that his version have to go in without consensus. HaEr48 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48, okay, it looks like we're not quite at edit-warring at As-Sajda, your first diff? And I don't see either of you has opened a section at Talk:As-Sajda, so I'm assuming you haven't done that at the other articles? Do that, ping them there, and if they refuse to discuss, c'mon back. :) —valereee (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, The user did the same thing for so many articles, so I opened a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras in order to centralize the discussion. The user didn't quite "refuse to discuss", they replied by mostly writing theological arguments rather than addressing the actual policy/Wikipedia problems that I brought up. HaEr48 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee: They're doing it again, see [256]. HaEr48 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48, I've full protected for a short time to stop the disruption. Please JorgeLaArdilla discuss. —valereee (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I would make the point that HaEr48 is not just reverting my edits in respect of the disputed E.M. Wherry, he is reverting EVERYTHING that I have done. @Valereee:: you yourself have added back "Ghvvbbhb" gibberish into the Quran 32 article and subsequently ignored the protected edit request. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate Valereee's neutral intevention and apologise. The beauty of Wikipedia is how one can get lost flicking from link to link from popular culture to esoteric and back to the latest football. But sometimes you just hit a wall - Aston Villa's history is woefully lacking and the 114 Quranic chapters just dont "hang together". I understand Wikipedia has got on perfectly well without me before and will do again. I try to understand my very real personality defects and I endeavour to be collegiate. I have been around long enough to know that things do come right in the end. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla, thank you, I've removed that stray gibberish. I see you're now discussing at the talk, which is great. No apology necessary, you were quite right to point it out! I'm not going to try to deal with protected edit requests unless they have some level of consensus or are noncontroversial, as that'll make me involved in that article as an editor, so you'll have to ask other editors for their opinions on your suggested edit. —valereee (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Lake Van

• Lake Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wallking1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lake Van has a long history of attempts to remove mentions of the Armenian Highlands from the article. Until recently this has mostly been done by IPs, and the article has previously been semi-protected because of it. Today Wallking1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been removing those mentions, despite reversions by both Sumanuil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and myself. Some admin attention might be appropriate. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've put in a request for page protection. Waiting on a response. - Sumanuil (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've already listed the Kingdom names in the History Section. Please stop claiming that Van is Armenia Highland in 2020. It's really offending. Your source is from 1895. It is the same as calling Armenia "Ottoman District" by giving source from 1900. Thanks, Wallking1 (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's the name of the plateau the lake is on, as I've told you. How is it "offensive"? - Sumanuil (talk)

The van lake is in the "Van Lake district". The plateau name is from 1895, and it's not used anymore. It's like claiming the lands is yours. We can mention historical names in the history section, and write the most common name on the front page. Ottomans also have also different names for that region but they are not used anymore. Thanks, Wallking1 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"It isn't used anymore"?. There's a whole article about it, and I've told you that before, so quit sealioning. The so-called "Van lake district" is in the Armenian Highlands, and it will be unless someone destroys said plateau. - Sumanuil (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your comments. This was almost impossible to read through and tell who was saying what before I fixed it with indents. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think eight reverts is enough. Blocked for a week, and I'll protect the article. Is it just me or is ANI becoming flooded with Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes? Perhaps we need to exercise the arbitration enforcement measures a little more liberally. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• After a comment by Wallking1 further up the page that quoted verbatim another editor's comment in that discussion complete with the same grammatical error, I tilted my head and looked at their edit history. Created 30 May, made a draft that was deleted...and then sat until today at which point they dive straight in to one of the hottest flashpoints on the Wiki. I can't help but hear the sound of waterfowl of some kind. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not imagining things, Black Kite. Between the Syria/Kurdish/Turkish disputes and the Armenia/Azerbaijan/Turkish disputes, there is a lot of ethnic rivalry going on right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with The Bushranger, Solavirum looks more than a bit suspicious. And frankly, I'm trying to see why I shouldn't block for belligerent battleground editing anyway. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can this action count toward WP:ARBAA2? Be sure to tag Talk:Lake Van with {{Ds/talk notice|topic=a-a}} if it does fall within ARBAA2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This one's Turkish-Armenian. See Siege of Van and related articles. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hildeoc's insult

• Hildeoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Till Kraemer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pornopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the Pornopedia article, Hildeoc removed a section that has been there since 2013. Apparently, nobody was bothered by this section except Hildeoc. I reverted his edit since I don't see how it would have improved the article. I wrote on his talk page, he reverted my edit in the article, removed my messages on his talk page and insulted me by adding "By the way, you're disgusting." to the edit summary. If you feel like his edit was justified or not, there is definitely no way to talk to me like that. Looks like Hildeoc and multiple of his sockpuppet accounts are also banned on the German Wikipedia indefinitely. Thanks and cheers, --Till Kraemer (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JFTR, I do admit that my comment – whether if reflects my actual opinion of the reporter's character or not – was inappropriate and unnecessary, and that I have never before become personal here at all. Independently, though, I very much agree that the reporter's demeanor is obviously highly self-promotional and probably not of much value in terms of improving the project …--Hildeoc (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Till Kraemer created an article about his company and mentions himself in it. That is against the rules. He also has no edits that don't involve him mentioning himself or his company. Dream Focus 19:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, creating an article is against the rules but calling me "disgusting" is fine? And of course I have also other edits which you would know if you would have checked my edit history more thoroughly. --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some links to other edits of me which shows that you're simply wrong: [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263]... --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You might also want to check my edits on Commons. --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

And why do you ask for a speedy deletion of my article when a very similar request has already been denied by an admin? --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware that 9 years ago someone else tried to speedy delete it. The talk page only mentions the time in October 2009 it was deleted before you recreated it again. Your edits show you working on one article about yourself that you created, and another article you created for your company, and adding in links to them in various places. Some of the few edits you made over the years were for other minor things. So I should've said you had no "substantial" edits that aren't related to yourself or your company. Dream Focus 20:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If you would have checked my edits on Commons you would know that the majority of those edits have nothing to do with me or my company. Also, just to avoid any potential confusion: the Pornopedia article that has been deleted before was about a different website and I had nothing to do with that article. --Till Kraemer (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Till, please stop going on about Commons. This is the English Wikipedia, and within it we just discuss what happens on the English Wikipedia. Exactly the same applies to discussion pages on Commons, the German Wikipedia etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornopedia (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Till Kraemer are where the discussion about this guy's articles are now being held at. His edits on commons he mentions are just uploading pictures of porn stars. Anyway, he is here to use Wikipedia for promotion not to help build an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• A pretty stern warning about COI editing is probably merited, too, regardless of what happens with these articles. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV pushing at Template:Indian martial arts

• The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 110.137.168.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Template:Indian martial arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had cleanedup the template removing red links (also unlikely to be created), and unlinked entries and duplicates, also adding new additions and arranged misplaced entries. The Banner reverted it saying Revert vandalism. Red links are allowed. This was not only uncivil but a misleading edit summary. I undid saying rv vandalism. Not allowed, the very purpose of navigation template itself is to navigate through related links. From this point onward The Banner has been blatantly reverting without any explanation, violating WP:REVEXP and WP:FIES, which I pointed each time – [264][265][266][267]. User went to WP:RPP accusing me of disruptive editing to "protect" the page, this gesture shows he has no plans to discuss the matter or using talk page. At RPP I made it clear that per WP:NAV: A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. The Banner's problem is personal choice, hence he has no explanation for his action. Go to talk page instead of blatantly reverting. His reply was a WP:REHASH: red links are still allowed.. As I stated in the summary. Meanwhile, 110.137.168.139 (same RPP IP) reverted it saying "vandalism". Scottywong protected the page with that POV and original research version. This is a misconduct from The Banner and 110.137.168.139. 157.44.180.216 (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You are unhappy that the template is now protected? The fact that you are using multiple IPs (in both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges) still is no excuses for removal of the red links and changing the scope. And you are playing the owner of this template, seeing you edits here rv vandalism. Not allowed, the very purpose of navigation template itself is to navigate through related links. The Banner talk 10:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I will agree that the IP's edits were not "vandalism", and shouldn't have been labeled as such (which is why I protected the page for "disruptive editing", not for "vandalism"). However, there clearly isn't strong support for these edits. In cases where there is not clear support and your edit is reverted, the appropriate next step is to start a discussion (the D in WP:BRD) on the talk page of the article to understand the editor's objection to your edit, to see if you can gain consensus for your edit, or to see if you can find a compromise that works for everyone. Starting an edit war is never an appropriate next step, and this is the disruptive editing that resulted in the page being protected. Rather than trying to hash this out at the drama board, I'd suggest that you take a few deep breaths, and start a civil discussion on the talk page of the article. If you can find other editors who agree with you, then great. If you can't, then just drop it and move on. That's how things work here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Heartily & Tendentious editing

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.

---

• Heartily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Heartily (talk · contribs) has been active on a variety of pages related to India with the primary interest being addition of "political leanings" on them. Most of their additions are either poorly sourced, are products of original research, over which they edit war and any attempts at discussion leads them to become evasive or disingenuous. They have been adequately warned with regards to their conduct but that has been unable to bring about any change in their conduct. Diffs of some recent examples are as follows:

• Special:Diff/994610737 First revert of a contested section on Mumbai Mirror.
• Special:Diff/994709039 Second revert. They begin discussion on Talk:Mumbai Mirror#Disruptive Edits: Political Alignment. This discussion continues on the talk page while they continue to edit war on the mainspace. Also note that they seem to claim that they have a consensus for their additions at one point, which is denied by the same people they claim to have a consensus with.
• Special:Diff/994722517 Third revert.
• Special:Diff/994735060 & Special:Diff/994735243 Fourth revert. Partially self-reverted in Special:Diff/994739407 after they were suggested to do so to decrease their chances of getting blocked on the talk page which ultimately ends with them stating something along the lines of "they don't have time for discussion".
• Special:Diff/994940417 Fifth revert with no edit summary and their edit tagged as minor. Also note that an IP address began attempting to restore the same, right after this was reverted and until the page was semi-protected.
• Special:Diff/995646557 Addition of the following text ", political agendas and biases, stand against certain non-Western countries," in a line about criticism of Wikipedia, with no sources, no edit summary and again their edit tagged as minor. Also note their drive by tagging on OpIndia and Republic TV.

There are more similar older instances of this kind of behavior on the pages of Four Year Undergraduate Programme protests and Jawaharlal Nehru University for which they seem to been warned as well. To me, this appears to be either a WP:CIR issue or a WP:NOTHERE issue, probably a mix of both. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Very likely a part of or influenced by [268]. Certainly WP:NOTHEREChunnuBhai (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, and the pro-British dead empire fart campaign run by the BBC is going to land you where? Heartily (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer: WP:NOTTHERE :'D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartily (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Heartily, is that a confession?ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

ChunnuBhai, I stole the words from your mouth, but why don't you create a userpage, by the way? Or is that run by the BBC too? Heartily (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Heartily, please go ahead and edit my page :) ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2020 (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:Tayi Arajakate & Tendentious editing

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.

---

Retaliatory nonsense. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Tendonitis editing -EEng @EEng: mine is usually in my shoulder, but whatever works. DFO I would like to place a complaint here on all of the above stated disruptions on Tayi Arajakate instead, for his/her own POV pushing (that is trying to claim that about my NPOV edits). *PS: Not to mention, also falsely bringing in some anonymous IP address's edits into my edit history for no reason. Heartily (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC) *Comment Edited by Heartily. Agree User:Tayi Arajakate is biased, politically Left individual surviving happily in a democratic nation, enjoying (taking granted) the freedom of everything. I too have found many occasions where she is biased and gamed against the well set pillars of wikipedia. She is dangerous for wikipedia itself . People like her put wiki in deep trouble just like some user put up incorrect India map on page India Bhutan relation and put wiki on a blanket ban in India region by Indian government. Thanks to @Jimmy Wales: wiki has avoided blanket ban like other internet giants like Tiktok, PUBG, Huawei]] and other 119 internet entities, these users a threat to whole wiki for its existence . I am a little rough in my language but i submit all this in the best interest of wikipedia. I know my account is going to be banned for using straightforward approach and rough talks. Now ball is in your court . Tik Tok Tik Tok . [Special:Contributions/45.124.142.19|45.124.142.19]] (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you, I agree too. Wikipedia's fate will turn into Tiktok's as you are saying if Jimmy Wales doesn't wake up and do something about this rubbish going on here. I know users who have been banned from editing by rabid leftists on Wiki since years. High time the government takes action. Heartily (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC) I don't think they get it, do they? What happened to TikTok and PubG is financially crippling for the company, but they still think banning our accounts is serving them a purpose. I mean, what are we to lose even if our accounts are banned? It's their own business that will drown. Heartily (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)  Administrator note Assuming you are different people, I have no idea what either of you are trying to say, and neither of you has noted anything specific that Tayi Arajakate has done in violation of community policy or guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb, the current notice is just in retaliation to the notice above this. no specific complaints , just personal attacks.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb, don't worry, go back to sleep. Heartily (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I was going to block the OP but I see that Cyphoidbomb has done it already for a much shorter duration than I would've blocked for. This should be the last warning before editing privileges are removed completely. —SpacemanSpiff 13:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff: I extended it to indefinite based on your comments. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2020 (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:Saotura and Turkish nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide

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.

---

• Saotura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Saotura has been working here for two months on various aspects of Turkish history and politics, especially focusing on violent actions that have taken place between Turks and Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, etc. Saotura persistently downplays or removes historian's negative views against Turkey, especially regarding the Armenian Genocide, and Saotura puts in their place a baffling narrative that the Armenians are acting violently against the Turks for no reason.[269] I first ran into him when he inserted his narrative into the Racism in the United States article, telling the readers that Armenians in the US have been attacking Turks for no reason at all.[270] When Saotura is writing inside an actual Armenian genocide article, he finds ways to put the onus on those who were massacred.[271] Saotura created several categories, templates and articles, and we should be deleting the ones with this taint. His Template:Anti-Turkism was deleted, and his Anti-Turkism in Armenia is at AfD. The latter article contains no mention of the Armenian Genocide, the elephant in the room.

At one point, Saotura's userpage advocated the killing of a living person, Kurdish nationalist leader Abdullah Öcalan.[272] Prior to that, the userpage stated that Saotura was a proud Turkish nationalist, strongly opposed to ethnic separatism.[273]

To me, it appears that Saotura is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Instead, they are here to push a Turkish nationalist viewpoint, full of denialism and politically motivated revisionism. I don't see how this person can be trusted to contribute neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Propose site ban of Saotura

• Support. For the time being, I have removed (and rev-deleted) the offensive content from User:Saotura/about_me. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Against when did someone's personal views became a basis for block? Some of the things linked here have nothing wrong in them. For example, this addition used information from a well-cited source. If we used the same logic as you, the denialism in Khojaly massacre article is also a blockable offense, and as you put it, ways to put the onus on those who were massacred. If you want to truly show yourself as a neutral editor who's concern is pushing of a denialist approach, you should've not mentioned that edit. The additions on killing of Turkish diplomats are notable, and it is ok to WP:BOLD the Armenian Genocide factor there. But imo, propagating for a murder of a living person on someone's own wikipedia userpage id worrying and he needs a warning for it, not a block. The deletion of two pages created by him is also an absurd basis for a block. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Taking Saotora's non-existent past blocks, and the fact that he's been here for just over a month, a simple warning would do the trick to encourage him in sticking by the neutrality guidelines and avoiding POV-pushing. I don't think we all were experts on Wikipedia's guidelines when we just started editing here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

when did someone's personal views became a basis for block? At the moment when they start disrupting Wikipedia to push those views. Jeppiz (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you've avoided most of what I wrote here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Idk, I don't want to push his case too far. But imo a block is too big of a move for such events. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, you appear to comment without having bothered to look into the case. You say a warning would suffice - but the user has already been warned several times and continues with highly problematic edits despite the warnings. Jeppiz (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• when did someone's personal views became a basis for block? When they're WP:POVPUSHing genocide denial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I am still defending my edits on Genocides in history. I didn't even touch the information about WW1 Genocides at all, and the massacres which I deleted weren't classified as genocides in genocides in history article or their own main articles, and there weren't a citation that classifies them as genocides. My edits on Maraga massacre article might be wrong to some extent, however, the problem was with the place where it was mentioned. The information was well-sourced, and the fact that the massacre at Maragha was an act of revenge for Khojaly does deserve a mention in its article. Like how pogrom in Sumgait is mentioned on the Khojaly massacre article and how March Days is mentioned on the September Days article. I am guessing that your problem with the War crimes section on the Franco-Turkish War article is because the Armenian Genocide wasn't mentioned, which can be fixed easily, as long as you have a citation which states that massacres in southern Anatolia at that period were an act of revenge for the genocide. I think I did and mentioned it in the Anti-Turkism in Armenia article sometime after writing the text on the Franco-Turkish War article. I will add it right after finishing writing this text. I am not going to defend anything about Abdullah Öcalan thing. I won't attempt it again and I personally don't think that alone is a reason to block someone forever.-Śαǿturα^💬 18:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Saotura is WP:NOTHERE. He has been warned repeatedly and has just created a long article portraying Armenians as having racist feelings against Turkic people (like all Turkic people) while they are mainly against Turkish (from Turkey) and Azerbaijani (from Azerbaijan) perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. The opposite is Turkish, Azerbaijani nationalist POV.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Making excuses for genocide in this very thread is itself inexcusable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

this is the edit Saotura defends. Removing info on the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian Genocide... sourced with a well known scholar on the topic and also even books with a title referring to the Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. He removed more, too in this edit. I didn't believe David Eppstein, so I double checked and I encourage anyone to do so, too.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The citations itself were reliable, no one opposess that. And yes, the book Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians referred to incidents, but didn't name them genocides. The word genocide in title refers to WW1 horrors. Past massacres such as massacres of Assyrians by Kurds in Hakkari and anti-Armenian pogroms in Adana were mentioned in the book, as it should be since they obviously have an important place in understanding background of the genocides, but they weren't named genocides. That was basis of removing those incidents from the article. -Śαǿturα^💬 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Saotura made me double check again, and summaries of chapters in the book Genocide in the Ottoman Empire: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, 1913-1923 (the reference he removed beside some info about the Greek, Armenian and Assyrian Genocide) at JSTOR (free to join) clearly mention Genocide referring to the Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians. The other books then I didn't double check as well, but in the title one also mentions Ottoman Genocides of Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE; even the above comment by Saotura is a sign of future violation of WP:NOT. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support WP:POVPUSHing genocide denial, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support as blatantly being WP:NOTHERE. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 15:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Against When did someone's personal views became a basis for block? Sincerely: Wallking1 (talk), 00:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above to the exact same question asked with the exact same grammatical error: When they're WP:POVPUSHing genocide denial. Also note that Wallking1 has been blocked below for Armenian-related edit-warring. Also their editing history looks mighty sus, especially when combined with their parroting another user's phrasing above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Against This user was never blocked and should not blocked indef first time . He should get a warning from an admin. Shadow4dark (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Quoting Jeppiz above: the user has already been warned several times and continues with highly problematic edits despite the warnings - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - it's obvious that, unfortunately, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to push a frankly abhorrent POV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support — this user's behaviour is getting more and more worrying and even with this discussion still being open (s)he countinues with the same energy on the Armenia/Armenian Genocide related pages. Continuously removes [Armenian] sourced content from pages instead of tagging WP:CITENEED so other editors find a better source for it, changes facts, presents the Genocide as a "justification", adds odd wording to the leads (like A pogrom was a "revenge" for B pogrom [274]) and so on. I'm glad some of the admins have also noticed this user's intentions and will take necessary actions against it, because Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for POV pushing and hate speech out of nationalism. LevonAUS9 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support for genocide denial POV-pushing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:21, 22 December 2020 (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.

Closed means closed

Against lol then people asking why Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey? This place is transforming from a world-wide encyclopedia into more of an ethnic gang article hotbed. Blocking someone who writes hunderds of articles = D are you serious?. I think people should know how admins treat Turkish editors before asking why wikipedia is blocked in Turkey...So ridiculous at least gave the man a temporary block. So much effort has passed for this site. total injustice and tyranny.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Cengizsogutlu Uninvolved however, denying the Armenian genocide, apology for atrocities, and being a proponent of ethnic cleansing isn't allowed. Its impossible to build an open encyclopedia with such people, Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey because of censorship something which Wikipedia has never changed its position. I don't know much on this editor but it seems he clearly isn't to build an encyclopedia. Vallee01 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspecting brand promotion

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.

---

1 Toddy1 has recently reverted deletion of NDTV Tagline Experience. Truth First from the header of page NDTV.

2 A Tagline is a branding slogan that states, "As a variant of a branding slogan, taglines can be used in marketing materials and advertising".

3 Admin may pl refer this discussion on the talk page of NDTV [[275]] where Toddy1 has not actively & logically discussed his revert. Instead he edited the header as "NDTV's slogan is "Experience. Truth First"", where the user provided an incorrect wiki link of Vision statement for NDTV's slogan.

4 Later in that discussion other users asked him to provide wp:rs citation mentioning the phrase Experience. Truth First is NDTV Vision statement but Toddy1 has failed to provide any.

5 Inspite of support of deletion of the slogan from the header from other users and under the watch of admins, he failed to provided any reasonable justification for point number 4 and 2 above.

6 At this point of time it is suspected that some sort of brand promotion is being going on. As in compliance of WP:NOTABOUTYOU & WP:NOTPROMOTION mentioning of anything which has a clear definition of brand promotion is against the policy of wikipedia.

7 Admin are being requested to look into this matter plz. Thanks. SagittariusAstarJ (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@SagittariusAstarJ: Your page says your account was created 7 days ago. Did you have an account before this? Vikram Vincent 07:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment there is a surge of seemingly new accounts on the talk page. suspected off-wiki coordinated activity. In any case, this is a content issue and can be resolved by seeking consensus. since the tagline in question was part of NDTV page for a very long time, a better way would be to seek consensus on Talk page for removal of the line, not the other way around. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@SagittariusAstarJ: I find it very difficult to believe your claim on my talk page that you are new to Wikipedia Special:MobileDiff/995509512. Your citing of rules shows you have been here longer than 7-8 days. Do you have any other account? Was it banned for any reason? I'm sure you know that it is not impossible to figure it out, right? Vikram Vincent 12:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have referred to this report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoJo Rabbit11. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we might have some users around willing to promote Indian media companies, but Toddy1 is absolutely not one of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Awaiting admins response on the sameSagittariusAstarJ (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@SagittariusAstarJ: Ymblanter is an admin. Have a nice day.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the filer as a sock of JoJo Rabbit11 based on behavioral evidence.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2020 (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:Jimmy Reverence

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.

---

• Jimmy Reverence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Widespread disruption on many pages. Talk:Kamala Harris and many user pages. Not exactly sure what the criteria is, but consider blocking. Rklahn (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits match up to past accounts that put this puerile nonsense on the above page from December 10–12 and November 24–26. 03:54, Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• The "Jimmy Reverence" account has been blocked, with talk page access revoked after they abused that privilege as well. Consider filing a report at WP:SPI. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, sock-puppetry is most likely. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

And "Jimmy Relevance", who also has an affinity for 72.1.206.159 (that is now hard-blocked, but they surely have more than one IP at their disposal). Please SPI this, it's long-term than things usually stay on ANI mainpage. DMacks (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• These vandalism only accounts are socks of Evlekis. Talk:Kamala Harris may need longer protection. DMacks, I don't believe that Ontario IP is actually related (Evlekis is based on another continent). Part of his thing is to impersonate other users/vandals/spammers. Sro23 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2020 (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.

IP 174.212.222.125 keeps adding Otto Dietrich as a source to Brigitte Helm

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.

---

Otto Dietrich was a Nazi Reichsleiter, the Nazi Party Press Chief, State Secretary in the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and Obergruppenführer of the SS. A book of him was used at Brigitte Helm, I have deleted that book because - to me -such a book is without any doubt not a WP:RS. The IP keeps re-adding it claiming e.g. "There's nothing about a job, or an ideology, that would make a source unreliable" [276], [277], [278] We are talking about a devoted Nazi, a member of Hitler's personal staff. 2003:D2:B70A:C6D0:7999:CE18:B4D3:985D (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@2003:D2:B70A:C6D0:7999:CE18:B4D3:985D: A) content dispute, and as per this starting of a discussion on the talk page it's on the right track, so there is currently no call to take this here. B) 174.212.222.125 is correct on both counts - the status quo is that the text has been present in the article for a while, its removal is the bold edit, and if that is reverted, you stay with the present text and discuss the removal; and being authored by a Nazi official is not an a priori reason for not using a source - we are citing Mein Kampf nearly a thousand times in this encyclopedia [279]. Please discuss the details of this issue on the talk page, I doubt you will be able to solve it on generalities. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:26, 23 December 2020 (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.

Rusty ShackIeford

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.

---

• Rusty ShackIeford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've just sent a heads up to Rusty ShackIeford (talk · contribs) after they have been on an editing blitz with a load of MOS:OVERLINK violating links. I'm not blocking them as they have stopped editing after this, but my spider senses tell me this sounds like somebody trying to get to extended confirmed quickly and cause trouble; even if it isn't, there's a bunch of unneccessary links that we need to roll back. Can anyone lend a hand? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted some. The user name is enough to ring bells, for fans of King of the Hill and given the intentional misspelling. GiantSnowman 11:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As they have carried on without discussion, I have indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 24 December 2020 (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.

A user marking significant edits as minor, ignoring attempts to communicate

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.

---

• Pajfarmor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Cinagroni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Pajfarmor seldom uses edit summaries, but frequently marks significant content changes as minor. Recent examples: [280], [281], [282].

I noticed this and asked them why they were doing it: [283]. They ignored that and continued to mark significant edits as minor. 28 of their most recent 50 edits are marked as minor, and it looks to me like that is misleading in every case.

I noted on their talk page that ignoring questions and continuing to mark major edits as minor looks like deliberate disruption. As they have marked more major edits as minor since then while still ignoring the questions on their talk page, I am raising it here in case anything can be done about it. Cinagroni (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this the iOS bug again like the last example of this was? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Doesn't look like an iOS or mobile editor, just an editor who has almost never posts to talk pages. I did find talk page posts from 2007 and 2010.

@Cinagroni: "Dishonest marking of major edits as minor" is not a WP:CIVIL way to raise a concern with an editor. I don't blame an editor for ignoring such a message. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing remotely uncivil in what I said. Cinagroni (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You accused another editor of dishonesty, which means lying, for marking edits as minor. That's a huge failure of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If someone makes a mistake or does something you disagree with, you shouldn't accuse them of dishonesty right off the bat. That's what AGF is all about. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The edits they mark as minor are not minor. Nobody could possibly believe that they are. It is not a mistake. It is not a matter of opinion. I find it odd that you choose to attack me for bringing this matter to wider attention. Cinagroni (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Because your account has only made 160 edits, it doesn't take long to look through them all. In my opinion, almost every interaction you've had with other editors (in talk page edits and edit summaries) has shown a failure to WP:AGF and to help maintain a positive, collaborative environment per WP:5P4 and WP:CIVIL. I think you should give other editors the benefit of the doubt, and avoid accusing other editors of dishonesty or deliberate deception, berating them for poor grammar, etc. I think civility is a much bigger deal than an editor improperly marking edits as minor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

When you file a complaint at ANI, your behavior is just as open to scrutiny as the reason you came here. Always has been. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich. You may have found a legitimate issue here, but your manner of approaching the user is all wrong. A section title like "erroneous marking of edits as minor" doesn't assume bad faith as you did. They may indeed be trying to just fly under the radar by not responding to talk page comments, but being agressive and rude surely is not the right way to try and address that. (Neither is trying to remove this entire section when it didn't go the way you wanted). Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being attacked for having highlighted problematic behaviour. If you think that marking major edits as minor is fine, then say so and move on. You want to discuss unrelated issues, start a new section about them. Cinagroni (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. You filed this complaint - your behavior is very related. Marking major edits as minor is not fine, but a lack of civility with the editor making those not-minor edits is also not fine. It's why WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks are policies, which are significantly more important than Help:Minor edit, an information page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:BOOMERANG. Any participant in a discussion here may find their own actions under scrutiny. Even I for responding to you now. That said, all you had to do, really, was/is show some self-reflection eg "I see that there's a better way I could've approached the editor. I'll try to do better next time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!"

As for the other editor. It seems they may not be familiar with the Wikipedia definition of 'minor', and it may help them to read WP:MINOR. But is this really a big deal? I'm not sure any anti-vandalism patroller actually hides minor edits (that would be an easy way for vandals to evade scrutiny...), and for watchlists many people don't even hide bot edits apparently never mind self-defined 'minor' edits. So I don't really get the point of the "minor edit" functionality in the first place. The only time I've ever seen it discussed is when someone is getting on someone else's case about it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The only time I've ever seen it discussed is when someone is getting on someone else's case about it. +1000 Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree its a "minor" issue but still not ideal. Also agree that calling them "dishonest" is a bit extreme. Anyway: Have left a further note on their talkpage reminding them of WP:MINOR. Doesn't seem to require any other sanction at this point. let's see what happens if this persists over time. -- Euryalus (talk)|

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.

This user is probably promoting terrorism

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 not sure if this is the right place to report this but I tried to put what User:M23s0525501 said in Google Translate and it appears that he is promoting the Islamic State and its propaganda. For example, he shared a website that is `publishing everything issued by the Islamic State`, which is obviously a terrorist organization. Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_social_media_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&curid=55178730&diff=995893926&oldid=993336165 --— SkiMaskA⭐ ^(💬Talk) 13:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting and reporting. From an admin perspective this is now all cleaned up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops - blocked before I'd seen this, didn't realise they were glocked already. My bad GirthSummit _(blether) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

[G]locked already — hello violent imagery typo! (Partial to SIG, myself...) El_C 15:39, 23 December 2020 (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 intervention needed here

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.

---

• Mahusha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Baji Rao I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need an admin intervention here Baji Rao. User:Mahusha edits were already reverted by User:Alivardi here. The user is continuously adding honorifics, removing sourced contents, adding Hindi and Marathi terms, and she is not even explaining her edits. She was warned too here for edit warring as well as by Admin Ohnoitsjamie. She shouldn't be blocked I think, but the page needs to edited by an admin. Thank you. --79.75.43.64 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Report at WP:3RR/N instead of here, as it is a more applicable noticeboard. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 23 December 2020 (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.

Orh

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.

---

• Orh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veena Oad 23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The Orh article was up for a rewrite. After Chariotrider555 made the changes, user Veena Oad 23 and some IPs are trying to either remove the content [284] or restore an old, mostly unsourced and poorly sourced version [285] [286] [287] despite requests to engage in discussion [288], [289] [290]. I believe the User:Veena Oad 23 and the IPs are from the same range. I believe a block and page protection is necessary - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Semiprotected for one week to encourage the IP editor to discuss. I don't think anything else is needed at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (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.

IP User has outed herself

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.

---

Would someone be able to take a look at this please? [291] Thank you   Aloha27  talk  15:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of by Ritchie333 and myself, and I have also e-mailed the oversighters. For the future, it is best to avoid highly visible noticeboards, mailing a recently active admin and also to the oversighters should be sufficiently efficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2020 (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.

Snake0124

• Snake0124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User talk:Snake0124 has been making disruptive edits on Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film). Plot summaries are suppose to be brief but Snake0124 keeps adding unnecessary content that either clutters or does not benefit the plot summary (1, 2, 3). Additionally, Snake0124 keeps restoring the following edits repeatedly despite reverts: back in May (1, 2, 3, 4); back in September (1); this month (1, 2, 3, 4). The characters are never referred to as mercenaries or referenced as US former service members but Snake0124 keeps restoring these unfounded edits. If you examine their talk page, you can see Snake0124 has built a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Their reply to my warning (1) makes it clear that Snake0124 has not familiarized themselves with Wiki guidelines despite repeated warnings by other editors. Snake0124 has only been blocked once for 48 hours. A longer block must be enforced. Enough is enough. Armegon (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Another music genre changer who ignores sources

Ender Gudiño (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already has multiple warnings for unsourced changes to music genres. Today this edit changed "Gothic rock" to "Alternative rock" without explanation, contrary to the unambiguous existing citation. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: I see Alternative Pop/Rock here in the source, and it actually seems more broad than "Gothic rock". Isn't it usually the hyper-specific genre labels that people get weird about? I'm also a little skeptical that Allmusic.com is a reliable source for genre. It has a "Submit corrections" link, which suggests to me that it is, at least to some degree, user generated. Anyhow, since the edit they made is consistent with the "source", I can't issue a sanction for this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, Cyphoidbomb. The source as a whole is about a compilation of singles of various styles that The Cure released over 10 years. The genres listed in the sidebar refer to the compilation as a whole. The only part of the source that refers to the subject of the Wikipedia article, the song "Just Like Heaven", calls it "goth rock".

I'm most concerned that this contributor thinks it's fine to change sourced content without respecting the source, as they've done before [292]. Such edits break text–source integrity and defeat the purpose of having references at all. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I wondered if it was a Spanish-language issue, but they have the same thing going on at es.wikipedia (along with a notification about an inappropriate username, although I am unable to decipher why it is questioned).[293]. Ender, please respond here to explain your edits (Ender, favor de responder aquí para explicar estas reviciones). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: You say: "I'm most concerned that this contributor thinks it's fine to change sourced content without respecting the source, as they've done before [1]" well, look, whatever problematic change this editor made in early November is not pertinent here unless they've done the same thing again. That has not been demonstrated. And to SandyGeorgia's response, I'm still not clear what guideline or policy they violated here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to ping me to a discussion I am participating in. Do you regularly so kindly thank editors who try to help investigate whether there might be a language issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"There is no need to ping me to a discussion I am participating in." Pinging is a courtesy. If you don't want that courtesy to be extended to you, you might consider making your preference known in a more obvious way, like in your signature file or something. It's actually rare that I encounter someone who objects to pinging, so I don't consider pinging to be a default irritation. Thus, your "There is no need" angle is highly-specific to your personal preference, and it's not something I'm likely to remember beyond this discussion. But hey, if we're lucky, the discussion will end here and we'll both be satisfied from this point forward! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandalism - Block User Request

The two users below is reported because they are editing this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Geronimo) in malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. User1: Itssheenabautista User2: Phoenix012087

• Itssheenabautista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This account continuously put wrong information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Geronimo Please block this user on editing any wikipedia's page because this user is spreading hate and false information in any platforms to discredit the person on the page. JM SG2021 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Phoenix012087 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)This account continuously put wrong information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Geronimo Please block this user on editing any wikipedia's page because this user is spreading hate and false information in any platforms to discredit the person on the page. JM SG2021 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Geronimo&action=history

(Non-administrator comment) @JM SG2021: By policy written at the top of this page and when you were creating this report, you must notify the users in question on their talk page. You may use {{ANI-notice}} to do so. Please provide diffs to support your claims. If this is a content dispute you are probably looking for dispute resolution instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 10:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban violated?

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

As far as I know, User:Tillman is topic-banned for the topic of climate change. Is he allowed to do this?

Not the first time this year either: [294]. And User:JzG warned him about it: User_talk:Tillman#Warning --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2015 User:Tillman was banned indefinitely from the climate change topic per this entry in DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

But the WP:BANEX exception applies when there was an "obvious violation of the policy about biographies of living persons". The phrase "not a climate scientist" (with earlier additional words like "by training" removed) was inserted in the lead in late 2019, later removed and re-inserted at least three times, most recently re-inserted by Hob Gadling. Since lacking formal training specifically in climate science is not the same as not being a climate scientist, this was at most a good-faith miscalculation of what would be obvious to others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant Wikilawyering. Happer "has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy." He is not only "not a climate scientist by training", he has never done any climate science. The exception does not apply, since pointing out obvious truths is not a "violation of the policy about biographies of living persons", let alone an obvious one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Obvious truths? Oh here we go... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this means that I can start putting "He's obviously not a rocket scientist" into BLPs without getting into trouble. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Only those BLPs which are about people who are employed as rocket scientists in spite of lacking the qualification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Prof Happer is a distinguished, prize-winning physicist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Honors. Your comparison is out of line. Arguably, borderline slander for your preferred lede. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

.But the WP:BANEX exception applies when there was an "obvious violation of the policy about biographies of living persons".

That exception is for things like "Joe Smith is a pedophile." without citation. It is not a "get out of topic ban" for any contested statement regarding a person. Tillman should not have touched this article for anything short of clear vandalism or damaging BLP violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the idea that BANEX applies here is ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems this is not an isolated incident: back in April there was [295] and the associated discussion here. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this one: [296] --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

More of the same, but a bit older: [297]. It seems that this will continue happening if nobody does anything about it. This is the right place for such problems, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of why I never tried to get this ancient topic-ban lifted, despite my having relevant technical qualifications in the field. The Wiki Climate Wars live on! And happy holidays, too. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you go around trying to present people's WP:FRINGE views as mainstream, you will discover that gets up the hackles of other editors, particularly when you have been banned from doing so. Who knew?! --JBL (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at this I see a consistent pattern of topic-ban violations, especially the talk page posts, but overall there's a clear contempt for the topic-ban, and attempting to weasel out of it "because BLP" is not a convincing argument. Accordingly Tillman has been blocked for one month for violations of their topic ban in the area of climate change. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • And I probably shouldn't be surprised that part of their response to the block is blatantly violating WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Probably you wanted the previous talk-page diff. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
      • That one too, but I was specifically referring to his referring to "Hob fake name". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:CIVIL says "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." Perhaps you didn't notice that JBL called my idea "ridiculous" and replied sarcastically to Tillman. That's okay. But I hope that in future you will look for incivility with both eyes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by JJdawikieditor

• JJdawikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Hzh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The editor JJdawikieditor has been repeatedly adding/changing [298] name of a lion dance on the article Lion dance apparently to publicise a version performed at a particular temple [299], with no source to support the claim it is the popular Taiwanese lion. Looks like false info and spam to me. There is no sign that the editor will stop doing it despite multiple warnings. I should also note similar problem with absence of sources in his other edits in other articles, including possible BLP issue - e.g. [300]. Hzh (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Both of you roared past WP:3RR like most people treat the speed limit. Don't edit war. Since this happened over 24 hours ago I'm not blocking this time; you're both getting warnings and I've protected the page for one week. Discuss the issue on the article talk page to establish consensus on the content dispute. If edit warring resumes when the protection expires, there will be blocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi. 185.190.132.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has received plenty of warnings and is still editing disruptively, updating appearance numbers in the infobox without updating timestamps. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notification, @Shirt58:. I forgot. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is ongoing. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I partially blocked the IP to prevent editing articles for a week, and posted at their talk to encourage discussion. Please check that talk page to see if they respond. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 and dablinks

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a history of problematic edits when fixing link to disambiguation pages. This resulted in an ANI thread in 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive982#Onel5969, mistakes in automated edits, and problematic attitude, where there was support for a time-limited topic ban from semiatomated dablink edits. The ban didn't get formally enacted because Onel5969 voluntarily agreed to stop editing in this area. However, several months later he went back to the old pattern of editing. I brought that up on his talk page at the time, and from then onwards I've tried to keep to pinging him from my edit summaries whenever I've had to correct after an edit he'd made to a page on my watchlist.

Now, two years on, and after recent talk page posts by Ionmars10 in September and by me from two weeks ago, I don't think I see any improvement. Here's a few examples just from the last 24 hrs:

• [301] here he appears to have arbitrarily picked one of the two languages with the name, and apparently the incorrect one
• [302] of the only two entries on the dab page – for an ethnic group and a language – he's decided to pick the language to link to inside an obvious list of ethnic groups
• [303] here the links were intentional dablinks so didn't need fixing at all (some may not have been optimal, but even then Onel5969's intervention was dubious: Naqvi (disambiguation), for example, should have just been changed to Naqvi instead of completely unlinked)
• [304] [305] incorrectly linking to the surname when the term "Rao" is used as a prefix before a name, and so is obviously a title.

Now, some of these errors might be brushed off as accidental misjudgements in borderline cases, but many are of a type it's difficult to imagine could be made by anyone who's actually looked at a link before changing it, such as the language/ethnicity one above, or this "fix" from two weeks ago which altered the article text to suggest that the Iranian city of Herat was besieged by an army of Japanese ghosts.

The underlying problems, in my opinion, are that he doesn't take enough care when fixing links, and that when editors then point that out he doesn't respond constructively. The latter issue doesn't affect only dablinks: even when he doesn't go as far as dishing out insults (like removing a talk page post by an annoyed newbie with the edit summary "rev utter moron", or removing a perfectly calm and civil explanation by an experienced editor with the edit summary "Remove ignorance"), he has a tendency to ban editors from his talk page at the slightest hint of criticism, whatever the topic. He's banned me from his talk page too (after I commented about some of his draftifications), and that's one reason I've ended up here. I'm not sure what can be done about this side of the problem.

However, at least the pattern of bad dablinks can be tackled by a topic ban. In the ANI discussion from two years ago, I opposed this solution, instead opting for a voluntary mentorship with an editor experienced in the area, but now I'm convinced this will not work. So, my proposal is for a topic ban from dedicated dablink fixing. This will still allow for common-sense exception, like fixing the occasional link he may come across at NPP, or on articles that he's substantially improving. Thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin sidenote) The bad link to Rao (surname) in Pataudi was introduced on 22 June 2011, by a multiple laureate in the DAB Hall of Fame. That and the other links to Rao (surname) have only come to light at all because Rao (surname) was (correctly) moved to Rao (Indian surname) and the resulting redirect retargetted to the DAB page on 17 December 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That edit of 2011 wasn't as obviously bad at the time, because Rao (title) didn't exist yet. But otherwise yeah, Onel replaced one bad link with another bad link, can't completely blame him for that. Though if he'd looked at the text immediately surrounding the link rather than just what's inside the square brackets (which he's supposed to anyway) he should have been able to catch that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a rather harsh punishment. But I will not object against a limited ban on the use of the various automation options. The Banner talk 22:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Any one never made mistakes or was bypassed by time?

I'm more hesitant to punish someone for making mistakes tackling a massive and mostly thankless cleanup task. I would just mark this caution as having been given. User:Onel5969, are you sufficiently chastised? BD2412 T 02:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, hi and thanks for the ping. I stand chastised. Although I would like to point out that in at least one of the instances, the dab didn't follow MOS:DABONE, and I simply did not consider that there was more than one link on the line. Folks make mistakes, and while I try not to, obviously I could do better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Is this really something to be reporting somebody about fixing disambiguation hyperlinks? It seems to be acting in good faith he simply made a mistake when linking things, its not a particularly big issue to even be making a mistake on. Vallee01 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Links to dab pages aren't a big deal: if a reader follows one, they'll just then have to select the right article from the list on the dab page. It's just a minor inconvenience for them. But if an editor points that link to the wrong article, that's a problem: for a reader following that link there's no way to then get to the right article, they will likely not even know they're at the wrong article, and the meaning of the text where the link is would have been changed. That's why an error rate like, say, 10% would never be acceptable: fixing 9 inconsequential errors doesn't outweigh the introduction of one serious mistake. That's why if an editor can't disambiguate with care, they shouldn't disambiguate at all. And we're not talking about the occasional error in a difficult case – everybody does that, we're talking about glaring errors, like the one that introduced Japanese ghosts into an Iranian historical account. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

    I agree that improperly "fixing" a dab page can be a serious problem for the reasons Uanfala spells out. But are we talking about an error rate of 10%? Or 1%? Or 0.1%? I notice that we have five examples from a recent 24hr period, but this month Onel has made thousands of mainspace edits that appear (at a quick glance) to be mostly dab-related. Is that a sufficient or representative sample? If the error rate is 1% or less, it seems we should be OK with an "I'll be more careful". In my view, the problem is too much editing too fast, but that can be easily fixed by slowing down a bit. I don't see that Onel has any malice or competency problems here, just some mistakes. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

    I haven't done any formal counts, but it didn't take me a lot of searching to find examples – I didn't have to check more than about twenty edits to find the five bad ones above (though of course, my sampling wasn't random). Yeah, I agree an acceptable error rate for fixing dab links should be no more than 1%. Going too fast is an aspect of the problem, yes, but I think it's more of a side effect, than a root cause. Hasty editing wouldn't occur if there were better appreciation of some basic principles: that fixing links can't always rely on hunches, that examining the context may often be necessary, that what first comes to your mind may not always work, that the intended meaning may not even be listed on the dab page, etc. It's from this vantage point that in the ANI thread from two years ago I proposed some sort of mentorship. But for that to work, there would need to be willingness to take feedback onboard, and if that had been present in the last two years, we wouldn't be here now. – Uanfala (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Addictedtohistory and the user's behaviour about personal attacks

• Addictedtohistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user sends so many distracting and irrelevant messages to Solavirum and CuriousGolden although the users stated that they have not any intentions about insulting the user. Although the user has been warned several times by the users, I don't think there's a stop since I clearly understand from the last diff. Ahmetlii (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Distracting and irrelevant messages?

• I left discretionary sanction alert on CuriousGolden and Solavirum talk pages, based on active editing on Armenia, Azerbaijan conflict topic. That's simply helpful. Though CuriousGolden had already received it during past 12 month, which I was not aware of.
• Solavirum got WP:NPA after personaly targeting me [[306]] [[307]] and just kept going [[308]] and here he argues that there is nothing personal about e.g. You've recently been involved in denialism of tragedies committed by the Armenian people. Avoid doing that from now on
• Please provide links to those many distracting and irrelevant messages other then those aforementioned by me. Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the diffs you provided meet the criteria of what's a personal attack on the WP:NPA page, in my opinion. And it seems like you first called his edits which were done after a discussion "disruptive", which prompted the response in the 2nd diff you provided. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:POV Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence quoted from No_personal_attacks. You've recently been involved in denialism of tragedies committed by the Armenian people quoted from Solavirum edit linked above. So, I prompted the derogatory reply who are you to call them disruptive?, quote from diff, right? Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've thoroughly stated that your edit history is enough basis for that. Stating that someone has been involved in denialism isn't a violation of the guidelines, as others have used such remarks throughout this thread as well. Now, as your publicly published edits are not something personal to you, you falsely sending inappropriate warnings to others just to prove something is abusing the functions. Let me remind you that you called my edits, which were published after a discussion with non-Azerbaijani users on Talk:Shusha, disruptive. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit history is enough to conclude that I'm ...involved in denialism of tragedies committed by the Armenian people'? You keep justifying that derogatory statements and personal accusations against an editor are justified? And now you accuse me of ...falsely sending inappropriate warnings to others. I clarified above what I've done. I don't see anything in the thread provided by you that would justify WP:NPA. I'll wait for an admin to advice. Addictedtohistory (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Peacemaker67 Please, advice

Admin, please consider also false accusations by Ahmetlii. He states "...although the users stated that they have not any intentions about insulting the user", insinuating that I WP:NPA warned several users, without providing any diffs. Only Solavirum was WP:NPA warned by me, for the reasons elaborated above.Addictedtohistory (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I think he said users in plural to include me and while you haven't given me a warning, you have given me the sanctions alert, possibly while thinking it was a warning, as you included "with all respect" in the summary. And as I noticed you gave the same alert to Solavirum at same time (both of us had already been informed of sanctions before), I had to inform you that the sanctions alert isn't a warning. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Bringing up case against another editor to ANI should be with proofs. I'm fully aware what sanctions alert is. How possibly could you know what I think? ...possibly while thinking it was a warning, as you included "with all respect"Addictedtohistory (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

PowerRangersFan2002

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.

---

PowerRangersFan2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent addition of unsourced content. Recently blocked 16 October 2020 for 72 hours for similar disruptive behavior. Previously blocked 23 June 2020 for 24 hours.

• List of The Price Is Right pricing games, Revision as of 18:41, 22 December 2020
• List of The Price Is Right pricing games, Revision as of 19:25, 21 December 2020
• Wheel of Fortune (American game show), Revision as of 14:53, 16 December 2020
• Alex Trebek, Revision as of 23:20, 5 December 2020 — Bizarre addition to article "since then, that is no longer happening do Trebek dying on November 8, 2020."

AldezD (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are clearly issues here. I invite PowerRangersFan2002 to discuss why they should not be blocked for lack of editing and collaboration competence (no sourcing, no apparent communication of any kind). To other admins: don't we have a LTA in the TV show/animation topic area and does this fit their MO? Sandstein 20:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games, Revision as of 23:28, 24 December 2020—Additional unsourced nonsense since ANI opened. AldezD (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2020 (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.

Requesting partial block review

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.

---

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

I am asking to be removed from being blocked. I made revisions with sources and all I got was undo reverts under the misleading name of vandalism. I am not sure why an administrator thought it appropriate to block. Vandalism means malicious misinformation. The information I intended to add about Sidney Powell was not in any wise malicious or even in the other direction supporting her causes. "Trump's legal team clarified her lawsuit was filed independently of the Trump legal team with Attorney L. Lin Wood representing her under the name of "We the people". Her case focuses on Dominion voting machine's ability to be manipulated and votes adjudicated, referenced by an affidavit from a previous assistant to Hugo Chavez, a previous dictator of Venezuela, who used Smartmatic voting machines, which had license agreements with Dominion." To clarify on the details of a conspiracy theory is not vandalism. The only reverts I made was those that reverted my edits. If this type of prohibitions on sharing information persist, I will talk to several news agencies about defunding Wikipedia and will never support it again. If any new information is immediately reverted by a select few hogging the page, how is that open editing? I would much rather see it be flagged for better sources, but it seems some are lazy and want to hit the revert button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlazy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Smartlazy, Threatening to talk to news agencies about defunding Wikipedia is not the right approach, if your goal is to improve Wikipedia. That said, using the term "rvt fringe garbage" when referring to an edit consistent with and supported by a source is unreasonably confrontational when applied to a brand-new editor. Let's all take a deep breath and sort out what's happening. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Smartlazy, You are very new and unfamiliar with some of our protocols. While it is understandable that if you add some material and see it reverted, you might think that if you are sure that it belongs in the article you should keep reverting back into the article as long as it takes. Unfortunately, while that tactic might prevail in the real world, in Wikipedia that's viewed as edit warring, and we insist that a different approach is followed. At a minimum, open up the discussion on the article talk page explaining why you think the material belongs in the article, and be prepared to respond to those who view the sources as suspect. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, if you are not an open sourced platform, just go ahead and say it. To allow a self-willed administrator to block at random request is bad management. Maybe this is why people are slowly dropping out of funding "open source" sites like Wikipedia. Do not block people who willing responded and defended against blatant reverts. I am not a brand new editor. I made an edit before on a science article a few years ago. Sources that are plainly obvious webpages that anyone can view should be allowed to be viewed for the reader to make an unbiased decision of ALL of the available information at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlazy (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I will talk to several news agencies about defunding Wikipedia That's not a legal threat but I'm pretty sure it's a "not the kind of threat that lets you keep editing Wikipedia" threat. ~~And your further reply makes it very clear that you are not listening and don't understand Wikipedia's policies.~~ - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bushranger,

>you are not listening

Listening to what? the only information placed on the talk page accuses the editor of vandalism which is not remotely what happened. It is completely understandable to me that they are tuning out what's obviously mistaken claims. Did anyone explain on the editor's talk page that repeated insertion of the material is considered edit warring and a problem. I suppose it might be in some of the links but it's a bit unrealistic to expect a brand-new editor to click on every blue link and fully absorbed it before moving on. We've been horrible to this editor, oh this editor and apology and a restart. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to put this [309] in make me think that deepfriedokra was being kind in blocking you only from that article. "Purported President-elect" is against all consensus and reliable sourcing. Further disruption will be met with a full block, possibly indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, I didn't place the block. The editor was wrong to keep trying to add the material, but they are brand-new editor and don't understand our processes. While there is a little bit of information in the edit summaries, brand-new editors are always aware that they should look at edit summaries. The talk page has very little information about what was going on, and in my opinion the very limited information on the talk page is misleading. This isn't remotely vandalism. It is quite understandable that an editor seeing a claim that they are vandalizing would presume that whoever is saying this is not well-informed. And they would be right. I don't support the threat, but that threat comes in response to incompetent reactions by Wikipedia editors, some of whom should know better. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected the blocking admin. It's not vandalism, but it's edit-warring to push a fringe POV that's been repudiated by reliable sources. Blocking from that article for a short time is a reasonable response to stop the cycle of disruption. We're not obligated to humor fringe POVs. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: first, they made eventually 7 reverts of WP:FRINGE material, second, the WP:FRINGE conspiracy items they were trying to insert they "sourced" from Washington Examiner and "Geller Report". By the time I finished the initial AIV report they had already violated 3RR and ignored warnings, and they still haven't actually discussed their edits on the talk page despite both myself and @Soibangla: posting and pinging them. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, I know nothing about the Geller report. what's wrong with sourcing to the Washington Examiner?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "...there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories are definitely in that category. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the block was premature. Accusing a brand-new editor of vandalizing when they are adding well written texts supported by a source is unreasonably confrontational. It isn't remotely vandalism. It might be that the sourcing doesn't meet our standards, calling a disagreement about sources vandalism is over the top. We typically block an editor after four warnings. while there are legitimate reasons for doing it sooner than four, those legitimate reasons include actual vandalism not disagreement about sources. The editor wasn't properly warned. Yes there is a warning on the talk page but it talks about vandalism which isn't the case. the editor was blocked for "reinserting challenged content". I see nothing on their talk page explaining what that means.

Wikipedia has a reputation of being vicious to brand-new editors. I thought we had made progress but I am seeing it in practice. I think the editor's response is over the top but given how badly they have been treated I understand their reaction.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No one accused you I never accused anyone of vandalizing. @Smartlazy: Please review the links in the block notice I left you. Please read WP:BRD. It is up to you to find WP:consensus for your edits. There are a number of options linked in the message I left you. It is not up to those who challenge your edit to disprove your assertions. I will leave it others to characterize your threat in response to not having your way. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, > No one accused you of vandalizing.

Of course the editor was accused of vandalizing. Read the damn talk page:

> If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sidney Powell...

> You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia,

There's hardly anything on the talk page other than accusations of vandalism--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to unblock if that is your wish. The block was for edit warring to stop disruption, and to encouarge discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Wait, you say the block was for edit warring? How many warnings did the editor received for edit war on the talk page? I count zero. Did I miss one or two or three? I found one, minutes before the block was issued.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, The block was partially intended to encourage discussion? Is a veteran editor you know that we encourage editors to discuss rather than edit war but how does a brand-new editor know they should open a discussion? I don't see that mentioned on the talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor has said they are not brand-new. And they came straight to the dramaboard and launched a barrage of vitriol beyond reason for merely being frustrated - and then in response to you doubled down on it. I agree we can be far too quick to bite the newbies but AGF only goes so far. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Smartlazy, I agree with Sphilbrick that your edits were not vandalism and that it was wrong that you were accused of it. That being said, you are only blocked from editing one article for 36 hours. In that time, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the prohibition on edit warring, the requirement that only truly reliable sources be used as references, and the consensus method of decision making. Not one experienced Wikipedia editor cares in the slightest whether or not you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation but it is not collaborative and not wise to make threats about organizing a press campaign to defund Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see my corrected comments, which you responded to the uncorrected version. The user had the (wrong) vandal warnings and an EWN notice. IMO, I needed to place the partial block to stop the disruption. Please feel free to unblock if that is your wish. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:Please see my revised comments above. You replied to the uncorrected version. Apparently lost in the many edit conflicts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

As usual, Cullen is a voice of reason. Nice to see. @Smartlazy, I'm sorry your introduction to Wikipedia has been so "interesting". I urge you not to take too seriously any of the brickbats being thrown at you, and take Cullen's advice. I'll be happy to chat with you if you need assistance understanding some of our jargon. To others, it's Christmas Eve Eve, and this is not good for my blood pressure, so I'm bowing out for now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Probably it would have been better if you had explained the reliable sources issue to OP rather than laying on vandal warnings or reporting at WP:AIV. (or edit warring over a content dispute). Also, the edit warring warning would have been more appropriate than reporting at notice boards first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block The warnings were not done well, but edit-warring to call Biden the "purported" president-elect is not acceptable, even from a new editor. A 36-hour block from one article is a very minor sanction; the OP should simply do something else (maybe edit other articles) in that time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block for edit-warring, which was certainly occurring regardless of the merits or otherwise of the content. The blocked editor is perfectly free to lodge an unblock request outlining how they've read WP:EW and understand not to do it again. They're also perfectly free to talk to any news agency they like and defund anything they want - neither of these somewhat dubious threats have any bearing on this block or the outcome of a block appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block per power~enwiki and Euryalus. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Euryalus, except that their "defunding" threats, while not legal threats, have the same potential chilling effect, and should be taken into account when evaluating their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Block expired

As the block has already expired, suggest this can be closed. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2020 (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.

IP editor doesn't seem to be getting the message

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.

---

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

173.3.236.8 has, over a duration of 7 months, accumulated 8 warnings and 2 blocks for unsourced content or deliberate factual errors, all from different editors/admins. Their talk page is a slew of warnings to stop, and yet time and time again, despite a block for a week, and a block for a month, they've continued on with this. The contributions page of the IP speaks volumes already, not to mention I'm pretty sure there's at least a good few edits that slipped through the cracks without sourcing. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You should state the diff for recent edit, like within this week or within 3 days before today. Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, they're listed here. [310], [311], and [312] just this week. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sent level 4 warning. May be AIV again would help. Matthew hk (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

And it is stale (24hr) again despite seem a static ip. Also some recent edit may be good edit and does not need revert and issue warning. Matthew hk (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2020 (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.

TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52

• TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user never learned his lesson on WP:DE and continues to ignoring any warnings.

Before he got blocked the first time, @The Grand Delusion gave me warnings on my talk page for no reason at all.

Contributions after his first block:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amphibia_(TV_series)&diff=996199483&oldid=996177464
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52&diff=996244809&oldid=996211217
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_HBO_Max_original_programming&diff=next&oldid=996202770
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_shorts&direction=prev&oldid=996109787
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Big_City_Greens_episodes&diff=995640578&oldid=995630218

Those are just examples, looks like he is doing WP:NOTHERE. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"@The Grand Delusion gave me warnings on my talk page for no reason at all."

Um, you were edit warring with the user you're reporting here. That's why I gave you warnings. Also, I see nothing wrong with the second edit you listed - users have the right to remove messages from their talk page, per WP:BLANKING. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 14:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Well that troll was inserting WP:SYNTH. Don’t blame the war on me, blame it on DeadRat. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Give a closer look at this edit you thought was fine and click on the source to the Boomerang app: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Care_Bears:_Unlock_the_Magic&oldid=992570219 BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan: I have not looked at the edits, but 99% of the time, blaming both parties in an edit war is about right. Even if you're right about your version being better, it doesn't mean edit warring is the solution. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I do see that some dumb moderators will just warn a person for an edit warning, even though a troll continues to revert his edit that violates a Wikipedia rule. The troll should at least talk about his topic on the talk page of the article. If the reverting continues, the good user would get reported, it will depend if the good user gets blocked or not. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really a great strategy to come to an administrators' noticeboard with a report, looking for action by an administrator, and complain about "dumb moderators". Rather counter-productive, I would think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I'm sorry if this looks off-topic. I promise to just keep talking about the supposed main subject TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52. Let's all avoid taking about the edit war for now. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It takes two to edit war. Unless the subject is BLP violations, which are exempt from the three-revert rule, the first rule of edit-warring is don't, even if the other editor is inserting erronious, uncited, or synthesis content. Because if you do you are also violating policy. Also as mentioned above you may wish to consider your phrasing because your conduct is just as open to scrutiny as the editor you reported - you don't get to say "let's not talk about this other thing involving me and that editor". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see attempts to resolve the disputes in any of the talk pages of the articles. Did I miss one? Perhaps both parties should be blocked for edit warring. I don't see much admin action on this one other than send out warnings to both BaldiBasicsFan and TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52. BTW @BaldiBasicsFan: Once you file a report at ANI, you're supposed to inform the involved individuals about it. Jerm (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I was about to change the subject originally. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I just informed TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 of this case since you didn't do it BaldiBasicsFan. Jerm (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for leading him to know, although he might ignore you and remove your message. He doesn't like messages from what I know. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

They're allowed to do that. Not responding here would be bad optics for them, but it's perfectly cromulent for them to remove anything (other than declined unblock requests for an active block) from their user talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I did move all of my message wall junk to my sandbox. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

proxy detected

IP 41.223.141.82 is a proxy or VPN from Botswana (see) I recommend a check to verify possible accounts editing from its subnet 41.223.141.0/24 93.146.44.135 (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You will need more evidence than IPQS. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Violation of indefinite topic ban by User:Eruditescholar

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.

---

• Eruditescholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Back in 2017, User:Eruditescholar was issued a permanent topic ban after repeatedly adding uncited and unverifiable ethnicity categories to articles. Eruditescholar was blocked for it in 2017 and again in 2018. The user is back at it, see here and here as well as dozens of other recent edits.--User:Namiba 00:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for two weeks for multiple clearcut violations of their topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 26 December 2020 (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.

Climate change vulnerability

Somebody just copy pasted a whole article. Climate change vulnerability

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Climate+change+vulnerability&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.226.19 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.okbuy.eu/info-economics_of_global_warming-part-03/

https://www.scribd.com/document/183862204/Economics-And-Energy

• --104.249.226.19 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a case of citogensis and Wikipedia mirrors from Economics of climate change -- I started the article with content from their (attributed in the edit summary), Sadads (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on Marxism-related articles

For several weeks now, there has been almost daily vandalism from IPs on a range of Marxism-related articles - usually adding the word "criminal", or other derogatory term, to the opening sentence. From the nature of the vandalism, this appears to be one obsessive vandal rather than many different people. Articles affected have included at least Classical Marxism, Communist International, Communist party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Dictatorship of the proletariat, Friedrich Engels, History of communism, Leninism, List of communist ideologies, Marxism, Marxism–Leninism, Marxist philosophy, Marxist schools of thought, Orthodox Marxism, Stalinism. IPs involved have included 79.21.4.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.21.93.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.40.93.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.41.95.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.54.142.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 87.19.95.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 87.8.97.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 87.8.98.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.232.119.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.236.119.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.239.101.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.248.32.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and several others. Would a range block be possible for these IPs? If not, it might be necessary to place semi-protection on these and related articles for a while until this person gives up. RolandR (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I protected most of the articles, with a few exception, for a month semi-protection plus a year pending changed. I hope it should help.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user seemingly not understanding

• Band1301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Title of this section basically explains most of it. I've also come here twice before regarding this user, see previous discussions here and here.

The user in question has been warned a multitude of times, and at this point, are seemingly WP:NOTGETTINGIT and is possible a WP:CIR scenario. They've been warned countless times about how to upload images properly, and are never changing their ways, resulting in most of the warnings on their talk page. They also continue to add unsourced content across different articles, including most recently, Weinerville. When reverted, they don't seem to understand the process of using a talk page or adding a reliable source, resulting in their recent edit warring in places such as that article and Template:Nicktoon creators.

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Ludicrous should also be looked at in regards to their images contributions, as they don't seem to understand how copyright things work here, and just claim they are not being disruptive (when in fact, they are and have for some time now) and that the reverts against them/deletion of their uploaded images are 'ludicrous' and that the image(s), "has to come". Many of their edit summaries don't make any sense whatsoever, see more about that in the previous ANI threads I have linked above.

I'm honestly not sure what should be done at this point, because I highly doubt they will all of a sudden start understanding what any of this means. Some sort of sanctions/stern warning and/or block seems to be necessary at this point. If not, then I'm sure this edit behavior of theirs is just going to keep going on. Magitroopa (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Band1301 (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)But this is serious on the things being true I meant to edit on!

Indeffed to give them a chance to discuss on their talk a plan for developing some competence. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thank you, but seems like they still don't understand anything given the massive amount of unblock requests they've added to their talk page. Now 174.141.204.77 might need to be blocked as well. I previously mentioned that the IP is very seemingly them, and now that IP has resumed following Band1301's block, which would now make this block evasion. Magitroopa (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

They have consistent formatting problems; in particular, their episode lists are not properly formatted; see the aforementioned Weinerville (Special:Permalink/996369314 current version) for an example. They should be using the standardized {{Episode list}} and {{Episode table}} templates. Someone needs to clean up after them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: that list seems to predate Band's arrival. See their draft Draft:List of Dinner and a Movie episodes instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

IP definitely needs blocking, it's absolutely a duck with the same comments and behaviour. Seems clear to me that this is a young child who is just simply not ready to be an editor yet, through no fault of their own. Some contributions could be constructive but there will be no way to communicate a sufficient understanding of verifiability or what sources are reliable. Reverting TPA might avoid wasting further volunteers' time for this reason. — Bilorv (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: To be sure this editor didn't seem to be listening to any of the warnings or advice given to them by others and just from my brief interaction with that in the MCQ discussion you mentioned above, I thought they were likely going to end up blocked sooner than later; however, to be fair to them, at least here they were basically adding unsourced information about cartoons to a Weinerville#Episodes that was already pretty much already entirely unsourced. Adding more unsourced content to already existing unsourced content is not a good thing, but just reverting their edits and leaving everything else unsourced seems a bit odd. Perhaps you intended to go back and find sources for all of the those other cartoons of even add "citation templates" to them, but maybe it would've been better to have made that clear so that it didn't seem as if you weren't just singling out this one particular editor (given your past interactions with them) for making the same mistakes others had already made. This editor first seems to have edited that article here, and the "Episodes" section and all its issues predate them. Once again, I think this editor was almost certainly going to end up blocked for one reason or another and probably quite soon, but removing the unsourced content they added while leaving the unsourced content that others might've added seems a bit harsh. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Impersonation of my signature

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.

---

• 61.5.71.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • 61.5.71.229 AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • 61.5.71.229 count • 61.5.71.229 block log • 61.5.71.229 x-wiki • 61.5.71.229 Edit filter search • 61.5.71.229 WHOIS • 61.5.71.229 RDNS • 61.5.71.229 tracert • robtex.com • 61.5.71.229 StopForumSpam • 61.5.71.229 Google • 61.5.71.229 AboutUs • 61.5.71.229 Project HoneyPot)

An IP geolocating to Java has made a number of edits with my alt account signature, including proposed deletions that look like cut-paste copies of a PROD that I may have made in the past. E.g. [313][314] They were not made by me. As far as I can tell my alt account is still under my control. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

On closer look I don’t see anything with my name on it other than the cut-paste PRODs. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I see some blocks were made. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2020 (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.

Brettandelle, lots of IPs, and the Killers band as a trio

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.

---

• Brettandelle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This is a case of block evasion and multiple identities used for edit warring. The username Brettandelle is being used to evade IP blocks. The person behind the username and the IPs is making statements and talk page requests that the Killers should be classified as a trio now that their guitarist is on hiatus.[315][316][317][318] (The Killers are still counting the guy as a bandmember.) They are also inserting the name of Tricky (musician) into articles about the recent activity of the musical group Massive Attack.[319][320][321] (Tricky left the band in 1994 except for a 2016 reunion.) They created and then recreated a hoax article at Draft:The Fizzy Whizzy Drinkers. Their writing style is childish, with many capitalisation errors.[322]

This person was blocked multiple times on IPs in England. The username Brettandelle followed blocked IP 81.2.182.5 at the same article, to make the same edit,[323][324] a clear violation of WP:MULTIPLE. List of involved IPs below. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Dec 2020 – 81.2.182.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked two weeks)
• Nov 2020 – 82.129.69.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct–Nov 2020 – 93.186.147.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked one week)
• Oct 2020 – 149.22.29.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 – 154.57.231.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 – 149.22.27.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 31 hours)
• Sep–Nov 2020 – 79.66.60.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 2020 – 81.2.152.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 2020 – 149.22.19.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug–Sep 2020 – 94.10.51.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jul–Sep 2020 – 2A02:C7F:C216:6100:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked 36 hours)
• Jul–Aug 2020 – 51.198.70.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Brettandelle continues with his edit warring at the Killers page, without responding here or at his talk page. Refusal to communicate. Binksternet (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2020 (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.

IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists (Part 3)

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.

---

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists (Part 2)
• link - a different IP range from before, but the editing style is unmistakable, and is a colossal timesink - see List of Bollywood films of 1986 edit history 10-23 June and 24-27 December 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
•  Done Blocked for the same time as the other range, since the latest edits are block evasion. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2020 (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 Celco85

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.

---

• Celco85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

@Bumbubookworm, Deepfriedokra, and MarnetteD: This editor has been causing many problems with no understanding of how references should be included in articles as well as using references incorrecvtly. These problems have been documented in Talk:John Hewson Today he/she has caused problems in at least four articles. He/she was reported as a vandal on 22 December but the report went stale [325]Fleet Lists (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Celco85 stale 22nd December 2020

• I left Celco85 two messages, but I guess I did not do a good job. @Fleet Lists: Please notify user of this discussion if you have not done so. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• There are clearly frivolous/potty edits at Brighton Icebergers and Melania Trump and the Aus political edits have tone issues at the least Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello some of the edits I made did have good intentions Locco is a legend among those that live in Bayside However perhaps I see that some stuff even if it id true and have some sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celco85 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've partial blocked from article space for week with a request for user to address the concerns of other editors. Please see my talk page as well as the user's. Any admin should feel free to unblock or modify at their discretion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (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:Neelofafiance (and the article Neelofa)

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.

---

• Neelofafiance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Malayuser1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Neelofa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neelofa is a Malaysian actress, talk show host, and entrepreneur. Rich, famous, single, good looking, the whole nine yards. Neelofafiance (talk · contribs) is basically a single purpose account, dedicated to editing the article on Neelofa since joining us in February. Shocking, I know. Who'd have guessed? They didn't edit a lot, from their talk page it seems they created a few drafts that got deleted, but every one of their 30-odd edits that hasn't been deleted, has been to this article. (Including repeatedly adding the name Muhammad Adam bin Ahmad (fiancé) to the article as Neelofa's "partner". I would not deign to speculate who Muhammad Adam bin Ahmad might be, no...) Most of those edits have been reverted. They uploaded a few copyright violating images to Wikimedia Commons (most if not all of Neelofa, of course), all of which were deleted as copyright violations. [326] A few days ago, though, they have gone just a bit farther, in either recruiting a friend or simply creating an alternate account, Malayuser1111 (talk · contribs), both here and on Commons. On Commons, Malayuser111 License reviewed a file that Neelofafiance uploaded, Neelofafiance License reviewed a file that Malayuser111 uploaded - neither one of which had that right, of course, and neither image was actually under a free license, of course - (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Two_users,_neither_Commons:License_reviewers,_adding_false_License_review_templates_to_each_others'_files). Oh, and Malayuser111 has exactly one edit here, today: adding the name Muhammad Adam bin Ahmad as Neelofa's "partner".[327] Yeah. Anyway, this happy couple may or may not have something happen to them on Wikimedia Commons but I somehow thought English Wikipedia admins might want to look into the issue and take appropriate action here. --GRuban (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've indef blocked both of them as clearly not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). A CheckUser check might be worth doing to confirm whether they're the same person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On the um positive? side, at least it was restricted to one person here. On the Malay Wikipedia, both editors ms:Khas:Sumbangan/Malayuser1111 & ms:Khas:Sumbangan/Neelofafiance seem to think said person is the partner of several different women. (FWIW, there one was already blocked back in November albeit only for 3 months, I raised the other in the best place I could find and also mentioned the likely sockpuppetry.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2020 (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.

Lua error: not enough memory

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.

---

Hi, in the page COVID-19 pandemic in India is showing Lua error: not enough memory after references. Can anyone help to fix it. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 18:01, 30 December 2020 (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.

Denial of Turkophobia

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.

---

User: Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Page: Anti-Turkism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been doing disruptive and racistic editing since a while. First removing the lead that Anti-Turkism is a hatred against the Turkish people. Then deleting some stuff claiming that hating Turkish people is not Anti-Turkism at all. Here removing discrimination against Bulgarian Turks (by the communist regime) and Iraqi Turkmens (by Baath regime), or such as incidents during Cypriot intercommunal violence or Discrimination of Western Thrace Turks. Here, adding pan-Turkism, which is totally unrelated. He also thinks Anti-Turkism (aka Turkophobia) is being Anti-Turkism as an ideology of "Turkism" or "Pan-Turkism", so being against Turkic nationalism, which is clearly not. He also claims Anti-Turkism is "anti-Turkic racism" Which is a dangerous statement. Can anyone say this for Antisemitism? Tried to tell him several times.

See relevant talks:

Talk:Anti-Turkism#What is Anti-Turkism?:

• but being against Turkey and their policies is not Anti-Turkism, as Anti-Turkism covers Turkic people in general.

So Turkish people are not Turkic people? His first faulty statement.

• This will be my last answer before I report the article

Instead of improving it, threatening to delete the article.

• Anti Turkism is portrayed as being hostile, racist or having an intolerance against Turkic people

First changing the lead, which stayed for years, after claiming it is what he says.

• Turkism is sure related to Anti-Turkism, and I used the same source as is used at Pan-Turkism. Turkism was used first as Pan Turkism as stated in the article. If you want an article about Anti-Turkish sentiment, then create one.

So antisemitism exist because Israel invented something like "Semitism"? Plus Turkophobia and anti-Turkism, both are same terms.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Turkism in Armenia

• Still *Delete, still a propaganda page. Turkey and Azerbaijan are not all Turkic countries

Borderline lies. Turkey and Azerbaijan are member states (and founders) of the Turkic Council. Both countries are described as a Turkic country.

To explain what anti Turkism is, you can easily find some texts on Google books, for example: Like anti-Semitism, anti-Turkism is one of Germany's oldest institutionalised hatreds. These are dangerous statements, pure denial of existence of any Turkophobia. Beshogur (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer of Paradise Chronicle

Thanks for starting this discussion, I was trying to start one, too as you mentioned further up. I have stated that

of course Turkey and Azerbaijan count as Turkic countries on the 23rd December and I have also

answered so to Beshogur to his question if I

still claim that Turks are not Turkic people on the 25 December.

The main issue is about wether Anti Turkism refers to Turkic peoples (Kazakh, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz etc.) as presented in the leads of several articles concerning the topic (Anti) Turkism or (mainly) to Turkish people:

The lead of Anti-Turkism

is hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkish or Turkic people, Turkish culture, Turkic countries, or Turkey itself

The lead of Anti-Turkism in Armenia

hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkic people, Turkish culture and Turkic countries

The lead of Pan-Turkism

since Turkism applies only to Turkic peoples

then in Beshogurs words

The term Anti Turkism is pure based on Turkish people not Turkic peoples, but lesser extent.

It is stated right underneath Turkic peoples that it should not be confused with Turkish people

(Pan-)Turkism is an ideology heavily influenced by people like Reha Oguz Türkkan who competed with the NAZIS about who, (either Turkey or Germany) the first country based on race is. Page 89, the scholar is Jacob Landau, a prominent scholar on the topic and often cited I other books as well.

I'd support the move of to Article Anti-Turkism to Anti-Turkish sentiment, which is anyway a redirect to the page Anti Turkism. Then the Anti-Turkism article should be adapted asap, or maybe also first moved into draftspace.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

@Paradise Chronicle: you are still saying the same nonsense. Changing the lead and claiming Turkish people are not Turkic. Also Anti-Turkism is a commonname, why would we change? The articles is been like 14 years with the same lead and you are changing it. And again, what does Pan-Turkism or Reha Oğuz Türkkan to do with Anti-Turkism. Does this justify your removal of racism against Turks from that article? Is English so hard? Not Anti Turkism (anti ideology) Anti Turk-ism (being anti Turk). Beshogur (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To be against Turkey is being against Turkey or Turkeys policies. Being against Turkeys/Erdogans (expansionist, authoritarian) policies or the Armenian Genocide, does not equate of being against the Uzbeks, Kazakhs or Kyrgyz. I have also not claimed that Turks are not Turkic, but that some sections were not directed at Turkic people, but Turkish policies.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this a content dispute, about whether the article Anti-Turkism should cover anti-Turkey, anti-Turkish, or anti-Turkic sentiment, or some combination? Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Levivich, this is a content dispute and Beshogur and Paradise Chronicle are hereby informed that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Both should also be aware that aggressively nationalistic editing is a common problem, and that many such editors have been blocked. So drop the confrontation and work toward consensus on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 26 December 2020 (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.

Cyberpunk 2029

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.

---

• Cyberpunk 2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first noticed this user's disruptive behavior at 2022 FIFA World Cup, with edits that include unexplained removal of content, unsourced information, and overlinking. A majority of edits continue to fall into the disruptive category, with most recent attempts occurring at Times Square Ball (while I would agree that it should say 2020-21, he kept changing it from 2021 to 2020, making it confusing to the reader). See also edit filter log for deeper history. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the editor performs massive edits and doesn't even have the decency to fill out the edit summary. If Cyberpunk ignores this case and continues to make these types of edits, then a block should be implemented. Jerm (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see where Cyberpunk 2029 has ever made an edit to their own talk page, which would indicate they aren’t interested in collaborative communication. A block with the intent of forcing them to communicate would be helpful. Smokyhaze (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Smokyhaze. Cyberpunk 2029 seems to be on a good-faith roll to "fix" articles that he/she deems to be incorrect but is not backing up those changes with RSs or using edit summaries. I don't think this editor has even looked at their own talk page. An intervention is needed to prevent this edit pattern from continuing. Blue Riband► 13:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since this report was made, Cyberpunk 2029 has continued to edit disruptively, ignoring this report and warnings on his Talk page in the process, albeit one edit made in good faith. When reverted, the user has not bothered to discuss, and even though most of the time he doesn't restore his edits, has persisted his behavior across various articles on the encyclopedia. I'd say more, but everyone else above has already given enough info that I don't even need to list it all. Waiting for administrator intervention. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for 72 hours per this ANI discussion. I'm hoping that this will wake them up and encourage the user to correct their behavior and communicate when issues are brought to their attention. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:23, 29 December 2020 (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 212.156.71.30 / 37.155.240.129

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.

---

Dear admins, could you please have a look at the behaviour of user editing under IPs 212.156.71.30 AND 37.155.240.129? It looks like he/she is WP:Nothere to build encyclopedia but to push POV/alternative history, as he/she:

1. engages in WP:EDITWAR by removing reliable Human Rights Watch source (twice) and PBS source from Hadrut article without explanation diff ,diff
2. tries concealing the use of more than one IP by manually editing the automatically added IP address diff
3. uses ad-hominem remarks towards Armenian ethnicity showing ethnic intolerance diff, diff
4. makes baseless accusations against a user diff and views Wikipedia as WP:Battleground
5. does not care about WP:Civility diff
6. tries to push an unpopular theory that Syrian "mercenaries lured by money", rather than Armenian diaspora fighters, fought in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war on Armenian side diff

Many thanks. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear administrators, this user accuses me of some stuff, please have a look.::

1: I am new to WP world so didn't excatly know how/where to do. And didn't insist on the edit after second time, someone in an edit war would go on. Same happened here twice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Armenian_protests#Analysis -but this time I learned properly doing it and my edit stayed. I in no way have bad intentions of edit war.

2: I edited the automatic ip because I wanted to make clear that it was still me, the same user, relpying. Earlier I used my computer at work, then my computer at home. And I have already explained the accuser about this. I can totally prove this again from my work computer that this is same person. I won't do this again, my intentions was just to make sure thay they know I am same person and not someone else.

3: See nothing wrong here, the accuser himself first started revealing my ip origin, please have a careful look.

4: First of all, I edited my own edit in a talk before even someone replied to me. Why the accuser tries to dig in the previous version of my edit and bring it here is clear. Please have a careful look.

5: See nothing wrong here, answering his/her accusations in proper way.

6: Here I am literally correcting them based on the article that they provided. This one is complete non-sense accusation. Please have a look.

This user became hostile after their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#%22Operation_Iron_Fist%22 They want the codename for the operation removed from the first sentence because they "wp:dont-like-it". Others and I disagreed, more info on the talk. You judge. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the diffs provided by the OP:

1. Yes, that was edit warring, and it was indeed aggravated by the fact that it was without explanation.
2. This is assumption of bad faith. The explanation that the user wanted to make clear that it was still the same user makes obvious sense, given that it was a reply addressed to that IP address. That said, I recommend the IP user to register with an account so that such misunderstandings won't reappear. Also, it will relegate checking where the user resides to a small group of specially selected people.
3. The ad hominem argument was indeed started by the OP. Still, it would have been better for the IP user to raise above that and aim higher in the dispute pyramid.
4. Presumably, with item #4, the OP was trying to make the point that "idontlikeit" was a baseless accusation. However, that is understandable, since the OP provided no reason in his statement introducing the topic of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war#"Operation Iron Fist".
5. The diff shows some level of incivility, but nothing that needs admin intervention. The proper way, again, would have been to aim higher.
6. What the IP editor wrote was indeed what the source said. Now the question is whether the source was reliable.

◅ Sebastian 23:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion, I see no chronic, intractable behavioral problem here that particularly requires admin intervention, and therefore think this case can be closed. It is natural that reporting on a war excites emotions, and one therefore needs to constantly remind oneself that the other side probably suffers as much under the war, and one can best proceed if both calm down. I would recommend both sides to first seek agreement on which sources count as reliable; that takes some time, but is worth it in my experience. ◅ Sebastian 23:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear SebastianHelm First, many thanks for your time and analysis. Second, would it be too much to ask for more than one admin to help with this, please? There is more to it with NKR-related pages that it may seem, and some caution is required to avoid inadvertently giving green light to uncivil / aggressive / nationalistic editing. The conclusions from points 2 (the two IPs are 50 km away from each other, a bit too distanced for work and home, aren't they?), 4 (I clearly provided reasons of dispute on article talk page - there is nothing about that special operation other than a name, how is this IJDLI?), 5 (addressing me with "Keep your advice to yourself", "talking to you is useless" is not okay, it is a hostile treatment of my suspected ethnicity, revealing which was not even allowed) and 6 (I think reliability of source matters, and promoting allegations without reliable sources does not constitute good editing) were not entirely clear to me. Perhaps another admin who has prior experience with NKR-related topics? Best regards and Happy Holidays Armatura (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear administrator, accuser continues their job and insisting. Stealing your valuable time also. Continues accusing me of "uncivil/aggressive/nationalistic" while they are the one doing it in first place, and despite an administrator telling us to calm down and understand each other. 2) I explained this one before clearly and can prove this on tuesday when I go to work (due to covid-19 I am on distance working on monday) 4) One must read the talk and see for theirself, others have disagreed as well, for me the reasons provided are very weak thats why they "IJDLI". 5) One should read to what I am replying in this one, I am replying to them who first reveals my ip origin and tells me to "drop this behaviour" and thereatens me with "administrative sanctions", please just read. 6) Again, one should read the talk carefully. The source wasn't provided by me (not that I think it's unreliable though). I am only replying to talk which provides the article as a source. In the end: I am tired of this accusations and will follow Sebatians advice to keep it calm amd let go. Hopefully they will do the same. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I happen to be another administrator, and, mind you, with more than a decade experience in the Karabakh issue. If I look here, I do not see much of a difference between the behavior of the IP and that of the topicstarter - both are not ideal, none raises to the sanction level. Which is understandable with the decades of animosity, in the last 30 years actively supported by state propaganda from both sides. This thread is just not actionable. If we start to be very strict with civility, in a couple of weeks all Armenian and Azerbaijani users get blocked - which would probably not even be the worst outcome, but I guess we are not yet at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Ymblanter many thanks for your time and opinions. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

My thanks as well. (Please note my ip, I am same person as 37-155-240-129) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2020 (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.

Alvin Seville

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.

---

• Alvin Seville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They have made over 30K edits and been here for over a decade, and are now vandalizing Donald Trump. I don't see why an established user would do this. They have not responded to any of the comments left on their talk page. Perhaps their account got compromised? Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked them as potentially compromised. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Not compromised, at least not in the sense that their account credentials have been stolen and used by someone else, although checkuser can't rule out them having left their account logged in on a public computer or something. Still, I doubt it: they have continued to use the same basic canned edit summaries for months, it just seems recently (as in just today) they've used those same edit summaries on edits that don't match the description. I only warned them after their last edit and I came back to find them blocked - I can't argue with the block, though, they need to explain just what the hell they're up to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the edit summaries, it's possible that this is something else that is fairly innocuous (which I won't elaborate upon per WP:BEANS), but at the least an explanation is necessary here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:48, 28 December 2020 (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.

Heydan Seegil

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.

---

• Heydan Seegil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Am I mistaken, or did Heydan Seegil accuse me in this edit of being an anti-Semite? Was there anything to justify this? Just like I didn't to be called a kike by a now blocked editor, likewise I don't like being called an anti-Semite. I would probably be the first anti-Semitic hassidic rabbi. :) Debresser (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The first diff shows extreme lack of clue but I don't have time now to investigate whether a direct sanction is appropriate. The second diff was from Cognissonance (talk · contribs) who was (correctly) indeffed a week ago. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"It is nothing personal but ..." is being used here just like "I'm not a racist but ...". What part of that comment is not a personal attack? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2020 (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.

Fahimuddinemad

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.

---

• Fahimuddinemad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Fahimuddinemad has made two self-promotion drafts today, both of which qualify for speedy deletion. (The second one hasn't been deleted yet). Can this user be blocked as they are clearly "Not here to build an encyclopedia" as they are carrying out self-promotional activities after a second warning with no useful contributions? Eyebeller (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Second page has also been deleted. Vikram Vincent 16:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd give the user more time to indicate that they are NOTHERE, they've only been editing for a few hours. Many new editors' first edit is to try to create an autobiographical draft article. They are a newbie and it is hasty to bring a complaint to ANI about an editor who's made 6 edits, asking for a block. ANI is for serious issues of misconduct, not for new editors who probably haven't even read any policy pages yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 29 December 2020 (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.

Subtle vandalism by 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:8DB4:BD2B:2909:9D54

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.

---

• 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:8DB4:BD2B:2909:9D54 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user is rapidly changing the word "comedian" to "comedienne", and has already received a level 4 warning, so please help me deal with it. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:8DB4:BD2B:2909:9D54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I had already blocked them for various disruption. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:04, 29 December 2020 (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.

IP keeps making legal threats and edit-warring

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.

---

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

89.240.101.139 has edit warred and made legal threats in edit summaries after being warned, which are prohibited on Wikipedia. On Can Yaman, they have repeatedly made the threat of contacting his legal team while edit warring. Then, they posted a legal threat on the BLP noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#https://t24.com.tr/foto-haber/rol-arkadasina-bardak-firlatan-can-yaman-a-ceza,7542 4thfile4thrank (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You can edit Wikipedia or you can make legal threats, but not both. The IP has been blocked for that (since they're an IP and not an account, for one month instead of indef) and a 3RR violation; another user has also been blocked for 3RR from this edit-war, and the page has been protected to spur discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 29 December 2020 (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.

Uyghur genocidal denial, pro Chinese soap boxing

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.

---

• GrignardReagent007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Reporting user GrignardReagent007 Clearly not here to build an Encyclopedia, they added this section to Uyghur Genocide. The editor thinks there is no such things as the Uyghur genocide and think Wikipedia is banned in China for good reason. He clearly is only here for advocacy and for soapboxing. He created an edit on the page Uyghur genocide in which he literally tries to convince the reader the Uyghur genocide is a myth. The user also states that western backed citations are by news sources or scholarly basis is "Western Propaganda" clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia.

See talk in which he states things like "To deny a genocide, there should be one to start with. Well maybe it is banned in China for good reasons, as many attempt to rewrite history in an extremely subjective manner. That, is in fact against WP:NPOV"

He also has this In which he removed correctly cited information only due to the fact he didn't like that it stated China eats dog meat, something which people do as well as it being well cited.

The user is literally tries to convince the reader the Uyghur genocide is a myth. "The reader should note that the 'genocide' claim is purely an accusation based on research conducted by Adrain Zenz, an independent German researcher." Des Vallee (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting the very strong feeling of WP:NOTHERE, as well as WP:THETRUTH and...well is there an opposite of WP:RGW? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Edits like this[328] are highly concerning on multiple fronts, starting with WP:BLP. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, banhammer given some exercise. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (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.

Loving hut wiki

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.

---

• Loving Hut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi I keep removing an article describing loving hut as a cult recruiting business. Loving hut is a restaurant promoting a vegan diet. I run a loving hut so I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.35.72 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You were asked to discuss at talk. Article semi-protected for a month. Now, go to the talk page and discuss the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I should have got a warning that the post was unsigned when posting. Oh well... Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2020 (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.

Unsubstantiated claims of death at Yadier Molina

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.

---

• Yadier Molina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm posting here rather than at page protection or the BLP noticeboard, in hopes of getting a more rapid and comprehensive response to WP:BLP issues. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• If this is, as I suspect, a malicious hoax attempt, I ask that the multiple edits be rev/deleted. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits have been rev-del'd. I can find absolutely nothing to confirm this anywhere. RickinBaltimore (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, RickinBaltimore. If it were true it would have received major coverage this evening. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2020 (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.

Editor(s) reported by 2402:7500:5DC:6281:0:0:1478:62AD

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

156.146.62.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)he or she uses multiple socks and PROXY to delete content without explanation, like Special:Contributions/181.40.18.61, Special:Contributions/PunishedSnake95 ,Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski, Special:Contributions/156.146.62.0/24,Special:Contributions/台湾永远都是中国.

In addition, he or she tries to use page protection, using the results of page protection to rationalize its own editing, like [329].

There are detailed affected pages in Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski, their edits are related to each other, and there may be other socks or proxy used.

Also note that their account creation time is very close,see [[330]] and [[331]].

Special:Contributions/PunishedSnake95 early editing related to rollback IP, such as [332],[333][334] And Special:Contributions/PunishedSnake95 is close to the IP editing time. 2402:7500:5DC:6281:0:0:1478:62AD (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• 2402:7500:5dc:6281::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), 2402:7500:5DE:F6FC:0:0:13A8::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 2402:7500:4D0:55B6:0:0:B408::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IPv6 hopper constantly edit warring, POV editing and exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior. 台湾永远都是中国 (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a battleground; undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@台湾永远都是中国:I think you have been checked many times on ZH-WIKI by others and know the socks checking process and know that the IP cannot be checked. But this does not mean that you can abuse PROXY or other real IP, nor does it mean that you can ask your colleagues or friends to assist you in the same behavior as you.I hope you can stop imitating Caradhras Aiguo, otherwise he will be suspected for a long time.

PS: The political stance of your username is seriously biased on the political stance of CaradhrasAiguo or China.2402:7500:5DC:6281:0:0:1478:62AD (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I remember, CaradhrasAiguo supported Taiwan's independence, which that account (which translates to "Taiwan is forever also China") seems to be against. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 04:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:I don't know much about Caradhras Aiguo, but this username is obviously based on my IP nationality or region to try to make me angry.

In addition, there are several modes for Taiwan to become an independent country, one of which is to become China(Republic of China), because the current China hates two or more Chinas.

However, in the online war initiated by the online army of the People’s Republic of China, it is still a secondary goal to make Taiwan willing to become China, because no matter how many Chinas, China is China, which is conducive to integrating Chinese consciousness and completing one China.

2402:7500:5D5:6F31:0:0:7CBD:847D (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• User:台湾永远都是中国 has been indef blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (politician)

• Nathan Larson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nathan Larson was recently arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl. This has been widely covered in US and some international media. We have an article about Nathan Larson based on his failed campaigns for political office. When I noticed that someone had added the arrest to the article, I started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard because I do not consider political candidates to be public figures. Two editors responded that he was a public figure (and therefore WP:BLPCRIME would allow the addition). Despite that discussion, Herostratus removed the arrest, nominated the article for deletion, and subsequently redacted my question at BLPN. It has now been redacted a third time by another editor, Nat Gertler citing WP:BLPTALK. That part of the policy starts "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is not a vague allegation with poor sourcing, this is something that is well sourced and not in dispute. I am trying to have a discussion about this on the noticeboard intended for such discussions, but it will be difficult to have a meaningful consensus if the fact being discussed is left out of the discussion. This is obviously a hot button topic for some people and I would appreciate it if an admin with a cool head could intervene. Mo Billings (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If this person proves to be non-notable, then discussing their crimes is a BLP violation. Flat-out. So I suggest waiting for the AFD to conclude and, if the article is removed, nothing else needs done. If it is kept, then you can discuss the appropriateness of this information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

They have an article. They've has an article for years. It has survived at least one AfD. They appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Please don't start waving around other red herrings. Mo Billings (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You give no reason why the example used in WP:BLPTALK is not sufficient for continuing the conversation. Indeed, your repeating the specifics on this forum (which I will leave in others hands to redact), where simply saying "the matters covered in this source" (which those reading this can reach, given that it's an online, non-paywalled source) suggests that you're not including it because their specific nature is actually important to the discussion, because here you're dealing with a more abstract question here of whether certain BLP provisions apply to this individual. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I don't want to have a discussion about Nathan Larson being "accused of doing a bad thing" (as Herostratus refactored it) when we are not discussing accusations but the well-documented fact that he was arrested and what he was arrested for is relevant to whether or not we include it in the article. It's not a lawsuit, it's kidnapping a child. We don't treat those events the same way. You redact a well-documented fact from the discussion about Nathan Larson, but the same noticeboard asks "Apparently there is a new rumor that the producer of the film Lolita slept with the 14-year-old actress playing the character of Lolita" and names producer James B. Harris. What exactly is it about the Nathan Larson article that inspires editors to act so bizarrely? Mo Billings (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't have done that either, the Harris thing. People play with other people's reputations a lot here, when they shouldn't. I wasn't being bizarre, it just happened to randomly land on my windscreen. Herostratus (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't redacted it even though this is exactly what WP:BLPTALK talks about - a poorly referenced allegation. When I used the word "bizarre", I meant unusual, extraordinary, and inexplicable. I find it bizarre that you would redact my posting, yet leave that of GreenC. There's something about Nathan Larson that makes editors act strangely. Mo Billings (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, as someone who hasn't worked on that article (to the best of my recollection; I've touched many articles in my day), I guess that my acting "bizarrely" as you accuse wasn't based on that. I am, however, someone who found the WP:BLPN discussion at a state when it was redacted and was able to follow what was being discussed by following the link to the given source, so all this claim that you need to mention the specifics in multiple forums in order to have the discussion just don't hold up. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

And just in case it wasn't clear to anyone - I don't think that the arrest should be included in the article at this time. It's a bit off a moot point, since it seems very likely that he will be convicted of this or related crimes, but until that happens I think we should leave it out. That's why I started the discussion on the noticeboard. I did not expect that it would be a problem, or that multiple editors would twist policy to try to prevent a reasonable discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• BLPCRIME protection applies to low profile individuals only. Can’t have it both ways. He is clearly high profile due to his activities, thus if he is notable there is no policy-based reason to exclude mention of the charges. Certainly if the article results in a keep at AfD, then the material should be added. The only amusing thing here is how often BLPCRIME is misinterpreted; way too loosely for low profile individuals, and way too strongly for high profile ones. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This. As long as the BLP policy is still (at least somewhat) couched in American defamation law rather than our own brand of morality, a candidate for political office is the hornbook definition of a public figure. As there are criminal charges in this case, there is absolutely no justification in using BLP to silence honest, good faith editorial discussion. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that he is high-profile, but I am willing to discuss it at the BLP noticeboard discussion I started. I brought this here because that discussion was being disrupted by redactions that were not based on policy. I'm looking for some help getting that issue resolved. Mo Billings (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • “High profile” is a matter of opinion and in my view has little relevance to BLP. What matters is whether this is a public figure. As a political candidate he is a public figure. If people want to completely unmoor BLP from its originating principles, the right place for that discussion is an RfC, and not through doing things like refactoring people’s talk page and policy page discussions in particular cases. The sort of “shadow policymaking” this behavior invites is precisely why Wikipedia’s learning curve is so steep. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I'll weigh in that politicians, especially politicians with articles, are public figures, and a different standard applies to them than to ordinary people. Their status as public figures should also not open them to unreasonable gossip and tittle-tattle, but it should not protect them from honest reportage of the facts, especially when the government is involved, as in an arrest. The information should be included in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• As someone who commented in the BLP/N thread, I am a little rather upset that Mo Billings has had this experience. I certainly did not feel the question was worth redacting, and I cannot think of a person who would be more sympathetic to BLP concerns in these kinds of cases. I have literally been accused of being a public figure for my offwiki political activities before, and even then I still think it should be rather obvious this guy is a public figure.
  This is a guy who has admitted to having sexual attraction to minors and ran for office 3 years ago specifically on a platform of legalising child pornography ([335]). Like come on.. The dude's arrest made national news, so in no way can a person say that BLPTALK reasonably applies to discussions on Larson. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• WP:BLPTALK requires removal only in one specific scenario: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. That doesn't apply here in the slightest. The arrest and allegations are well-sourced (the story has been picked up by multiple national news programs), and the discussion was directed towards making content choices. Whether the arrest should be mentioned in the article is a separate question, but it's absolutely undeniable that it's fit for discussion on talk pages and noticeboards. Herostratus and NatGertler both repeatedly edited another editor's comments with no justification even after they were asked to stop. They both pointed to WP:BLPTALK apparently without bothering to read even the first sentence of that policy section. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Aggressive IP

This user user:203.129.53.19 is posting aggressive comments that don't really make sense, attacking other editors. General disruptive editing.

• [336]
• [337]
• [338]

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't incomprehensible. They were complaining about 2804:7f2:68a:c6a:b90a:ad3c:1f6f:349a using the talk page to post an old version of the article that treated Cultural Marxism as something other than a conspiracy theory. They weren't nice about conspiracy theorists, but you could have talked to them. Instead you've twice removed their comments and come straight here. They've only posted about this one issue and made a couple of edits to drafts - how is that "general disruptive editing"? This reaction is trigger happy. Fences&Windows 23:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Not trigger happy at all, referring to another editor as "some foolish person", accusing them of being dishonest, telling them to "grow up" telling me "Your personal failure to comprehend English Language" is hardly civil, in fact it's really quite aggressive and wantonly so. I think civility matters, and I may be stupid, but I can't really understand what they are on about or why it requires nasty responses to address the issue. I don't see how any of it contributes to improving the article in anyway, but if you think there's nothing to see here then close the report. Bacondrum (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, this "Paleo-idiot Paul Gottfried's nutty commentaries" is about a living person, I've received blocks for less (just to be clear, I'm not asking for this user to be blocked). As per WP:LIBEL. I haven't spoken to them directly because they are being aggressive, I thought it better to let an admin talk to them rather than entering a discourse that could easily end up escalating the hostility, this is me following advice I've received from other admins in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You should have used WP:GF and issued a warning to me. As for your complaints about BLP, I'll point out that I'm not pushing for any articles in namespace to refer to Gottfried that way, but if you believe in a nutty conspiracy - you're a nutty conspiracy theorist, no? I personally don't think pointing at a WP:FRINGE belief someone explicitly holds violates BLP, besides it's a talk page and the point of my argument was to frame various readings of "Cultural Marxism" as flawed. Anyways, as you've been warned now, I'll address your concerns and strike through the problematic material for you. Next time don't try to WP:OWN the talk page quite so hard. 203.129.53.19 (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

More personal attacks? And yes calling the subject "Paleo-idiot Paul Gottfried's nutty commentaries" is a WP:LIBEL violation. Bacondrum (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is that this WP:boomerang. 203.129.53.19 (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, User:203.129.53.19, but WP:BLP also applies to talk pages and striking through comments and reposting them is disingenuous - the comment is still visible. Just because I think Bacondrum was premature in escalating your behaviour straight to ANI, that doesn't mean you've got carte blanche. 203.129.53.19, another editor removed your comment for breaching WP:NOTFORUM and now you've been rightly warned for editing warring. You're on thin ice. Are you here to contribute to improving Wikipedia or just to sound off? If it's the latter, you can save us the drama. Fences&Windows 12:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, agenda pushing, and personal attacks by LACCDWhistleblower

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.

---

• LACCDWhistleblower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can an administrator please take a look at the edits and behavior of LACCDWhistleblower? He or she appears to be editing with an agenda (e.g., [339], [340]), edit warring to retain his or her edits (e.g., [341], and responding to questions with personal attacks (e.g., [342], [343]). He or she is not responding well to my questions and concerns so perhaps a warning from an administrator may be more helpful. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A warning has been given for personal attacks, and suggestions to read a few policies, guidelines, and essays. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Username block the account, the LACCD in the name unabrevaited would be Los Angeles Community College District, which suggests a group affiliated account. 2600:100C:B04F:B385:4564:6D43:6176:783D (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"[Person] at [Company]" names are within policy. Their chosen name is concerning on grounds of WP:NPOV and/or WP:RGW, but not WP:U. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Whistleblower" implies that it's a person, not a group. I don't see this account as blockable per the username alone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Whistleblower" is a role, not a person. "LACCDJohnSmith" is a personal account, "LACCDTeacher" is, e.g. a role account. Elizium23 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as a role account. LACCDTeacher is the sort of account that might be used as part of your duties working for the LACCD, and potentially shared between multiple people, or passed from one person to another when people change roles. LACCDWhistleblower isn't likely to be an official role within an organisation, it's name someone has given themselves to indicate why they are here. It does make me suspect that they are not WP:HERE, but I agree with Oshwah that this isn't a blockable UPOL violation. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

They clearly aren't a role account for LACCD, because as their name suggests they're adding purely negative material to the article, some of which appears to border on UNDUE. My temptation would be to give them a partial block from the article, leaving them able to provide suggestions on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree in regards to the partial block suggestion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this conversation. It will be reported to the Wikipedia foundation with request to remove Administrators and Editors who have engaged in cyber-bullying, censorship and protected another editor who has vandalized the page and engaged in repeated harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LACCDWhistleblower (talk • contribs) 05:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, NOW you can block them, for obvious WP:NOTHERE and an attempt at an internal legal threat. --Calton | Talk 06:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Indef blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia; while "You have been reported to the Wikimedia Foundation" is not a legal threat per se it is obvious that it is intended to produce exactly the same sort of chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 30 December 2020 (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.

Debra Messing

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.

---

• 107.77.197.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Debra Messing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got IP 107.77.197.236 replacing sourced content at Debra Messing with unsourced content and not filling out the edit summary for their edits. Jerm (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked for one week by Kinu. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Now back as 24.35.133.23. [344]. Would it be worth protecting Sami Brady and Debra Messing? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I just saw the editing history for article Sami Brady. It looks like the same person blanking content on the article since the beginning of December. Jerm (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2020 (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.

Quick archiving request

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.

---

A discussion I started here seems to have been inadvertently deleted by another editor. I think the consensus is clear, so it doesn't need to be re-opened, but can someone please place it in the correct archive in case I need to refer to it again later? I would do it myself if I didn't think I would mess things up. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2020 (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.

Vandalism--Only Account

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.

---

리리리2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nothing but vandalism, disruptive editing, or removal of CSD tags from his test pages -> WP:NOTHERE. Can somebody please block him? We are at 33+ edits already, increasing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, They are blocked now, quite a little spate of vandalism there! JW 1961 Talk 12:18, 31 December 2020 (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:ItsKesha

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.

---

• ItsKesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user and I have recently interacted in a couple of areas (a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PG Era and a disagreement about a WikiProject consensus Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Luchas de Apuestas). User:ItsKesha has regularly referred to me as "Gaz" while making snarky comments. I asked this user twice to avoid condescending nicknames ("Assuming you're addressing me (and, if so, I would appreciate that you don't make up nicknames for me),..." [345] and "Again, if you are addressing me, you may refer to me by my full name or by the shortened forms Gary or GCF. Your manner of addressing me comes across as condescending. Perhaps you were unaware of how your words are being received, but I trust you will avoid unwelcome nicknames now that you are aware of the situation." [346]). After the first request, this user responded by "howling" at the idea [347], and this user now posted another comment, referring to me as Gareth [348]. This user's conduct clearly shows a desire to be antagonistic. I don't know if a ban from the project talk page is in order, or simply a warning that future incivility will result in a block, but I would appreciate an administrator helping to defuse the situation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hang on. Gaz and Gareth are just both variations of Gary! Are you actually genuinely upset about it? That certainly wasn't my intention at all, was simply just trying to have some friendly banter with you. Sorry for my behaviour mate. ItsKesha (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My earlier statements to you, quoted above, show that I had previously warned you that your behavior was out of line. Claiming that you are only realizing this now is disingenuous at best. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add ItsKesha has a habit of repeatedly removing sourced information based on personal views and has been warned multiple times for it, check his talk page revision history (removed the warnings), he has been asked multiple times to seek consensus for WP:RfC before such changes but never does that as he knows his edits will not get approved. There was a previous ANI discussion about it [349]. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You'll forgive me that I thought you weren't being completely serious when you claimed to be upset at me calling you Gaz. As I explained, it's literally a shortened version of Gary. It's just all a bit Andrew "don't call me Andy" Cole. Look here, one of my favourite football players goes by the names Gaz/Gareth. Nothing condescending intended by using those names. But no, you were serious. So I'll say it again, I'm sorry Gary. ItsKesha (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've read through the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Luchas de Apuestas and, to an uninvolved observer, it looks like ItsKesha was choosing to be antagonistic by repeatedly misnaming GaryColemanFan after multiple requests to stop, so the dismay expressed here that GaryColemanFan really minded being addressed that way isn't convincing. Since ItsKesha has apologized, I expect that any similar actions in the future will be seen as deliberate harassment. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Let's all move forward. Thanks, everyone. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2020 (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.

Block

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 was wondering if an admin could indefinitely block and revoke access to the talk page of this account? I'm too busy and frustrated to continue to be on here. Thanks a lot. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done, can be lifted by anyone at any time upon request (which will obviously have to go through UTRS or email) without needing to contact me first. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2020 (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.

Pasdecomplot

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.

---

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

Pasdecomplot was last month subject of an ANI thread (archived here), which concluded with a community-imposed one-month block (which expired a few days ago), and a community-imposed editing restriction from commenting on the motivations of other editors anywhere other than at ANI. Today, in a discussion at WP:RSN about the reliability of the Tibetan Political Review, they made this comment, which includes the following: All of which makes the continued pushback on the author and on the journal seem rather out of balance with RS standards, especially since the same editors are pushing to replace Tibetan Political Review with a source by Radio Free Asia, which is super curious given several of those editor's views on RFA, as found in RSN archive 313. Apart from being off-topic (it says nothing about the reliability of TPR), I interpret that as implying that the other editors involved in the thread are being hypocritical in how they are treating the two sources, and it falls squarely within the type of behaviour that their TBan was intended to put a stop to.

I went to Pasdecomplot's talk page to tell them that I thought they were in breach of their TBan, and ask them to withdraw that specific paragraph. The full discussion can be read at User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Your_editing_restriction, but to summarise, they modified the statement slightly, but refused to withdraw the commentary on other editors comments about a different source, and told me that they don't think this type of comment is covered by their TBan.

For me, it is unequivocal - this is off-topic commentary about other users being 'super curious' - I can't say for certain what they're intending to imply by 'super curious' - whether that's duplicitous, or hypocritical, or in some other way underhand. However, in a discussion that ought to be about sourcing, content and policy, there is no place for comments like that from any editor, far less one who is subject to an editing restriction of this type. Since Pasdecomplot disagrees, I am asking the community to comment on whether or not this type of behaviour is covered by their ban. Since I am asking for clarification of the exact intent of a recent discussion, I am pinging those editors who were involved in that discussion to allow them to clarify their positions: Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, Tide rolls, EdJohnston, Cullen328, Levivich, Wugapodes, Pawnkingthree. Also pinging Barkeep49, who closed that discussion and implemented the consensus. Thanks in advance GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The original quote you've given above I would say does, as it reads like editors are being biased. Anything that could imply that editors are acting in bad faith or attempting to push a POV is a violation, in my view.

The amended comment is: All of which makes the continued dispute on the author and on the journal seem somewhat out of balance with RS standards. I might point out that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313. What the replacement indicates is RFA is considered more reliable than Tibetan Political Review. (Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)

This wording is slightly confusing to me, but it reads more like "these editors have supported X wording sourced to Y source, and so they consider Y source reliable. But Y source is not more reliable than Z source." which I would not say is a violation, rather an argument on content (that Z source is more reliable than Y). It may be a slightly fallacious argument, but that wouldn't make it a TBAN violation. If your view is also that these two comments are materially distinct, then I think it's worth giving the benefit of doubt to shabby wording as PDC claims at the linked discussion. I'll note I've only skimmed this discussion.

At the same time, the wording you proposed on his talk is far clearer of the boundaries here. If I were PDC I'd tailor my wording very carefully, and always opt for the less implicative wording where there are multiple ways of wording something. AGF is a style of thinking that reflects in writing, not the other way around, so imo unless you genuinely believe that editors are acting in semi-good faith I think it's very difficult to comply with this restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, ah - it seems that they changed the text to that while I was drafting this. I didn't receive the ping, since they didn't sign that post; I checked their talk page prior to submitting this to see if they'd replied again, but I should have checked back at RSN to see if they'd acted. I agree that the wording, as it currently stands, is better. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even after PDC's amendments (diff) to their RSN comment, their comments about other editors' positions about Radio Free Asia are still off-topic and also seem to misrepresent other editors' comments. None of the RSN thread participants had mentioned RFA at RSN or at Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, nor have any of them said at the archived RSN thread that PDC refers to that RFA is unreliable. Only Esiymbro and Normchou said anything about RFA at the Nyingchi talk page and they haven't participated in the RSN thread.

After the revision, PDC still left unaltered the other implication of hypocrisy against El komodos drago in their RSN comment:

Additionally, El D also happens to find Chinese state-run Xinhua accurate in a current RSN [350] yet has issues with Tibetan Political Review? Xinhua's reporting in 2008 alone revealed it as a complete disinformation outlet.

It just seems very off-topic for the RSN thread about the Tibetan Political Review where nobody else has mentioned RFA or Xinhua – the only relation is that one of the editors at the RSN thread may have commented about those sources in the past. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ProcrastinatingReader, it's exactly as you wrote, "these editors have supported X wording sourced to Y source, and so they consider Y source reliable. But Y source is not more reliable than Z source." which I would not say is a violation, rather an argument on content The intention was a discussion on content and reliability, and I apologise if the edits were misunderstood. Girth Summit has already posted the thread from user talk, after which I again edited to address their concerns and pinged for their approval. I respectfully submit my ongoing concern to the community about the fact the ban can be interpreted as it was today, and we're all spending time to review interpretations. I apologise for the lack of clarity in the original edit, since it permitted another interpretation to occur. I will humbly take the advice to be even more careful that all edits do not allow room for such interpretations, I will be even more careful with exact wording to describe edits, content and sources. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note: CaradhrasAiguo and Valereee and MarkH21 participated in the RSN archive 313, where comments of RFA were made. The first editor has often made comments as to their reliability on various edits. And please note that RFA remains after several reverts by editors Nyingchi#Economy, including MarkH21. The interpretation of hypocracy has already respectfully been addressed at RSN, and the editor invited me to comment at the other RSN, which should not be the cause additional worries. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know why the ping didn't go through, except for that the re-edits occurred after the timestamp:(Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)[User:Pasdecomplot From 14:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Readded edit from 14:26 that's being refracted [351]) Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo is indefinitely blocked and cannot comment on the RSN thread, while neither Valereee nor I have said that RFA is reliable or unreliable at the archived RSN thread. There isn't a single editor in the current RSN thread who said anything to support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313, so it is a misrepresentation of other editors' comments. The off-topic questioning of El D's views about Xinhua is also unaddressed.

Keeping your comments focused about the actual discussion topics, refraining from commenting about other editors' views on other topics, and double-checking what you claim other editors have said will keep discussions moving along smoothly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, based on various arguments PDC has made (like at Talk:Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima#Requested_move_24_October_2020 and a related move request at Talk:11th Panchen Lama controversy), I think they believe that RSN thread ended with consensus that International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet and Radio Free Asia were all declared in that RSN to be reliable sources because that RSN didn't specifically declare any of them to be not RS. What the discussion actually seemed to me to have consensus on was that we needed to discuss them each individually, but PDC has been arguing that Free Tibet is a RS for Tibetan Buddhism & China ever since. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree the original statement is problematic, and would have been fine with simply bringing it to PDC's attention so they could fix it. I agree the revision is better, though still not great. But my bigger concern is the pushback from PDC at their talk, arguing that "it's super curious to me" is "totally valid given the ongoing saga at Ningchi." I agree with PDC that further precision/clarification is clearly needed. —valereee (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just so the community understands, what I try to humorously term as a "saga" at Nyingchi began with reverts and a AN3 re CaradhrasAiguo (now indeffed as I read above). It was declined, and talk page discussions ensued at Nyingchi. Various editors participated, then more, then the RSN. Reedited information with RFA (by Normchou and not reverted) remains at Nyingchi under a different subtitle Nyingchi#Economy. Fyi, here's info on RFA at RSN archive 313: I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) The general agreement there, led by MarkH21, with comments by Valereee, was that all needed inline citations and sources from RS at minimum. But, the closing stated all needed separate RSN's. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• And, not having time to file separate RSN's I've been adhering to MarkH21's general statements while allowing for individual cases, as also noted in the archive. Thus, the concerns about other editors using RFA at Nyingchi.
• Please note that the statement above, I think they believe that RSN thread ended with consensus that...were all declared in that RSN to be reliable sources could not be more incorrect as a position on what I believe. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Do people want my views on this and if so which part? ~ El D. (talk to me) 16:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  @El komodos drago: Sure, on any part you'd like to give your views on. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, with regards to Pasdecomplot's reference to me, I do not feel that it was relevant to the current RSN or to the process of building an encyclopedia in general but I take a broad interpretation of AGF and am willing to believe Pasdecomplot intended the point to be relevant. I have no understanding of how WP:AN works or what a TBAN is so I have no opinion on any particular outcome. I am eternally appreciative of the cool of the administrators who work here (and Wikipedia as a whole), and I will leave it to them. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In response to Girth's request for clarification: yes, I think the quoted original comment is a comment about editors that is prohibited (and noting that the "comment-on-edits-not-editors tban" really applies to everyone per pillars and policy). Really in an RSN thread or article talk page (i.e., outside a noticeboard like ANI), there should be no reason to have "editor" be the subject or object of any sentence. In this case, in "editors are pushing", "editors" is the subject of the verb "pushing". And in "which is super curious given several of those editor's views", "editor's views" is the object of the preposition "given". Grammar lesson aside, these constitute discussing editors and their motivations, plus there's the implication of hypocrisy. The revised wording is better, but still not really OK, because the subject of the sentence is still editors, and it's still implying if not hypocrisy then inconsistency between editors' current and past views. This is unhelpful in a content dispute. It doesn't matter if editors are inconsistent or hypocrites or outright liars or POV pushers. None of that affects whether or not a source is reliable. Do they have good arguments/evidence about the reliability of a source? That's all that matters. Hitler himself could make a damn good argument for the reliability of a source; an argument shouldn't be discounted because of who is making it or what they said/did in the past. There's really no cause to bring up editors' prior views if we're discussing edits not editors. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I just would like to clarify that the issue I didn't express correctly was the reliability of RFA as versus Tibetan Political Review, and was not trying to comment on motivations of the editors themselves, but rather on stated or implied consensus as they apply to issues of CON for reliability. Again, I will be ever more careful and cautious on wording.

Being that the language of the ban used "commenting on motivations" and did not include 'implying motivations' or 'edits that could be interpreted as implying motivation', I did not approach the issue at RSN with enough care or consideration of possible interpretations. Again, it's now very clear and I offer sincere apologies to all.Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, now that you understand, are you willing to make the changes Girth Summit was originally requesting on your user talk? —valereee (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Newer aspersions

• FYI: PDC's new comment at GeneralNotability's talk page accuses editor AdoTang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of following a pattern of editing articles pertaining to Tibet, with Chinese POV, and therefore of being a sockpuppet of Lieutenant of Melkor/Caradhras Aiguo: I think Chucky (a nickname) might still be here.
  This does not appear to exactly conform to a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. It seems that PDC's interpretation of other editors' motivations is incredibly narrow, even after PDC clarified that they now understand it to mean edits that could be interpreted as implying motivation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure about the ban but practically I’d say asking an SPI clerk (also the blocking admin) on their user talk about a concern about further sock puppetry by a currently blocked sock is more reasonable than posting said concern to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• These template warnings on val's UTP are concerning: Dec 23, Dec 25. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I just got my own present from PDC for my second edit to the article (diff) 20 hours after my first edit) and after Girth Summit's two explanations to PDC (1, 2). The templates flow as freely as wine. I guess Fuhghettaboutit's explanation didn't curb the flow. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked (again): PDC has been blocked for one week by Girth Summit for violating their editing restriction with this comment. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:47, 31 December 2020 (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.

Canvassing by EljanM

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.

---

• EljanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have previously warned this user [352] for canvassing another editor with similar views to participate in a move discussion [353] in order to tilt/influence it in a certain way [354] [355] [356]. He blanked the warning soon afterwards [357], and is now canvassing again with regard to another set of move discussions [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365]. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, canvassing indeed. The editor mainly participates in RMs related to Azerbaijan. I can't see any point is sending warnings, the editor will just blank their talk page. A short block doesn't guarantee the editor won't stop canvassing after the block is lifted. An IBAN, no, this person seems like the type who will just look for someone else to have them participate in an RM. I think both an IBAN and a TBAN is in order, a IBAN with editors he's pinged or messaged to participate in RMs and a TBAN to anything mainly related to Azerbaijan. Every editor who's been pinged will also get the IBAN notice. Jerm (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And a block if the editor tries to ping or message anyone to participate in an RM. Jerm (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

They have proceeded to completely ignore the warning on their talk page and the discussion here and have left another message thanking one of the canvassed editor for their votes and suggesting they intend to canvas more in the future [366]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being nice by suggesting both an IBAN and a TBAN. Now I think a block is the best option seeing that the editor is ignoring this case and guaranteeing to canvass in the future. Jerm (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for 2 weeks, clear canvassing. If they continue we can consider arbitration enforcement topic ban. Having said this, the results of the discussions like Talk:Çaylaqqala#Requested move 21 December 2020 are currently determined by the number of users one can canvass to these discussions - every Armenian user would support, every Azerbaijani user would oppose, and no other user would even come close to these discussions. Policy-based arguments are typically not used in these discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point those articles are becoming a de facto walled garden. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 30 December 2020 (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:Ultimateoutsider

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.

---

• Ultimateoutsider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Ultimateoutsider has serious WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and keeps on edit warring despite requests to gain consensus in respective article talk pages

• Added/replaced images in Mumbai, a GA-status article. But when reverted, engaged in edit warring. In the talk page when asked to abide by BRD, the user proposed some sort of bargain/compromise here as per which they will not edit the article of Mumbai if User:Prolix doesn't revert his bold changes in Delhi articles. When I told again reiterated about BRD, [367], this was the reply.
• Similar edit warring at New Delhi since 27 December, without engaging in discussion.
• Edit warred in Kokata article here, here. On top of that WP:PERSONALATTACKS and WP:OWN behavior at comment section, notably calling Prolix a loser and a crybaby here.
• Today, they restored unsourced content, reverting my edit here in the Karnal article. When warned about unsourced additions and notified in their talk page again, they retorted with a typical "this is my home city... I know more than everybody in Wikipedia" [368], [369]. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space.

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Ultimateoutsider, you need to get serious about communicating and following our guidelines. You need to start giving clear edit summaries of what you are doing (in most cases they are lacking completely) and you need to stop edit warring. What I see on Talk:Kolkata could technically be called "discussion", but in reality it's mostly yelling and personal attacks, and if you can't stop making it personal, then that's a third reason for any admin to block you. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. The edit warring and incivility must stop, and the communication and positive collaboration with other editors need to improve. If it doesn't, you will be blocked from editing. I don't want it to come to this; please respond to this ANI report and tell us what's going on and why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and Oshwah: Please see this personal attack today. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had enough. Blocked for 48 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah:Take a look at this. Sigh... - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk - Whelp, there you go. This user's true colors are right there. Obviously they don't care or want to contribute to this project. I'll keep the 48 hour block; any admin is welcome to change the block without my input or blessing beforehand. Let me know if (or when) things continue, and the user will be blocked indefinitely. I'm hoping they're just letting off steam and will actually contribute positively to this project. Likely? No. Hopefully? Yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. It is also possible they'll try to disrupt using IPs. I'll notify you if that happens. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk - Please do. I'll be happy to show this user the door if they decide to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Yup, definitely. Thanks again . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Retired"--hmm. Thanks Oshwah. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2020 (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.

Canvassing accusations by M.Bitton

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.

---

Hi, I just wanted to point out that M.Bitton is accusing myself of canvassing Flaspec on this page to help his point in objecting a change in this article (see TP). It seems clear that he might be attempting slander, possibly to delegitimize my variability because he objects to the proposed change and help his point. I will make myself clear that I was not canvassing Flaspec, the message that I left on his talk page was a request to explore that option, as it had zero influence on what his opinion/view might be (the fact that he uploaded this file before I was on his TP in the first place). I should also add that him and I have had a disagreement before on my Commons talk page, so M.Bitton's claims are baseless. Please have a word with him and let him know that accusations of canvassing are not appropriate and necessary to make a point on an article's talk page. EdDakhla 22:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

First things first: can you translate the messages[370] that Flaspec left you on your Commons talk page (so that everyone understands)? M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I can't translate it word by word because it is too much and transliterated, used latin characters to depict Maghrebi Arabic. Flaspec told me that he's "with me" and that we should show Western Sahara as part of Morocco, (even though it didn't have much to do with this projection which was just changing the projection view, not borders, so he disagreed with the revert I made (see TP section title). I said showing Western Sahara as part of Morocco is a good idea but we can't do that for that particular file because of it's filename and would be a violation of guidelines plus no consensus was reached. The main point is, he expressed that several days before I went onto his talk page (see date), so there was no canvassing that occured like @M.Bitton alleges. EdDakhla 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You missed this part: Che7al hadi kanet l5arita dial bladna fiha sa7ra bel gris fe7al ila raha machi dialna tamaman. Jit ana 3melt upload jdid fih el 5arita dial l'mghrib b sa7ra dialo mesbogha bel 5edar meftoo7. We menbe3d bedelt smiya dial el File le9dim (eli fih sa7ra gris) b smiya dial had el File jdid (eli fih sa7ra mesbogha bel 5edar meftoo7) f nit les articles b loghat kamlin dial Wikipedia (logha toorkiya, logha hindiyya, etc...). Hadi hia a7ssan tari9a bach tzid sa7era lel 5arita dial l'mghrib w ila hder chi 7ankoor jawbo 9ollo upload your version in a separate file. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

How do you know what I have missed or may not missed? He says "there has been a map of our country missing the Sahara region for a long time, colored in grey as if though it is not ours. I came and uploaded a new file (highlighted the Sahara in a lighter green) and put it in Wikipedia articles of all languages (Turkish language, Hindi, etc...). (Referring to his preferred version of the projection) This is the best way to show the Sahara to the map of Morocco or someone else will respond by saying upload your own version in a separate file". @M.Bitton, clearly you understand if you knew exactly what I missed out, but it's just further helping my case that your canvassing claim is baseless. EdDakhla 23:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That and more that you have "missed". The bottom line is that you contacted someone whose views (nationalistic POV pushing) are clearly in line with yours. They created a baseless POV map and just like they said, they added it to over 40 wiki projects in one sitting (replacing long-standing maps with theirs). It's very hard to believe that your message is anything but canvassing given what they told you and what happened on Commons (long term edit warring over maps and personal attacks that got you first account blocked, and finally lying and socking that got you indefed). I will ping some of the editors, @De728631, Jeff G., and TommyG:, who are familiar with your modus operandi and who may have something to say about what appears to be cross-wiki abuse. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop editing other people's comments. This isn't the first time as you did the same thing in your "first" comment (where you removed all the IP's signatures). M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you may be a little out of touch with reality if you're gonna bring up some irrelevant allegation that I am a sockpuppet of another user who was distruptive because of a baseless suspecion. If you want to talk about "baseless nationalistic POV pushing", let's take a look at your contributions and it becomes increasingly evident that you are POV pushing nationalist views on Algeria, as well as obssessive and abusive edit/revert history to strongly impose a pro-Polisario agenda (constantly defiling ANY file that may include an portion of Western Sahara as part of Morocco). Let's add that the editor you're alleging me to be does not even exist on this wiki and has nothing to do with "cross wiki" or "abuse". As for "removing someone's comment", I made a mistake because I was trying to add my response but there was an edit conflict. Quite frankly this is moronic at this point. EdDakhla 23:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Enough, EdDakhla — stop projecting. You are the one who seems to be POV pushing, not M.Bitton. M.Bitton is a long-time editor in good standing, you are a brand new user seemingly here to advance (including via WP:CANVASS) the Moroccan claim to Western Sahara. I am struggling to think of a reason of why you should not be indefinitely blocked with immediate effect, in fact. El_C 01:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El_C, Why should I be indefinitely blocked? I've made one edit considered "edit warring" and have since stopped. I have not personally attacked M.Bitton, and I suggest reviewing my contributions and you will see that I am not here just to "advance the Moroccan claim to Western Sahara". I should not be blocked based on a baseless allegation that I am another editor who does not even exist on this wiki, as that suspicion is pure speculation. EdDakhla 01:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the sock-puppetry, EdDakhla has a history of socking and lying about it. When suspected by Mathglot of not being a new editor, their reply on the 25th (4 days before being indefed for socking on Commons) was clearly a lie, just like the other lie on Commons. M.Bitton (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EdDakhla, I'm not really up to speed about the socking claim, but in any case, it would not be an WP:EW or a WP:SOCK block. It would be a WP:DE one, including but not limited to WP:CANVASS and WP:NLT violations. And no, I'm not going to examine each and every one of your contributions (like the full set of it, unprompted) — even though there aren't that many, that isn't a reasonable expectation. El_C 02:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The socking claim is certified baseless nonsense and just an unproven suspicion. I did not lie to Mathglot, as I am not the other editor from commons I'm being accused of socking. Need I say that the editor this guy is alleging me of socking has never existed or made an edit to this Wiki, and now accusations of lying, let's add that piling up in the list of personal attacks made by M.Bitton, certainly those blockable offenses. Regardless of what his "reputation" might be. EdDakhla 02:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What "offences"? "Lying" when? "Personal attacks" (list or otherwise) where? "Certified" how? By whom? You do realize that without accompanying these grievances with a WP:DIFF-derived evidentiary basis, there's simply isn't much to go on. Although, I will emphasize that WP:SPI ought to be the principal venue to request an investigation into socking. El_C 02:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Sure, open an investigation about me sockpuppeting. I am not the least worried because I have absolutely nothing to hide (especially on Wikipedia). As for "lying", you can clearly see M.Bitton is accusing me of that with invalid, and speculation based "evidence" (baseless). Personal attacks on Wikipedia talk pages are "offences" as far as I'm concerned. EdDakhla 02:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Because regards of opening a (baseless) investigation about me doing sockpuppetry on this wiki, the initial topic of this section of has drifted to something irrelevant. If you wish to open a section of my (false) alleged socket, feel free to do so in WP:SPI. EdDakhla 02:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. False claims can be considered personal attacks, but once you post here your behavior is just as open to scrutiny as the person you brought here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not archive this report, EdDakhla. Unless you have WP:DIFFs that support what you're saying, it's probably best you say nothing. El_C 02:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as I am the topic of discussion, you can bet I won't "stay silent", especially against absurd false claims. EdDakhla 02:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No evidence — no consideration. El_C 02:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdDakhla: if you're not going to "stay silent", you really should explain why your edits did not violate our canvassing guidelines. The point of our canvassing guidelines is that you should only make neutral notifications and the selection of who you notify should also be neutral. It seems clear that this didn't happen here, in fact you had good reason to think Flaspec's views were akin to your own and although they may have been the creator of the image, I'm not sure this is enough to justify you talking to them about adding it to another article. Selectively notifying editors who's views are akin to your own is one of the most common forms of canvassing. You obviously didn't know exactly what Flaspec would say in the discuss. But no one who canvasses ever does except in very very unusual circumstances. I personally normally wouldn't make a big deal over canvassing a single editor, still this seems to be a relatively inactive discussion so a single editor's comments may make a big difference into how it's perceived. More to the point, we're here because you opened a thread on ANI claiming you didn't canvass rather than because someone came here to complain you did. If you're unable to explain why your messages to Flaspec shouldn't be considered canvassing, then you should just apologise for your mistakes and perhaps we can move on. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, you've made a fair point and I probably did fail to prove I wasn't "canvassing" (I didn't even know what that was until today), so I apologise then. But I think we should also hear Flaspec's view on this before coming to a final conclusion. EdDakhla 04:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So, you apologize, but you also want to wait? I also like cake. No, the canvassing matter was already concluded when I made my first comment to this thread. I'm telling you that it was canvassing, which, now that you know what it is, just don't do it again. El_C 05:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Your sarcasm wasn't taken well. I have not had any cake as I haven't achieved anything from this (if anything, this only panned out bad for me). Fine, close/archive this discussion then if "the matter is concluded" if you believe that. EdDakhla 05:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nil: If you're unable to explain why your messages to Flaspec shouldn't be considered canvassing, then you should just apologise for your mistakes and perhaps we can move on.

You: so I apologise then. But I think we should also hear Flaspec's view on this before coming to a final conclusion.

Me: I also like cake.

Anyway, the CANVASS matter is a done deal. Whether other components of this dispute merit further examination remains to be seen. For my part, if I am the one to close this thread, I will do so at a time of my choosing. El_C 05:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I don't want to get too deep into the content end of things, but now I'm thinking maybe what EdDakhla is saying is not without merit. I was looking at one of your edits which really gives me pause. It involves you having removed "Algeria-backed" from 2020 Western Saharan clashes. Then there's the discussion on the talk page (such as it is), which also does not inspire confidence. Polisario_Front#Relations_with_Algeria is quite unambiguous about this. As is the BBC from 3 weeks ago when they write "Algeria-backed Polisario Front." What are you doing? El_C 07:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As I explained in the edit summary, per NPOV, I expected to see both main supporters mentioned or none of them. When they agreed that we should mention both, I added the scholarly sources and moved on, and that's all there was to it. Their POV on the TP (accusations that ignore what was said and the fact that by that time I had already added the sources) didn't warrant a response. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Original poster EdDakhla is a proven sockpuppet of Taha Khattabi per c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Taha Khattabi, and did not post here with clean hands. See also m:srg#Global lock for EdDakhla.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, even if it made sense to draw an equivalence between French support for Morocco and Algerian support for the Polisario Front/SADR (which, on the face of it, seems questionable), removing the latter because of the absence of its counterpart is not how neutrality is expected to work on the project. Anyway, when Solavirum objected to your removal on the talk page, with them noting that most to all reliable sources deliberately quote "Algerian-backed" [then proceeds to cite multiple sources] and even goes on to further emphasizes that the background section needs to expanded and you're free to WP:BOLD. Removing significant information under WP:POV isn't justified (bold in the original). I'm sorry to say, but your terse and somewhat unresponsive That's your POV [etc.] reply strikes me as uninspiring, at best. Unsurprisingly, Solavirum's response to that is equally terse, merely noting that those sources are not my point of view. And so ends that exchange. Needless to say, this isn't a good look. El_C 15:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: You'll notice that I asked about whether we should remove or add them both (France's part is extensively covered in scholarly sources). They objected on the TP after I added the sources and That's you POV was in response to their "disruptive editing" accusation. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, first of all, I'm not seeing where they accused you of "disruptive editing" — I do see them preface their comments with your recent edits are unconstructive at its best, which it isn't at all the same thing. Anyway, the point is that we have a state and non-state (or quasi-state) actor, so I'm not sure how they can be seen as equivalent. I don't recall, for example, it being common to call Israel "French-backed" when it was its principal backer (prior to the Americans assuming that role). But even placing all of that aside, your response directly above (which is surprisingly terse), completely sidesteps the issue of you having removed something factual, ostensibly in the interest of neutrality, because a different fact was absent. You do realize that such an approach is contrary to policy, right? El_C 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: All I can say is that I asked about whether we should include or remove both actors (because I didn't want to add France out of the blue), when it became apparent that we should include both (per NPOV), I added the sources and moved on (there was no denying of the facts). The content that I added (backed by France) is also factual and encyclopedic. In hindsight, I should have added France and the sources instead of going through the trouble of asking about how we should present the information. M.Bitton (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I don't see where you ask that — the only comment of yours on that talk page is the one I quote above. Nor do I see how "it became apparent that we should include both (per NPOV)." Anyway, it's not a matter of it being factual, it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. But, look, regardless of all that, this was the only edit of yours that I looked at. Granted, maybe it was a case of bad editing lottery (I did learn about the edit from the talk page rather than having discovered it randomly), but you need to become cognizant that your editing as well as communications were subpar in this instance. And that if such occurrences are common in your editing, then you need to self-correct. Because failure to do so will inevitably catch up with you. Anyway, closing this report, will reiterate that in my summary. El_C 17:02, 1 January 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.

Tognella99

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.

---

• Tognella99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:David Prowse (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor with a week-old account is tossing their toys over a discussion about David Prowse's cause of death. The actor died a month ago and a few tabloids published that he died of COVID-19, and that rumour spread around the internet and through Star Wars fandom. I started a discussion about the quality of sourcing for the statement on December 5th; that discussion hasn't concluded but is leaning towards not including this info. Today, Tognella99 showed up on the talk page demanding that we say he died of COVID-19, added it themselves and was reverted, and then went on a tirade of personal attacks on the talk page, accusing Eggishorn and myself of "initiating a POV war" ([371], [372]), of editing in bad faith ([373]), of whatever this is, and my personal favourite, of canvassing. Keen users will note that this is my first post about the discussion on any page other than Talk:David Prowse, meanwhile Tognella99 themselves invited two users to join the discussion today. They've also made identical AN3 reports about Eggishorn and myself which have no merit whatsoever: prior to removing Tognella99's poorly sourced edit just now, my last edit regarding the cause of death was on December 16, about a week older than Tognella99's account, and my last edit on the talk page was a comment on December 23.

If any not-involved admins are around to give this user a time out, they need one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Doug for taking time out on New Year's Eve to handle this quickly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 1 January 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.

Protection for Cyndi Lauper

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.

---

• Cyndi Lauper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've asked for page protection and blocks of several of the IPs. Repeated WP:BLP vandalism and nonsense by a Michigan user. Perhaps a rangeblock. Thanks and Happy New Year. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protection done. Thanks— Diannaa (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 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.

Please rev/delete

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.

---

The creepy cyber-harassment by 70.92.164.53 (talk · contribs). Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked the IP for 31 hours and revdeleted the edits. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 1 January 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.

ISHAT & KK

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.

---

• ISHAT & KK (talk · contribs)

I founded this fan of KK (singer). He has already stated this things in his user page. He try to add his Facebook fanpage link in List of songs recorded by KK in the ref. Section and adds repeatedly after revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singersbio (talk • contribs) 06:47, 1 January 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:Sadko ARBMAC issues

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.

---

• Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Narentines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Višeslav of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Prosigoj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Peacemaker67:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, @Sandstein: - I recall all of you having experience in the WP:ARBMAC topic area - can you please help me assess if I'm free to appropriately sanction Sadko (talk · contribs) with a block or a topic ban for their recent behavior in Narentines / Talk:Narentines? (Obviously everyone else's constructive input is most welcome as well.) I used to edit that article many years ago, so there could be claims of WP:INVOLVED that I'd prefer to avoid. I looked at my edit history there, and the last couple of my edits there were removals of Croatian nationalist soapboxing, ironically enough as in this case it's a case of Serbian nationalist soapboxing. (Equal opportunity abuse, yay!) Sadko stopped the edit war before the WP:3RR would kick in, but their argument to plaster a nationally-loaded claim based on an ancient primary source is frankly preposterous, and they've continued to argue in a very combative manner towards User:Miki Filigranski in Talk there. Recently I also recall seeing them argue for a casual misinterpretation of sources at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans, and it was also a matter of stuffing ethnic designations into a lead section - there's a fairly clear pattern here. I did a quick search of AN/I archives and the several incidents over last year the indicate to me that they've been a persistent source of trouble in the topic area. In their contributions, it's not all black and white, but apparently they've been part of another set of edit wars at Višeslav of Serbia and Prosigoj where their edits seem to remove more modern-day book references than they added (I didn't assess every situation in detail). I don't see a particular reason to let this kind of behavior continue, but perhaps there is something I'm missing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Joy, without specific diffs I can't advise you, sorry. Sandstein 15:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1) I did not break 3RR. 2) Pinging random editors makes little sense. 3) There was no "misinterpretation" of any sources, please post a diff which states that. I was not the one to add that particular information, RS was used and the dispute was resolved. Do not put random stuff in a report to make it look more serious, please. 4) I have engaged on the talk page, even though the discussion was started with slurs, accusations and insinuations. 5) This very report and the comment which was very antagonistic and pointed at only one of the involved parties (without any arguments offered but a general opinion) is major WP:INVOLVED. [374] 6) I expect that one or two editors who had some disputes with some time in the past will jump in to paint "a bad picture" while ignoring my work on the project and the fact that, what this report failed to mention, I did not break 3RR, did not game the system, I engaged in the discussion and I was never ever banned for any serious reasons for 11 long years. 7) The editor who made the controversial, disputed, essay-like and undue edits which I challenged has only recently discriminated editors based on their alleged ethnicity "comments by Serbian editors Sadko and @Theonewithreason: are biased" [375] I don't think that any of you would enjoy a comment like that one. 8) My recent actions have been misinterpreted by the involved admin. 9) I really don't care much for this report and potential ban, even though I engaged in a discussion while facing slurs of "nationalist" or that I am "biased" because of my alleged roots and other nonsense. I have other Wiki and other projects where I can do even more work. 10) This report really proves little, on the contrary, if I engaged in edit-war why is not the same editor reported by administrator Joy? It seems like singling out in my book and I thought that everybody should be treated the same. I am surprised that, rather being the voice of reason and peace in a dispute, the editor making the report chooses to report only one out of two involved parties; that is very strange. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I added pagelinks and userlinks to the head of this report. There has also been a discussion at Talk:Narentines#DAI. The abbreviation 'DAI' refers to De Administrando Imperio. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is strange that an admin discerned which of the involved parties was at fault? Well, yeah, that's what happens when people's persistent disruptive editing wears admins down and deters them from acting. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, this user seems to be reffering to MOS:ETHNICITY only to remove mentions of Croatian ethnicity in lead, but in biographies related to Serbs, he seems to ignore this rule. --Thebeon (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is also common for this user to sneakingly remove mentions of Croats, without any explanations, like here --Thebeon (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You simply do not understand what a "national theatre" is. There is a reason behind that edit. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And you understand what national theatre is? You write definitions of what national theatre is? Your deletion is clearly anti-Croatian because you don't like the fact that Croats have more national theaters than Serbs. Also, I provided three independent sources which clearly say that Croatian National Theatre in Mostar is in fact national theatre, which is absurd to say that it isn't, as its official name and status suggest.--Thebeon (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Lately I notice that editor Sadko insists on primary sources ie historical information although he knows and has already been told to him that such information's cannot be the main information's in some article without additional NPOV information's. We also have problems with various maps which show Serbs or Serbian territory in the Balkans and which have gone beyond what quality sources speak. The editor Maleschreiber also pointed out this fact. It's mostly about WP:OR issue. The last map in discussion is this map, [376]. As for the latest added information from quality RS, here we have information for "Vlachs of Serbia" article [377] and allegedly "tendentious editing" from my side although the article "Sanjak of Smederevo" also talks about that. Mikola22 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, Sadko's edits at no point violated 3RR. I fail to see why Sadko is being singled out for scrutiny here when a bevy of other editors over the past 18 months (most notably Mikola22, OyMosby and Maleschreiber) have engaged in hundreds of Balkan-related disputes with behaviour that is no more commendable or disreputable than Sadko's. Miki Filigranski was the editor who made the initial additions which started the dispute on all the articles in question, some of which are GAs, not Sadko. The onus is thus on Miki Filigranski to explain why the edits should stand, not vice versa, especially on the GAs, where the burden for inclusion is higher.

The other examples of Sadko's supposed tendentious behaviour provided by Joy are also giant nothing burgers. For example, the Yugoslav Partisans dispute. The onus is on Joy to explain why Sadko's support for adding the (reliably sourced) ethnic makeup of the Partisan movement to that article's lead section is a blockable or TBAN offence. Joy has previously mused about topic banning or blocking other users simply because they had the audacity to take the opposite view in a deletion discussion. [378] Well guess what. The Balkans are a contentious area. There are going to be vehement disputes and engaging in them without violating wiki policy isn't grounds for a TBAN or permanent block. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Haha talk about vested interests and doing what I am apparently accused of doing. I really hope this get’s closely looked at by admin oversight. Leave me out of your accusatory ramblings with little basis. What “Hundreds of Balkan related disputes”? Ironic accusation. I assume you haven’t been in hundred of disputes. I often have to clean up removed RS and info and pov edits. Funny you ignore any other Serbian editors. Which I shall not name in this libel. Want to accuse Peacemaker67 as well since like me he doesn’t always agree with you and Sadko? Or Miki Filigranski? I don’t know why you drag me into this. But having a go at me to protect or deflect on behalf of another user is a bad idea for someone with so many years of experience. It can boomerang. You may want to remove the personal callouts. Bud. Topic is Sadko and the allegations. OyMosby (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: neither of us have ever even been reported to ANI/AN3/AE, let alone blocked or logged to AE (Sadko). AB is trying to create a sense of false equivalency by claiming that Balkan editors are somewhat alike in order to distract the community from the topic of the discussion. It's a groundless WP:ASPERSION, but it should be ignored. We're not here to discuss WP:WHATABOUTlike arguments.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This is insane, user Sadko deleted my comment. You have no right to delete anybodys comments on Wikipedia, that is vandalism.--Thebeon (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that he vandalizes Albania- and Croatia-related articles, insisting on unsupported claims for which he never tries to add any reliable sources, while simultaneously glorifies Serb-related articles without providing any third-party, reliable sources making them not encyclopedic and pushing heavily nationalistic POV.--Thebeon (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is obvious that User Sadko did not broke any of Wikipedia rules. Here stands accusation on 3RR rule, In which linked article did he reverted something more than 2 times? Neither. Latter accusation stand that they attacked other User on TP Viseslav and Narantenies - but it can been seen that in the first sentence they were attacked. After that it goes back and forward after which they started communicating. This are not strong arguments to block someone because based on this we could do the same on other editors. Theonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sadko did not provide a single valid substantiation for their reverts (and edits) in which removed reliably sourced information from reputable international and Croatian historians. They are literally inventing up stupid arguments to discredit the expertise of other non-Serbian historians because of which those reliable sources won't be used in the article. The old revisions were written from an extremely biased and Serbian point of view using only a selected few reliable sources which support a specific point of view in the interpretation of primary sources (in the case of Narentines and Višeslav of Serbia it is DAI). Sadko, as an experienced editor, is consciously pushing and defending revisions that are not written by the Wikipedian standard of neutral point of view. Their claim my edits have an UNDUE issue is shocking because the case is exactly the opposite as the articles have an UNDUE issue. In the same fashion, Sadko is heavily arguing, alongside Theonewithreason, the reliability of obviously unreliable Serbian site Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo on which are promoted various fringe, controversial and Greater Serbian theories and points of view. It's simply incredible and more than ironic that such an experienced editor isn't capable of recognizing the UNDUE/NPOV issue of an article, identifying a reliable source, and welcoming constructive edits without making up invalid arguments. Due to the amount of their experience, they must be aware of that, and as such their reaction is transparent and cannot be perceived other than behavior based on personal and biased (nationalistic) POV. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you mentioned my name in your review and I was not part in any of lately mentioned edits on Viseslav or Narantienes this goes under WP:HARRASMENT and you will be reported if you do it one more time, not to mention that on same page you attacked me and said that I was a Serbian biased editor with no reason, also I have right to give my opinion like editor Sadko does. That doesn't go against Wikipedia rules. If you are here basing your arguments based on opinions who are not agreed with you then you are wasting your time. Also this comment just proves that it is obvious that User MF is the one who starts attacks not SadkoTheonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Don’t bother @Theonewithreason: AB did the same exact thing with me and said if one cannot handle it then Wikipedia is not for them. Hehe. I guess we both can’t “handle” this website. Lol OyMosby (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right. Theonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Gave links to show. No point. Just enjoy the ride. ;)OyMosby (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: is it harassment saying a fact that you also advanced the reliability of a site that is promoting pro-Serbian propaganda? Well, I could go even further and say your defense of a fellow editor whose advancing and defending the same Serbian point of view is not by accident.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And how did I did that ? By posting a comment with a list of people who were part of directorial ? That is just an information. But go ahead. Please. Accuse me being anything you want. Btw constant repeating "pro Serbian" doesn't help your case here. Theonewithreason (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, besides being other's advocate you're also a liar because you did not only and simply post a list of directorial. You agreed with Sadko and openly advocated the reliability of an obviously unreliable source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

...various fringe, controversial and Greater Serbian theories and points of view. And there we have it. Whoever disagrees with Miki is a Serbian nationalist. Don't you ever get tired of recycling these tired tropes and canards? Given that you are the user who has made hundreds of contentious edits to dozens of ARBCOM-sanctioned articles only a day or two before the New Year (some of which have been Good Articles for the better part of a decade) the onus is always going to be on you to justify these mass revisions. WP:BOLD only goes so far, and if you are reverted by multiple other users (as you were), that's a pretty good indicator that community consensus is lacking. Present arguments on the respective talk pages. Please. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Who are the "multiple editors" who have reverted him apart from Sadko and you? [379]? --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the second time a Serbian editor is removing a comment by other editors on this report. What's wrong with you? @Amanuensis Balkanicus, you together with your Serbian companions Sadko and Theonewithreason have some of the most bullshit comments ever. What should everybody do? Stop telling the truth and start lying about the reliability of sources that goes in favor of Serbians like three of you who are obviously trying to promote Serbian propaganda? Stating a fact about an unreliable source doesn't imply you're disagreeing with me nor to be a Serbian nationalist. However, just look at what we have here, you also commented there - all three of you are acting together, advocating reliability and defending here. I was not the only editor who noticed your shallow nationalist games as other editors already did before me saying that the source is created by an "SPS advocacy group" - and you three are the same. Pathetic.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As you obviously aren't here for building an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view all three of you should get reported at WP:ARBEE for 1RR restriction on topics related to Eastern Europe.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Everybody has an at least slightly different POV from everybody else- it's a basic result of occupying different coordinates in space-time. Some POVs are in line with what bibliography discusses, some aren't and many fall somewhere in between. Wikipedia's network of policies is specifically designed in a way which filters POVs and forces editors to base their editing on reliable bibliography and a neutral narrative. The problems which Joy has described aren't linked to 3RR per se (although Sadko's recent editing involves extensive edit-warring across many articles). They are linked to persistent, mid-level edit-warring very often based on a POV narrative which can't be supported by bibliography. Miki Filigranski has re-written many articles - based on contemporary bibliography - which were in a bad state and promoted Balkan nationalist talking points. All reverts which Sadko has placed against Miki Filigranski lack arguments based on bibliography (see Talk:Višeslav_of_Serbia#DAI, Talk:Narentines#DAI). The lack of sources has led Sadko to rely on personalizing the disputes with Miki Filigranski and Mikola22: [WP:STONEWALLING]] lack of WP:ETIQUETTE and arrogant kiddo style of comment will not change the fact that Budak is not an expert on early Serb medieval history, which Viseslav of Serbia is a part of [380], the information added by fellow editor MF is major WP:UNDUE and it is damaging to the article's GA status[381], Try again; learn how to talk to people, I believe that you are 18+ and that you know how to do so.[382], Fake balancing which only brings confusion to the readers - POV editing with aims to narrow down early Serb medieval history only to Rascia.[383]. The bigger problem with the narrative which Sadko has been putting forward in wikipedia is that it often is a WP:FRINGE POV whether it involves minimization of crimes of Chetnik Nazi collaborators against Croat civilians (That is still only several historians, as I said before, there is more mentions of genocide done to the Muslims, which is not the general case for Croats. The title alone seems awkward ("Genocide of Bosniaks and Croats") and a verbal construct of Wikipedia editors. The number for the Croats are simply not there, neither is the scale of crimes, which simply can't be compared to most of similar terrible events.[384] or defense of a fringe theory that Serbs and "possibly" Russians lived in early medieval Macedonia[385] or arguing that that the virulent antisemitism of Nikolaj Velimirović in the 1930s is not antisemitism but something "very different" ..anti-judaism (immediately prompting the intervention of another editor [386]) or trying to !keep articles like Demonization of the Serbs or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia. Thus, Sadko's editing so far in many topics has been guided by a POV narrative and not by what bibliography discusses. Sadko was blocked for 48 hours on January 1st 2020 and was logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement log#Eastern Europe on 29 June 2020. The filing admin warned Sadko to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes.. Peacemaker67 in September filed an AE report which argued for a broad topic ban against another editor. I supported his suggestion and it has improved the editing environment since then. Now, instead of a broad Balkans-related topic ban, I think that a more limited in scope topic ban (Croatia/Kosovo/Albania-related topics) is more appropriate in Sadko's case based on an overview of his editing. Side comment: Admins should probably ignore much of the discussion as it tends to devolve into unrelated TL;DR issues and go straight to the diffs each editor has provided. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing of concern here. The diffs that Malecshreiber tries to spin are totally innocuous, especially compared to what I've seen in the Balkans topic area. Sadko is a civil and constructive contributor. The massive wall of text and spin by Maleschreiber is an example of WP:GAMING the system to try and have a rival editor sanctioned. Khirurg (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

At Yugoslav partisans, Sadko has not edited since November. At the remaining articles, he only has 2 reverts. Not even close to 3RR. This is bad-faith gaming of noticeboards. Khirurg (talk) 02:41, 2 January 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.

Repeated Disruptive Editing

• Snake0124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monica Witt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User talk:Snake0124 has been making disruptive edits on Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film). Plot summaries are suppose to be brief but Snake0124 keeps adding unnecessary content that either clutters or does not benefit the plot summary (1, 2, 3). Additionally, Snake0124 keeps restoring the following edits repeatedly despite reverts: back in May (1, 2, 3, 4); back in September (1); this month (1, 2, 3, 4). The characters are never referred to as mercenaries or referenced as US former service members but Snake0124 keeps restoring these unfounded edits. If you examine their talk page, you can see Snake0124 has built a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Their reply to my warning (1) makes it clear that Snake0124 has not familiarized themselves with Wiki guidelines despite repeated warnings by other editors. Snake0124 has only been blocked once for 48 hours. A longer block must be enforced. Enough is enough. Armegon (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy, If I had a dollar for every time I saw a content dispute that involved the use of the adjective "terrorist" vs a different word to describe something, I'd be... well... I'd have some spending cash, let's just put it that way. :-) The changes I'm seeing don't seem to significantly alter the article or the section; they just add some words and information to sentences that are being disputed and removed. What I'm also seeing is that the reversion of such additions are being justified with the use of original research. When I see edit summaries such as this one and this one stating things such as "the film says so" and "the film doesn't say so", that doesn't amount to anything without verifiable sources (which may or may not exist). In the end, it looks to be coming down to a "yes it is" and "no it isn't" situation. Have you created a discussion on the article's talk page and asked for input and discussion involving other editors there? There's a protocol that we should be following that will help with this dispute. Forgive me if I missed anything, but I'm not seeing where such a discussion has taken place at all. What you believe isn't benefiting the plot summary might be seen as doing so by others. Resolve things by consensus and go up the ladder in the dispute resolution protocol if you need to. I think filing this report here was a bit premature. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That being said, Snake0124, can you please respond to this ANI and provide any input regarding this dispute? What's going on? How can we come to a consensus and resolve this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think there may issues with Snake0124's edits and apparent ownership of articles, especially regarding plot summaries, which is made more problematic since Snake0124 does not ever use edit summaries, such as with this revert of copyediting: [387]. There also seem to be many examples where they have repeatedly reverted other editors who disagreed with their changes without any edit summary or other explanation. It seems like there at least needs to be some kind of reasoning given by Snake0124 for their edits when they are repeatedly changing content back to their preference. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, it's quite obvious that User:Armegon has no basis for their complaints. They as does all of the other users that have been complaining to me about conducting rather annoying edits from their perspective, obviously never researched nor do they watch any of the films or TV series that have been edited by dozens of other users. Please tell Armegon to supply proof, evidence, common sense, logic to prove and / or verify their complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake0124 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I already have provided "proof, evidence, common sense, logic" to verify my complaints. All the diffs are right there above. If anyone wants further evidence, look at Snake's talk page. They have generated a history of disruptive editing in the span of a single year. I am clearly not the only editor to have found issue with Snake's conduct. Snake must refrain from adding WP:OR content that is not referenced in the film. I removed Snake's edits per WP:FILMPLOT. It clearly states to avoid technical detail and not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. Armegon (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I went to Snake0124's talk page to warn over disruptive editing at Monica Witt and refusing to discuss on that talk page. Instead I found notice of this discussion over the same behavior at a different article. What is the next course of action? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Snake was blocked in August for 48 hours due to adding unsourced content and that clearly wasn't enough. A longer block must be enforced. Perhaps a week? And User talk:Snake0124 must familiarize themselves with Wiki guidelines. Armegon (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition of CSD tags on articles

• RationalPuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recently, I have seen an alert on my userpage as one of the article created being nominated for SD by User:RationalPuff. I have gone through page and seen that it was already reverted. To look into the proper cause of SD, I've gone into the appropriate user's contributors, whose contributions related to SDs for random articles were all reverted. To control this probable mayhem, I placed a warning on his page to avoid unnecessary tagging of articles for SD. For which I got reverted on his page saying, it appears to be WP:BULLY. Although suggesting him to go through WP:FIELD, before nominating random articles, he started targeting the article Venkatesh Gattem stating I have been already receiving ad hominem attack on my talk page from the creator of the article as I previously tagged it for speedy deletion & meatpuppetry/WP:UPE violations.

It is clear that the subject is from same university which I've studied along with. Being personally known to the subject doesn't always mean meat-puppetry, I made it sure that none of the article's data violates Wikipedia NPoV and used resources to support the same. My editing trends clearly says I'm very less active than usual on Wikipedia and may not monitor the progress and debate. And when it comes to article's reason for deletion: The sources clearly state that Guinness World Record was never directly given from the president but the photograph was taken just for representational purpose by the subject. And I generally don't like to debate things, which leads me to choose Demography and Architecture related articles on this website. Can someone please process this PROD, since I may not be available for upcoming days which may result in deletion of article in 7days.--iMahesh (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• You can remove the PROD tag yourself if you disagree with it (WP:CONTESTED), though I suggest that wil simply mean the article being taken to AfD instead. Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yes, I can always simply disagree with and remove the Prod but at this point I don't want any kind of Edit-war between us, which will hamper both of our times. Since, I was called WP:BULLY & causing hominem attack by the nominator I think its better for someone else to complete the process.--iMahesh (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note, iMahesh creator of the article Venkatesh Gattem has admitted COI in the above which he never disclosed up until I raised suspicions. This did violate WP:COI regardless it was good faith edit. In this circumstances the iMahesh may not be allowed to do any further edits to the article.RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no absolute restriction on making COI edits. And even then, the fact that this editor personally knows the article subject does not constitute a disruptive COI on its own, nor does failing to mention it until now mean a COI was concealed. I'll note that in this article, you tagged it for G11 despite it not being unambiguous spam. At best it should've been tagged as A7, but I think it's pretty likely the statement about being in the Guinness Book of World Records would count as a WP:CCS sufficient to defeat an A7 nomination. RationalPuff, it seems to me that you were in the wrong here. Please be more careful with CSD tagging in the future. The other complaints about IM3847's behavior are not, in my view, relevant. You're not a new user, so there's no WP:BITE issue. Your knee-jerk description of IM3847's warning as "bullying" is flatly bogus. You don't get to call a single warning template, no matter how incorrectly it was used, bullying. Because, quite frankly, if you can't tolerate harsh, upset, confused reactions from article creators you really shouldn't be doing CSD patrolling. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm actually not impressed with IM3847's use of a level 4 templated warning, but I'm even more disappointed that we have yet another new page patroller with less than 200 edits trying to speedy pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Although actually, quite a lot of the articles they're tagging are quite old. And some of them are clearly non-notable ... Drums Kumaran, for example. There are a lot of articles like this lying around which often go unnoticed for a long time. I would suggest to them that they stick with PROD rather than speedy, however. Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • True, Puff isn't making the newbie mistake of targeting articles seconds after creation. But to me Floq's point still rings true in light of just how technical the CSD criteria can be. Like understanding WP:CCS for the A7 family. To inexperienced editors, the legalistic way in which these criteria are used—and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that—can really trip them up. I think that's happened here, and it's why some involvement in other aspects of deletion is probably a better idea before diving into CSD. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Apologies for my ignorance but I genuinely want to understand your point. Is the number of edits only indicaton of ability or is there a guidance that discourage such actions? Anyone can simply rack up loads of edit counts simply sending welcome messages and doing other similar things. Does that make them able or reliable? If so, I would need to rethink how I use my time on Wikipedia going forward. I have been spending quite of personal time, like many others. I do not intend to build an impressive statistics but would rather prefer to contribute productively. Of late I have been focusing on misinformation on Wikipedia and there have been some success parcularly BLP entries via bogus World Records and fake degrees. Tabloid journalism in India make these obscure and hard to spot often. I have strong reasons to doubt nobility and verifiabliry of all CSD/PROD tagged recently. Appreciate your views.RationalPuff (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am generally against new editors doing anti-vandal work, new page patrol, or deletion work. They almost always approach things like a bull in a china shop, and it seems to attract a large percentage of people fascinated by the gamification. Their "learning on the job" can easily chase off productive editors. In a perfect world, these areas are where really experienced people would work, except not many do (including me; i've long since burned out on anti-vandalism). It is not the edit count exactly, it is the edit count as a proxy for experience and/or judgement. I wouldn't be happy to see someone with 2000 welcome templates do this work either. I take Black Kite's point that this isn't actually new page patrol, that was inaccurate on my part. Perhaps I misinterpreted your misuse of WP:BULLY, and instead you are one of the rare limited-experience editors with a firm grasp on deletion policy and that you normally have a thicker skin. Perhaps you have somewhat more experience than 200 edits would imply. Time will tell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, technically not new, since they joined in 2007 — but for all intents and purposes, pretty much. Myself, I don't think I really touched any of that stuff until I became an admin. I think all I did in that first year (2004) was just pure content stuff. Of course, WP:PERM rights didn't exist then. You really had to be an admin to do those things effectively. Anyway, Venkatesh Gattem does seem pretty spammy. Which may well be par for the course for the project; something I find difficult to gauge with confidence one way or the other. El_C 01:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: @Floquenbeam: Thanks for your thoughts above. However, what I gathered so far, it matters less if a deletion request was appropriate at CSD or PROD but more importantly who raised the request. We have seen my PROD too was taken down swiftly and the creator made no efforts to discuss or refute my points despite providing some strong evidence for it, which gives a sense of entitlement. If this is the case "inexperienced" editors straightaway have to go to AFD which again I'm sure will attract criticism for naivety or they perhaps simply choose to ignore issues in the articles lest their arguments are judged by their editcounts/levels. I do think this aspect of subjectiveness requires some deliberation.RationalPuff (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@RationalPuff: You misinterpretated it, any one can nominate pages for deletion for a strong reason. But, its better to go with AfD rather than SDs and ProDs in this case. If the article just came out of New Pages feed, you can swiftly nominate it for speedy deletion, but its preferred to go through AfDs for an article older than a months/years. AfDs work better in this case, and its AfD whcih should've been done prior to SD/ProD.--iMahesh (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

We have seen my PROD too was taken down swiftly Doesn’t mean anything. Anybody can decline a PROD, even the article creator, and the decline is binding. That it happened quickly is not very surprising given a CSD was declined. the creator made no efforts to discuss or refute my points despite providing some strong evidence for it With respect, I’ve not seen any points you’ve raised, here or elsewhere, that require refutation; I’ve certainly not seen any evidence (let alone strong evidence) you’ve presented of... really anything. If this is the case "inexperienced" editors straightaway have to go to AFD which again I'm sure will attract criticism for naivety or they perhaps simply choose to ignore issues in the articles lest their arguments are judged by their editcounts/levels. I do think this aspect of subjectiveness requires some deliberation. The place for such discussion—the claims of which I reject and which any experienced editor should also reject—is not here on ANI. The bottom line really should’ve been Floq’s point: You should not be doing deletion (particularly speedy deletion) at your level of experience. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:05,p 30 December 2020 (UTC)

drive by comment: I work with a lot of new translations and please please please while we are talking about this how can I propose we do something about the people nominating articles for deletion, perhaps formally require some level of experience for example? I have seen an epidemiologist working with plague and covid-19 described as clearly not notable, another article nominated because it was about a village in Indonesia (I mean, we do villages everywhere else (?)), a sort of Congolese Joan of Arc figure said to be non-notable, and a pioneer in Congolese film —an article I created myself for an cinema of Africa wikithon— described as possibly a joke.

Not to mention the people who said the Panama papers were not notable, just a routine criminal hack. If anyone has a suggestion about how to stop this, I am very open to suggestion. Would an RfC make a difference? I myself very rarely create articles anymore because I seem to inevitably wind up explaining to some British teenager (whose twenty edits are all about cricket or cartoon characters) that someone or something he has never heard of may nonetheless be notable. It’s wearying and no question also intimidates non-English speakers who might otherwise help with the backlog at WP:PNT.

This *definitely* happens more to articles about people with funny names or places where they don’t speak English. I know nothing about this particular incident and apologize for jumping on my soap box in the middle of it, but this is actually a huge problem that is costing us editors. Thank you for reading my wall of text. If someone has a suggestion please get in touch xoxox

TL;DR=inexperienced editors doing AfD do a LOT of harm Elinruby (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Deletionpedia, where one day there will be only two pages left: one on The Sum Total of Human Knowledge, and the other the AfD discussion for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Firejuggler86

• Firejuggler86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I see that from July 2019 until recently, Firejuggler86 received nine warnings for disruptive editing. On top of that, I gave them three more warnings yesterday, after I noticed several disruptive edits. Recent problematic edits include:

• Dec 5: Corrupting another user's talk page comment.
• Dec 18: Personal attacks.
• Dec 18: Replacing "Native American" with the (often considered offensive/archaic/inaccurate) "(American) Indian".
• Dec 19: Removing a reference without mentioning its removal in the edit summary.
• Dec 21: Corrupting a different user's talk page comment.
• Dec 26: Shoutily removing a "citation needed" template. (I reverted that, & gave suitable citations.)
• Dec 27, after my warnings: Changing claims attributed to specific cited sources without any indication that those sources support the change.
• Dec 27, after my warnings: Unreasonably asking editors to provide the sources relied upon by a reliable source.
• Dec 30, after my warnings: Replacing a term used by a cited source, with an edit summary questioning the reliability of that source (despite the source's adequately close agreement with other WP:RS cited in the article).

I'm unlikely to have time to clean up after Firejuggler86 indefinitely, and the warnings don't seem to have done the trick, so administrator assistance would be welcome. Zazpot (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 05:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 08:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Firejuggler86 - Can you please respond to the issues being reported here? What's going on? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, I'm afraid I need to take a wikibreak for at least a day or two, so I'm going to have to leave this case entirely in your (or other admins') hands. Apologies for that. If the case is still live when I log back in (and if I have been pinged), I will of course reply at that time. Thanks in advance for your understanding, Zazpot (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Zazpot - No worries! Have a great Wikibreak - we'll make sure this is handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 78.60.127.225

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.

---

• 78.60.127.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This IP appeared earlier today (December 31, 2020) and began editing multiple professional wrestling event articles, changing sourced information, such as the results of matches to incorrect results. I went through their edit history and reverted them, but about 2 hours ago from time of this post, they came back and are performing the same disruptive edits that I have again reverted. The only thing they leave in their edit summary is "streaks" (I have no idea what they're trying to convey by that). If this was a one-off incident on one or two articles, I would have tried to reach out to them on their talk page, but this is blatant vandalism.

Full user contribution history for 78.60.127.225, where you can see the amount of disruptive edits they have done.

A few examples of them changing information to incorrect results:

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3
• Example 4

--JDC808 ♫ 15:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 1 January 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.

Wikipedia of alternate reality

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.

---

Hi. Just looking for some other opinions about what should be done (if anything) about a user who appears to be creating an Wikipedia of alternate reality in their user space. I suspect this is the same user who I've stumbled across before, using a different account name, because of the similarities to the articles and topics.

Their contributions can be see here. As you can see, quite a few articles in their user space of impressively detailed, but fictional, accounts of things like tennis tournaments, military battles and the Eurovision song contest.

I would consider that WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE apply, and perhaps WP:SOCK. But otherwise they appear to be harmless, and it could be argued they are using their sandbox appropriately to learn Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This shows that 97.5% of their edits (2,523) are in their user space, with only a tiny number on actual articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer is likely Sallysnail4 – Thjarkur (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed as clear sockpuppet of Sallysnail4. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 31 December 2020 (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.

Legal threat at Talk:Mahar Regiment

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.

---

• Talk:Mahar Regiment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, happy new year everybody. There's a legal threat against me where an IP and a named user discuss opening a case against me, "booking him under SC/ST prevention act". The IP says; Ghoshpreet singh replies. They might be the same person; both also posted on my talk page. I have asked them to withdraw the legal threat. I would appreciate admins with experience dealing with legal threats taking a look. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked both. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.— Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 1 January 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.

Disruptive behaviour by User:TranscendentMe

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.

---

• TranscendentMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

TranscendentMe made an edit [388] at Australia–China relations which included such strong POV pushing as changing "Xinjiang re-education camps" to “so called Xinjiang re-education camps.” Naturally I reverted them [389] and opened a talk page discussion [390]. They then reverted my revert [391] with the hypocritical edit summary “you want another edit warring? don't be ridiculous.” Based on this I placed an edit warring warning on their talk page [392] but did not revert them. Rather than respond to either the warning or the talk page section they placed an edit warring warning on my page [393]... I believe that this was an improper use of a warning template as I had only made a single revert and was following WP:BRD. This appears to be based on a personal policy they espouse on their talk page "Edit War is bilateral. Leaving a message on my page doesn't justify your position. I will probably do the same. Instead, go open a section in talk instead of here." They then followed that up with a comment on the talk page [394] which didn't explain their edit but rather was a series of personal attacks. I am seeking administrative action to curb the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of this editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Normchou: as they appear to have had similar WP:BATTLEGROUND issues with TranscendentMe on Australia–China relations a week ago and @EdJohnston: because they locked the page [395] as a result of the dispute between them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

POV or not it's your personal opinion, you reverted my whole edits based on only one phrase used that doesn't meet your satisfaction while ignoring the main contents and references I contributed, and in your comments" Are you for real? This sort of blatant POV pushing will not be tolerated." it looks pretty emotional to me and ironically you have a strong opinion yourself. Wikipedia should not be edit simply to fit into the narrative supported by editors of more numbers. I noticed you have a pretty rich history and are the kind of editors who always want to bring your dissent to administration rather than focus on the topic itself, who is being personal here? TranscendentMe (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick review regarding what they have done today. In this edit [396], they reverted some of my previous edits [397] [398] either without explanation or with a vague reference in the edit summary incompatible with community guidelines and policies. Regarding those more subtle, hard-to-notice edits they made, in the above edit their addition of "so-called" without proper referencing was clearly not in line with MOS:ACCUSED. Also, in this edit [399] "banned chemical, chloramphenicol" was not in the very citation they added. I still remember last time they did exactly the same thing to another paragraph [400], adding materials not in the source they cited despite what they claimed in the talk. Horse Eye's Back and I previously reported this user twice [401] (24, 47) within a week for this type of behavior, and it appears nothing has changed since. No new discussion was ever initiated by them regarding today's incident, nor were previous discussions revisited. What TranscendentMe has done is apparently unacceptable WP:NOTHERE behavior that should be scrutinized further. I'm kind of shocked they are still actively engaging in disruptive editing on Wikipedia with impunity. Normchou ^💬 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking now. Belligerent genocide denialist POV pushing is a good way to get blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 1 January 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.

Longterm disruption, CSNY

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.

---

• Cassidd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cassidd (talk · contribs) has received numerous warnings and been blocked in the past for disruptive editing, adding masses of unsourced content (see List of entertainment events at The Forum for a recent example), and lately, persistent removal of an AfD template from CSN 1977 and 1978 Reunion Tours. The article may or may not merit keeping, but the behavior doesn't work here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 1 January 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.

JMyrleFuller continued unsourced WP:CBALL edits

JMyrleFuller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continued CBALL edits following ANI in January 2020.

• 2020 NFL season Revision as of 22:14, 30 December 2020
• 2020 NFL season Revision as of 10:07, 31 December 2020

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#JMyrleFuller pattern of unsourced and WP:CBALL edits. AldezD (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil personal Attack and unsourced POV Pusher

• AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adminitartor should review edits made by User:AMomen88! This new user vandalizing page with unsourced edits like Bangladesh( SEE edits history) , removing other user edits (see Cabinet of Bangladesh talk page) despite warning from other experienced users und made uncivil personal attacks like this here [this.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barind#Comments]. It is a request, admin need to take his uncivil behavior seriously, punishment needed here as warning not working to ensure comfort for other civil users and the sake of WIKI. A topic ban on Bangladesh related pages for constantly Vandal edits and block for gross personal attacks are needed. Thanks in advance –2A0A:A546:7CA7:0:7DF7:94C7:1576:9460 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC). Signature added by Barind (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please log into your account when you make a complaint such as this. Also, you are require to notify AMomen88 of this complaint which is stated in a brightly colored box you should have seen when you added your complaint to this page. I have done this for you. But since you logged out of your regular editing account to post this and provided no diffs/edits, only links to pages, I'm not sure how seriously this will be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I advise the administrator to read the deeply personal and offensive remarks that Barind made towards me on the Cabinet of Bangladesh talk page. It is obvious that this editor is using multiple accounts (something he has previously been blocked for). AMomen88 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I refer to the administrator Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barind/Archive which shows the user has a long history of using personal attacks and abusing policy. I advise action is taken to prevent further violations of Wikipedia policy. AMomen88 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Liz, unfortunately I can’t login while I’m not on desktop and not regular here due to pandemic works- (already in account page mentioned). You can read here some c words [402]. If you thing such bad words acceptable here then I’ve no words to say!! Edits against sources see here [403] again [404], other user edits removed by him here [405] [406], just take a look his edit history not constructive at all n most of them already removed by many users. You’re most welcome to use check user for both. If you find any sock activities you may block. Have hardly time for one account. Using multiple accounts out of question!- Barind (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The only "c words" I can see at the link you provide are "comments", "charlatan" and "challenged". If it's those to which you're referring, then yes, we find such words acceptable here. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the whole situation yet, but I would say that referring to another editor as "intellectually challenged" seems to violate WP:NPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that comment was in response to this one. Under the circumstances I'd allow a fair amount of "if you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it" leeway. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the decision of the administrators. It is self-evident that the now former editor is more than prepared to dish out criticism, but takes great offence when criticism is dished out to them. Thanks AMomen88 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: It appears Barind has retired. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 19:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• @AMomen88:, consider yourself officially warned that posts like this are personal attacks and are prohibited by policy; if that behavior recurs you are likely to wind up blocked. Beyond that, the OP has departed the premises so this should be closable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger:, Apologies for any unbecoming comments. I hope you understand they were in response to personal comments directed towards me (as noted by an administrator). If Barind was still an active user, I hope he would of faced the same sanction.

Disruptive editing by Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil

Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since 2019, multiple warnings have been given to the editor, including being blocked for 24hrs in December 2019, with no effect. Even after the latest warning at Special:MobileDiff/996913355, editor has introduced content not related to the reference being linked at Special:MobileDiff/996964967. I had initially posted to WP:AIV but was redirected here. The bot added this to my report: User is in the category: User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Vikram Vincent 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: has ignored all the warnings, he continues to edit at Special:MobileDiff/997032417, deleting content without an edit summary. Vikram Vincent 18:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Another edit without summary or source at Special:MobileDiff/997429316. No change in behaviour. Vikram Vincent 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The changes being made by @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: to the series of articles are either unsourced or unrelated to the reference. Plus, they are spread over a long period of time. The editor refuses to engage on any of the talk pages or his own talk page. Any way to get his attention? Vikram Vincent 05:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This got archived without action. Vikram Vincent 04:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Casteist attack from IP

Personal casteist attack [407] by 2402:3A80:1004:C244:4E15:ABEE:65CA:E812 calling me a "kutta Tarkhan mistri". Kutta means dog in Indian languages and Tarkhan is a caste and 'mistri' means craftsman or worker. This IP is obvious sock of sockfarm User:Punjabier. Obvious attack by the sock here at my talk page. One can see how the socks are in a mission to establish that the Tarkhans are a lower caste [408], [409], and many edits like that. Kind of a revenge since Saini's are considered mali in the article with proper sources, which the user has problems with. They are very persistent in reverting/refuting it as can be seen in the article history with repeated requests in the talk page [410].

As for the edit here in Satinder Sartaaj, the source used is WP:CIRCULAR since in August 2019 (when the Times of India article was published), the Wikipedia article dated 21 August 2019 mentioned that the subject "Satinder Pal Singh Saini in a Punjabi Saini family" and it was unsourced. I beleive the article needs to be protected since time to time IPs keep adding 'saini' in it. Pinging @Þjarkur, Sitush, Cyphoidbomb, and Bonadea:. They are familiar with this sockfarm. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

IP sock continues casteist attack here, this time laced with threats of finding my address and dealing with me, alongwith typical cusses. Also added another source which is Wiki-like thus WP:UGC. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the first IP is blocked and the article is now semi-protected. I've blocked the second IP too, and I've rev-deleted the threat in the edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have done this myself, but I edited before my first cup of coffee.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I got your mail today ,all are not punjabier many more from punjab can try to edit wrong articles that you published, for improvement of articles. How you said saini are mali, give proof of your source ,you are created tensions by making wrong use of your authority ,all people you from Europe countries not know indian mentality as Flindfotberserk have shown see tarkhan article's now i have read after receiving mail because they have mentioned my name their than i hav read everything, see Tarkahn(punjab)article mr flindfotberserk have shown tarkhan caste to second poation ,only rajput mali used saini surname not all group since 1937 initially saini was rajput in the article's you can mention mali have started using Saini surnames in 1937.you can mention in this article but can not declared saini are mali. Mr flindfotberserk you are seniors editors try to make postive article's on wikipedia that creates happiness dont hate other caste people by writing bad life is very short dont spread hate remove bad things from every caste articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:101C:D43F:B86C:B4E6:F5DA:9446 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is hating any caste people. When it comes to Wikipedia content, the mentality of any group of people (Indian, European or whoever) is of no relevance. And Wikipedia is not here to create happiness (though if it does that indirectly, that's a welcome bonus). All that is happening here is that Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources (see WP:RS) is being enforced. So if you want to have something included in an article, you must provide reliable sources to support it. And if you want some sourced content removed, provide better sources that contradict it. And the place to do that is on the talk page of the article, not here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: i can provide you every reliable source but no body here are taken care of my reliable sources i dont know why how i can realized you, indian people who becomes seniors editors on wikipedia have everything know about wikipedia they easily blocked our account by comparing other peoples account by wrong doings . I can provide you every reliable please help. Please Read below Kindly pay attention to one of article name Saini

I am writing here about Saini caste article ,we live in backward country where People have wide interest in castism,caste is very sensitive topic in our countries in asia, every one from other caste trying to lower down morals of others or trying to show ourselves superior, Now i am coming to my point Saini caste exists mainly in punjab and its neighbouring states does not exist in uttar pardesh, madhya pradesh that have mentioned in saini caste articles ,

Now see article Tarkhan (Punjab) someone from india who is experienced editor name starting

Fylindfotberserk Belongs to tarkhan caste have ranked second to his caste also in the articles, he thanks to tarkhan people for economy development, they have declare saini caste to be a Mali, Mali is separate caste, in Rajasthan state one mali from rajput background have started using saini surname in 1937 how we can say sainis were mali, i am belongs to saini caste my ancestors were rajput in punjab not mali, i am not force you to change or edit saini articles, i simple request you please read below website link, that describe the history of Punjab saini caste ,with very reliable sources, you can find everything there. Please read history of saini caste please see by click on below mentioned link , orign of saini caste

http://www.sainionline.com/origin-from-surasenas

Also Gurdan saini was Saini rajput warriors who fought in 1400 AD. Mali caste fall under shudra varna does not have much land, also rajput never fight under the command of non rajput, so gurdan saini was rajput not mali,i am not disrespect mali caste but i am speaking the reality-truth ,punjab saini caste had won maximum number of param vir chakar in army you can see saini fall under martial casteclearly mentioned in article on Wikipedia, mali cannot apply in army jobs before 1937 i can provide you every reliable source kindly communicate with me I simply request change the hatnote summary of saini caste rest articles is corrected hatnote summary is not correct rajput mali have started using Saini surnames in 1937.you can mention in article but how you can said sainis were malis. Mali become saini in 1937 not saini becomes malies. thanks and Kind regards Electrical engineer Sub divisional officer India.

Please read carefully two of our policies, WP:BLP and WP:RS. After that, please go to the talk page of the article and argue, with reliable sources, why the article must be corrected.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: i dont know much about wikipedia i simply told you please read saini article with full attention in hatnote summary this article about saini(Mali) community of... Please remove Mali word pleased read census 1941 mali of other states than punjab become saini not saini becomes malies you can not say sainis are malies but rajput mali become saini in 1937

However, you need to know, may be not much, but at least something about Wikipedia if you want to have this accomplished. Reading the policies I have outlined above would be the easiest route. Continuing asking random users at random venues to modify the article is not going to help you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: This sock is being disruptive in the Talk:Saini page again [411]. This person has been regurgitating the same unreliable sources again and again for the past two years. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Also on my user talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: hello friend, ± gurbaj singh rana had removed your caste obc representation 3month ago please communicate with me i will provide you every reliable source and i feel sorry if i have hurt you i dont know personally my wife also belongs to your community why i am hate your community. I got angry by reading wrong information that published.

User Sandy Anugrah not responsive to warnings, not editing collegially

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.

---

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

I came across this editor when notifying them about the need to use an edit summary, and found five warnings already racked up on their user talk page. When I investigated, I found a typical case: zero talk page edits, never uses an edit summary. Has enough constructive edits to make other editors leave them mostly alone. I don't think this is good enough: WP:CIR. The user is blocked for 1 year on idwiki. Not a long editing history, didn't seem to be a fan of edit summaries there, either. I suspect, nevertheless, that Indonesian is their native language, and they are unable/unwilling to contribute original English, which is kinda a requirement on enwiki. In consulting with @Oshwah: he suggested an AN/I report was warranted. So I think instead of allowing this account to rack up unheeded warnings, we should help them sit up and take notice. Elizium23 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours for lack of sources, lack of edit summaries and lack of communication. Bishonen | tålk 13:51, 2 January 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.

Deprecated Editing by User:Amigao

• Amigao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I was going to report Amigao for editing warring but I do wonder if this users editing needs further investigation and if they should instead be banned from editing posts regarding depreciation links instead. I came across them because they edited on this article but you can see from their own talk page and their contributions, that the user has issues with this type of editing.

They appear to be editing almost at bot level with no consideration of what they are editing. Removing of links and ignoring things like instead of trying to find reliable sources or tagging instead. It says even on the deprecated sources page that Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.

I'm willing and will look for another source for the quote in article that started this but it was hardly a controversial comment and think Amigao overall editing needs assessment. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 13:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Amigao should be less bot-like in removing deprecated sources. I reverted a careless removal of theirs the other day [412] and I also saw a deprecated source removal that I think was unhelpful in a different article last month [413]. Their most recent contributions list [414] shows them removing four deprecs from four different articles in one minute [415], [416], [417], [418], which is bot territory. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

His approach is highly disruptive as he makes zero effort to replace the sources he's removing. I would support a topic ban on removing sources without providing a replacement. Number 57 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've dropped them a warning per WP:MEATBOT (and WP:DISCUSS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Doesn't seem to have made any difference – they have continued the same behaviour today. Might need a block to get them to engage? Number 57 22:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I've been watching their contributions are they haven't really changed. Still editing at a pace that means they can't really assess the references they are removing. Also shows what have seen previously in that the Amigao just refuses to engage in discussion. Hasn't commented here or on any talk page. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 22:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Quite so. Blocked for 24 hours per WP:MEATBOT and WP:ENGAGE. Communication is not optional, it's on them to communicate now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So, while they've slowed down, there's still no attempt being made to replace sources. The comments on their talk page suggest they have zero intention of changing their behaviour, while an unblock request contained a clearly untrue claim that they 'do [their] best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used'. Number 57 18:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." - Amigao (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that lot of Amigao's post-block deprecated source removals still need cleaning up afterward [419], [420], [421], [422], [423]. I'm not endorsing RT, but most of the examples that Amigao is removing are routine news coverage that's indistinguishable from what can easily be found in reliable sources. Amigao is making no effort to find those other sources, and if this activity were useful it seems like somebody would script a bot to do it [424]. There is no evidence that Amigao understands why their edits are controversial, and it looks like WP:IDHT. [425]. I support a topic ban on removal of deprecs. Geogene (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself." - Amigao (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page and pinged a couple of you. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This seems more like a policy discussion at this stage, similar to the one here Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines in which some on this thread had participated. Removal of an unreliable (deprecated) source does not require "replacement" per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. Oftentimes the underlying content also needs to be removed outright as it was recently with Oleksandr Yefremov. - Amigao (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not over-ride the policy and guidelines concerning deprecated sources (WP:V and WP:RS). Deprecated sources such as RT should not be used outside of extremely limited situations such as WP:ABOUTSELF. The burden and onus are not on those removing an unreliable (deprecated) source, but rather on those seeking to maintain its inclusion. - Amigao (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why the AN/I entry got duplicated, but it wasn't intentional. -- Amigao (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You did the damage in this edit; I have now cleaned up by removing the duplicated section and restoring the one you deleted. --JBL (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - Amigao (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying this is a "policy discusion", but it isn't. It's quite simple: You've been repeatedly asked by multiple editors to stop mass removing sources without making any effort to provide an alternative, and this is what you should do. If you keep up the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and pretend nothing is wrong, you are either going to banned from doing this, or you will be blocked again. This shouldn't be hard to understand. Number 57 17:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion of removal of unreliable (deprecated) sources. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." This is consistent with my editing concerning unreliable (deprecated) sources. It would be helpful if you could explain why WP:BURDEN would not apply here. Also, you raised similar issues here Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines last month and other editors pointed out that policy was not in your favor. - Amigao (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For additional reference, the deprecated source being removed is RT and here's the May 2020 RfC that found that it was an unreliable source for Wikipedia content: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295#RfC:_RT_(Russia_Today). - Amigao (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this is a discussion of your behaviour, hence why it is happening here and not at WP:RSN. If you are really going to continue to not hear what you are being told, it's not going to end well. Number 57 23:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide policy-backed reasons why the behavior in question - removal of unreliable deprecated sources such as RT - is somehow a violation. As stated before, core policies and guidelines like WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources remain in force and these edits are consistent with them. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not change the applicability of WP:V and WP:RS concerning unreliable deprecated sources of disinformation. - Amigao (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide policy-backed reasons the policies in question are WP:MEATBOT, WP:UNRESPONSIVE, WP:CAUTIOUS, also guidelines/guideline supplements WP:DISRUPT (especially WP:IDHT) and WP:ENGAGE. Bottom line: even if your editing is within policy as written, if it is requested by the community that you stop your actions and engage in a discussion about them, you do do, because the relevant essay is WP:NODEADLINE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE is a great essay, but it's not a policy or guideline, and a counterpoint essay to it is WP:NOW. WP:NOW is highly relevant here because it speaks to the urgency of dealing with content that fails WP:V and WP:RS, which deprecated sources almost always do. Also, these edits follow WP:CAUTIOUS because removal of an unreliable deprecated source is seldom a major change to an article. Also, important to note that no one is advocating removal all unreliable deprecated sources because there are limited acceptable uses in WP:ABOUTSELF. The articles on Michael Flynn or Slavoj Žižek are examples of RT being used in a manner consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF. As a side note, I think this is a good discussion and we're all working in good faith to improve the verifiability and reliability of the encyclopedia. - Amigao (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside from your continually missing the point and indeed at times seemingly deliberately going on tangents to that point. I do believe you are making a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia overall, though, so to repeat in order to avoid further issues/blocks: please do not resume removals, regardless of ANYTHING ELSE, without doing so at a much slower pace and with more discussion and more replacing-with-another-source instead of just slapping on a CN tag, because your demonstrated pace of removals leaves other editors unable to assume good faith that you are manually checking each link for appropriateness in its removal. (Plus there's the fact that editing at a rate indistingishable from automated editing is treated as automated editing.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment WP:DEPRECATED: "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately."

WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

From Here Seems pretty clear.Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

RM and RFC

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.

---

• Talk:West Bank bantustans (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There is currently an ongoing RFC about the title of the page That in my view has a rough consensus an about a preferred title. Another user started a move discussion do we really need it? I think the RFC is quite clear what is the community consensus on this mater and there no need of another discussion per WP:NOTBURO. Shrike (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, and happy new year. When the RfC was opened, it was explicitly explained that the idea was that we would listen to everyone's open views, not vote, and then hold an RM to finalise using the most popular proposal.[426] There have been 62 editors involved in the various discussions at this page so far, but only 9 of those proposed the "Palestinian enclaves" name that was shown as the most popular alternative at the RfC. All 60 other editors have been pinged at the RM. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC had a billion and one choices, making it effectively impossible to judge the results. The RM has a single reasonable choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The current title is totally PoV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, But there is a clear consensus what is a preferred choice. Do we really need another RM? --Shrike (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus of a fairly limited group of editors. I see no harm in confirming that all the previous participants are in accord with that limited view, given that many of them did not participate in the RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 22:36, 2 January 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 an admin please remove

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.

---

The false media report posted on Loving Hut Wiki page It talks about cult and recruiting and is damaging to the restaurants. It was possibly put there by a competitor? Loving Hut is a plant based restaurant. That is all. Pls remove this nasty article, it has no place on loving hut wiki....

"In 2011, Phoenix New Times wrote that "detractors depict the Loving Huts as a recruiting mechanism for a cult with a dictatorial leader who exploits her followers" and that Loving Hut restaurants soft-peddle Ching Hai's messages "through free literature, DVDs of Hai's lectures, and the presence of TV screens fixed to the Supreme Master TV satellite channel in every restaurant."[6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.30.117 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Loving Hut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The content is cited and the cite supports the facts stated in the article. COI IPs are edit-warring to remove it. The article is now semi-protected by User:Mjroots, which seems to be an appropriate admin-level action. DMacks (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

See thread in Archive 1054, same IP as here. Was told to discuss, seems they don't like the answer given. If necessary, the protection can be extended to indefinite without needing to consult with me. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Loving hut wiki for those playing along. DMacks (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

49.196.30.117 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC) DMacks the article is non factual. And is damaging to Loving Hut Restaurants. The wiki of Loving Hut should be about Loving Hut and not some false media article. Please remove the article as it's NOT about Loving Hut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.30.117 (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "wiki of Loving Hut", it is a Wikipedia article about Loving Hut, which summarizes what independent reliable sources state about Loving Hut. If those sources are summarized accurately, there is not much we can do about it. If the source has published incorrect information, you will need to take that up with the source and get them to issue a retraction. You can also offer independent reliable sources that you have found which contradict the one in the article. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not censored, covers all positions on a subject, and is based on what reliable sources say on a subject. It is not a promotional tool. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

To successful get this removed it will need to be demonstrated that either the Phoenix New Times issued a retraction of the article being cited or that there are multiple reliable sources (please see WP:RS to get an idea on what is considered a reliable soure) that have concluded that the Phoenix New Times coverage inaccurate. So far no evidence has been provided for either of these.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 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.

Talk:David

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.

---

Will someone close Talk:David#Triplestein?. I'm fed up with too much talk and no verifiable quotes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

By my count, there were a dozen verifiable quotes. Keep in mind, Tgeorg has already tried to shut down the talk page on this point under claims of the point being fringe, but it turned out that half the scholars in the field adhered to what Tgeorg claimed was "fringe".Editshmedt (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Provide a verifiable quote that David ruled over Samaria or leave the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have provided half a dozen archaeological papers and quotes suggesting verification of a general region called the United Monarchy. I am at a loss for words why you're demanding a quote that specifies one specific obscure city within the entire general region belonged to the polity.Editshmedt (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: Tgeorg, you are honestly one of the dumbest guys I've ever talked to. You need to calm down and read WP:NPA. We can quibble over whether David should be characterized as a chieftain, tribal leader, or king forever, but it is irrelevant. Can you find me a source that unequivocally states that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria? If you can'ta, then I don't think you have a leg to stand on. ImTheIP (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h for personal attacks--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I've just wasted ten minutes of my life going over the "discussion" there. This is clearly a content dispute in which you two are talking past each other far too much. I would suggest an RFC in which you would both state your positions and then withdraw to let others have their say. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I have a similar impression--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2020 (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.

promotional article

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.

---

A few days ago, 89.32.108.157 (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptively putting a failed AFC Draft:Etemad (film) in mainspace in place of the existing article Etemad. Today, Navab eb7 has put the film article back in mainspace at Etemad (2019 film), and moved Etemad to Etemad (newspaper), finally redirecting the base name to the film article. They seem to be trying pretty hard to promote this film. I think this should all be undone. MB 01:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong, I did not transfer the original name to the name of the film. This is a lie؟؟؟--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The name of Etemad is a name. I transferred the same Etemad to the patronymic Etemad (newspaper).And I have separated the article of the film, which has nothing to do with the article of the newspaper. First, look, then slander.--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@MBI am suing you for slander and intent.--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Etemad (2019 film) is an article for a famous Iranian actor named Parviz Parastui

And it has nothing to do with newspapers. The reason for transferring Etemad in the Etemad (newspaper) is only for the benefit of the reader knowing that the newspaper page is personal.The user is lying.The article on Etemad in the film has not been transferred at all.--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction: the base name is a redirect to the newspaper article. However, the hatnote on the film article says the basename redirects there. MB 01:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the movie article ??I moved the Etemad name to a Etemad (newspaper). Redirecting is a crime؟؟--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@MB You should have asked me first on the article discussion page, instead of slandering me, please let the moderators deal with the wrong @MB I'm complaining to you.--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

While you are waiting for that, I suggest you read Wikipedia:No legal threats. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@109.158.199.97I did not threaten legally, I meant the complaint here, which you can see below, I complained about him to the managers--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you didn't mean it as a legal threat, why have you linked to Wikipedia:Libel? That page explicitly states that it concerns "policy with legal considerations". 109.158.199.97 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Complaints from the user:MB

I remember the user Wikipedia:Assume good faith or Wikipedia:Libel here I have a complaint The user easily slanders me and lies if I did not do it wrong at all.Please administrators Review.Thanks--Navab eb7 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This has resulted in a block per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 3 January 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.

Joel Osteen

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.

---

• Joel Osteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:BLP violations. Page protection and rev/deletion of defamatory content may be advisable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 72 hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 2 January 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.

Legal threat posted to canvass more legal threats at WiR

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.

---

2603:8000:D003:4028:7447:B75B:E6EE:7DA1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in this edit. Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it’s trolling but /64 blocked for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously spurious, but Duffbeerforme should perhaps be aware they were mentioned in that diff. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I’ve left a note on their talk page as they’ve not edited since before Christmas. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted a similar edit by Blacklisablack (t c) ([427]). I reported it at the revdel IRC, but there seems to be no action yet. --MarioGom (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Blocked and revdeleted. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 3 January 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.

Misrepresenting source and harassment of user

• Krakkos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

At Germans, they made a long edit (diff) including the claim that immigration has eroded the German social fabric and labor market. However, the source attributed that erosion to "globalization and the attendant neoliberal shift in economic policies". I detailed that problem at Talk:Germans#Misrepresentation of sources in line with far-right discourse (diff of my comment), (diff of their answer).

I feel personally harassed by them, because they alleged that I am on a campaign to cleanse Wikipedia of racism - meaning that they tracked my edits - and seemed to insinuate that I do POV edits in order to make Germany a more harmonious society (diff containing both quotes). The most recent case, but in my opinion not as serious as the former, was misrepresenting my position and ridiculing it by linking to WP:NOTDIC (diff). --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t read Krakkos’ comment about “cleans[ing] Wikipedia of racism” as being an allegation or accusation, but something of a compliment. Here’s a key quotation from the discussion: Abolishing German ethnicity may make Germany a more harmonious society, but erasing Wikipedia's coverage on the German ethnicity will certainly make Wikipedia less informative. (emphasis supplied). This is, at a glance (given how large the edits are here) my understanding of the dispute: You disagree with Krakkos’ edits as perhaps supporting a far-right agenda. Krakkos disagrees with your edits as an attempt to whitewash German history. To me, that’s a content dispute, and not the appropriate subject of a complaint here. The framing of this as harassment, with respect, strikes me as a case of selective quotation. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Johannes Moser writes in his encyclopedic entry article on Germans (page 175) that key challenges facing modern German society include globalization, neoliberalism, immigration and environmental changes, and that the social fabric and labor market has been eroded. I thought this was significant information which should be in our article about Germans. I wrote that the alleged social erosion was a result of both globalization and immigration. Your claim that i presented the social erosion only as a result of immigration is a misrepresentation of what i wrote, as can be seen from the diff. In retrospect, perhaps i should have mentioned all challenges mentioned by Moser in the same order as he did. In any regards, your outright removal of Moser's comments was not constructive.[428]

My comment on anti-racism was intended as a compliment. That you are strongly opposed to racism is the general impression from your user page and your comments at Talk:Germans. I strongly sympathize with your opposition to racism.

My note that you have advocated a dictionary definition for the Germans is not harassment. See Talk:Germans#Results of the RfC and this diff[429] for details. What is clearly harassment however, are your allegations that i edit "in line with far-right discourse" and have a "connection" to Hitler.[430] These are clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.

Note that Rsk6400 was warned by EdJohnston four weeks ago after edit warring with KIENGIR at Germans. Despite the warning, Rsk6400 has continued to edit war not just by blanking material added by me,[431] but also by continuing to revert changes by KIENGIR.[432][433] Krakkos (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged in this discussion. I sorry to see this in the end of the year. With much respect, but Rsk6400's dislike of some community feedback and content issues not the first time ends up in a personal way (sometimes with quite strange "conclusions"&assertions - btw., about these hilarious "cleanse racism" accusations I expressed my opinion more times in the relevant talk page), which I find not helpful and contructive (given the fact we have at more pages WP compliant discussions with evidence, and in the end civilized way the content issues are being discussed and even reviewed by many fellow editors). This report is pointless, because by any means the issue would be a content issue, which is not the subject of a noticeboard report. What I can tell, Krakkos is a quality contributor in our community, and I could always work out a fine consensus with him. This report should be closed. More Happy and Peaceful New Year with lots of Happy Editing I wish all members of our community!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

Someone saying that you are on a "campaign to cleanse Wikipedia of racism" (which has already been clarified by Krakkos) and to think that they have tracked your contributions is not harassment. I also see this report pointless and I doubt it will accomplish anything. For not saying that, as Krakkos has mentioned, you too have made certain allegations. Super Ψ Dro 22:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Having looked over this discussion, I can't help but agree that that distinct whistling noise is the sound of an incoming WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: I don't think it's a BOOMERANG case. Except you, me, and the IP, all contributors so far have been on the same side of the dispute at Talk:Germans. I was warned, but against making reverts of the lead, see here. Both KIENGIR and I complied, but made edits to the rest of the article. I didn't say that Krakkos has a "connection" to Hitler, but that the connection between the Holocaust and the war had also been made by Hitler, see diff. no. 179 above. And yes, presenting the politically very sensitive issue of immigration in the voice of WP as cause of the erosion of the German social fabric is "in line with far-right discourse". I think, the source[434] has been misrepresented in a disruptive way. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention Krakkos. I've experienced similar situations with user Rsk6400 in the past, he does seem to be on an sanitizing campaign here on wikipedia following his personal moral standards. While this is only natural and, quite often helpful, this user in particular is so extreme in his views that he indeed makes counterproductive destructive edits to articles that lower the quality of information and presentation. Currently on the page Ancient North Eurasians He is reverting edits under entirely personal and unsupported interpretations of wikipedia's rules. Such as:

A scientific subject cannot be presented based on news articles. Why do you think that WP:PSTS doesn't apply here ? Where does your source use "West Eurasian" in the sense of a population distinct from other populations ?

His first claim is complete and utter nonsense which I already verified in every single Wikipedia policies page. Scientific articles from reputed magazines are perfectly fine cases of secondary sources and useful for articles, he then utilizes a purposefully ignorant and personal interpretation of the term West Eurasian in order to claim that its use isnt related to the article, when in fact the very mention on the article talks about West Eurasian "POPULATIONS" in an strictly genetic context. This is a mild case however, compared to what I experienced on the now-deleted article on West Eurasians which I brought to the attention of other wikipedia admins. Under a self-proclaimed anti-racist tirade, he utilized a gross amount of personal interpretations to delete it, such as:

1.Most of editing, or in other words his main argument, is that genetic studies of ANY KIND do not represent valid sources to be used in Wikipedia at all, given that they are "primary sources" rather than "secondary sources". Now, I understand why in some fields this distinction is very important, but population genetics in general is a natural science field with a high degree of replicability and there are many, many Wikipedia articles written exclusively, or almost entirely, using papers on genetic studies which are published on journals and peer reviewed (secondary sources, yes?). These papers have mentions and are part of a non-contradicting scholarly canon. Wikipedia's guidelines themselves specify that primary sources might be proper sources under some cases and perfectly usable, and doesn't outright describe primary sources as non-valid, but rather that they should exist in assistance of secondary sources, which the article did have. What would be the best way to approach this directive to de-legitimize these sources or what can be done around it?

2.He deleted enormous chunks of the article based of "no long form of source given", even for what were direct textual quotes. I understand that a non-long quote provided isn't a valid reason to delete it, but he did nonetheless over actually helping the article by adding the sensible quote himself. This to me appears to be entirely destructive in nature and born out of bad will over a true intent to elevate the standard of Wikipedia.

3. As soon as this user found the article, he added extremely arbitrary maintenance tags, particularly describing the concept of West Eurasian as "fringe", and "not based on enough reliable sources". What's the users authority to enforce these tags, specially without any kind of supported consensus? Isn't over 30 different studies on the field enough to validate an article? Ive seen featured articles with a lesser number of quotations (not that it makes them bad articles). What's up with such arbitrary manipulation of the guidelines? He also called the terminology of West Eurasian itself fringe, despite dozens of studies textually describing it or its alternative "Western Eurasian".

4. One of the more bothersome ones is his obtuse enforcement of "academic consistency". For example when quoting different studies which are talking about the same exact remains (for example, MA1), he deletes the quotations due to them applying different nomenclature despite being about the same exact subject and with the same exact conclusions (i.e being called ancient north eurasian in one and "siberian hunter gatherer" in another). Is this a valid practice? And, how would one be able to circumvent it?

5. The chart I utilized at first that was produced by Lazaridis was referred as non-primary and I agree. I provided a similar chart from another actually published study but he deleted it by referring to it as "similar to the previously used one", how is this valid at all? The image was ultimately deleted as it was directly taken from the study, but were I to replicate it and reference to it what would stop him from applied this logic again?

He was told by admin @DougWeller: that the sources were legitimate here and even then he proceeded to act on his own accord in vigilante fashion, which from what I've told by other editors is customary of him. He has no respect and no regard for consensus or conversation and rather just tries push his views, no matter what it takes. He seems to constantly dismiss indications given in good faith by other users, and has gone as far as to defend what I suspect are known racialist sock-puppets of known puppeteer WorldCreaterFighter such as @Anusic99:/anonymous IP 81.10.217.91 just for the sake of being aligned to him in particular scenarios. I am currently building a case against him in order to hopefully have his editing capabilities monitored or outright limited, this user rarely contributes anything to Wikipedia, just reverts and destroys edits by other actual contributors, such as Krakkos in this case, which he is absurdily suggesting to be a far-right white supremacist. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Account dedicated to anti-Turkish agenda

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.

---

• Kevo327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User Kevo327 has made nearly 1000 edits in a span of 2 months since the start of Armenia-Azerbaijan war, all edits being related to Turkey and Armenia, whether it be from Tea in Turkey to Qarabağ FK football club. Nearly 500 Turkish village articles had their Turkish name removed for not being "referenced". The agenda of the account continues today, (1 January 2021) adding literal hoaxes, as I have noticed in an article I'd recently edited. Adding a hoax with 2 references next to it that have nothing to do with what the user put in to the article. [435] Tyler156 (talk)

Can this user be banned? I suspect they are paid to edit or may be connected to the Armenian Government, or an Armenian ultra nationalist NGO. Thank you. Please investigate this. Tyler156 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC) (Posted homophobic death threats on another user's page.)

Well let's see. has made nearly 1000 edits in a span of 2 months since the start of Armenia-Azerbaijan war, all edits being related to Turkey and Armenia yes i did, nothing wrong with this, Wikipedia doesn't ban having certain interests. Nearly 500 Turkish village articles had their Turkish name removed for not being "referenced". nearly 50 Syrian villages had their unofficial Turkish exonymes removed because there is no reference that says Turkish is spoken there or any other valid reason to include the Turkish exonym, this matter came up earlier this week and the leading discussion is still in my talk page The agenda of the account continues today, (1 January 2021) adding literal hoaxes, as I have noticed in an article I'd recently edited. Adding a hoax with 2 references next to it that have nothing to do with what the user put in to the article. The agenda? The Jerusalem post reference had the following in it "It is the largest expulsion of minorities by Turkey since the massacres and genocides of the First World War in the Ottoman Empire." Which you either didn't notice or didn't read the entire article, as for it being a hoax, the article has the same information in a nicer tone. (as noted by another editor, I hadn't noticed it before.) I suspect they are paid to edit or may be connected to the Armenian Government, or an Armenian ultra nationalist NGO. Isn't implying this without proof punishable for casting aspersions?

suggesting to ban a user because you just don't like them and immediately assuming bad faith followed by name calling isn't a valid argument. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Any one else looking at Tyler156's contributions and wondering? Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You mean wondering if there is a Turkish word for NOTHERE?   // Timothy :: talk  15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Nice borderline racism there Timothy. Why are you wondering the Turkish word for "not here", instead of the Armenian word for it? I believe there are about a 1000 more POV edits on that side which you seem to like or are even a part of the effort to spread it. Tyler156 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

      Tyler156, you're editing history places you on very thin ice; your accusations will make that ice crack. Multiple editors have objected to your POV edits in areas covered by dsanctions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

      A question - why did you remove an edit here with the summary "it is not mentioned in the references you added next to it" despite the fact that it is clearly mentioned in the Jerusalem Post article used as a citation? Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: this edit summary amd this summary / post need admin assistance   // Timothy :: talk  07:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Uh oh. EEng 07:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User got blocked for posting let's just say some of the most horrible things imaginable. A textbook case of a genocidal denying, enraged dingus like Jesus Christ. An admin should probably close this immediately. Des Vallee (talk) 07:30, 3 January 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.

Further developments in the caliph distruption

I'm pretty sure Arbcom and most admins will be aware of this, but the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has just relit the fire after things were dying down. See [436] (thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for making me aware of this). They are now demanding we remove "misleading, wrong, deceptive and deceitful information through articles published on Wikipedia portraying Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a Muslim". Pahunkat (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone helpfully created WP:CALIPH. The "hosting of caricatures of Holy Prophet (PBUH)" is different. I guess it's wait and see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t checked the latest on this development but, if not already done, I think it’s worth semi protecting related talk pages for a short duration and/or the use of an edit filter to send a warn message to non-autoconfirmed users, because editnotices don’t show on mobile. From my recollection in similar past cases, semiprot of talk does not de facto have a knockoff effect. The theory was that it shifts this burden to the Teahouse, but I don’t remember that being significantly true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If we are comparing with SSR, Teahouse had some [437] but Helpdesk had more [438]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, warn edit filter to send a message and revert if people still post nonsense, I guess. Any willing EFMs? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Both ArbCom and the back office are aware of the overall situation, but this is the first I've heard of it heating up again. That's unfortunate. This is just me talking, but I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the both the office and the committee's stance on this is "content issue, take it up with the community." I can alert the functionaries mailing list that this is resurfacing though, more eyes should help. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Edit filter may need to be switched back to disallow if things get out of control. Pahunkat (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• To continue from someone from the last thread: should we try to implement 1RR sanctions per WP:ARBIPA? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• That probably runs into the same issue that led the last thread to dismiss that claim: the very vast majority of these problematic edits are hit-and-runs by a new account that will most likely never edit again, making 1RR solely a burden on good-faith editors and utterly irrelevant to fixing the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I saw, it's indeed generally editors who do nothing except post to a talkpage once or make a single pass at one (or occasionally several) article edits. They have no intent of actually discussing or reading any header, notice, or response--strictly write-only one-time accounts. DMacks (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

1RR sanctions would not be helpful, as per the Bushranger and my comments on the last thread. Most are hit-and-run so I'd recommend revert and warn, RPP for pages which are constantly targeted and report particularly disruptive editors to AIV (or block if you are an admin). Pahunkat (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate may be needed soon. Every time protection expires we get more people posting here, and it's starting to resurface again after it expired on the 29th. Right now nothing is needed. Pahunkat (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have protected the talk page for a month (which is an exceptionally long protection term for a talk page) and I do not see what else we can do here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Blocking User who kept on Spreading false information without source

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.

---

Hi, Wikipedia adminitrators, HJ Mitchell redirect me to this page from my request on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

• Panikilicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On :Talaud Islands: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Repeated adding HOAX content without any reliable sources supporting it, as she did here>> 123. Terrence Tan (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for creating an ANI thread and providing diff links; these had not been present in your original report. I'm removing the copied decline message by HJ Mitchell because it has been taken out of context. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree:@EdJohnston: Panikilicious are kept on spreading HOAX EDIT as stated here > "Talaud Islands are the home of the Sangirese people a tribe in Davao of Mindanao island in the Philippines which was separated during the colonial era when the border of Indonesia and the Philippines was established."
• NOTE: In fact Sangirese people are not from the Philippines/a tribe in Davao of Mindanao but it was originated from Indonesia! on the rappler source here that you gave wasn't even said "which was separated during the colonial era when the border of Indonesia and the Philippines was established" so it's totally HOAX from you! So STOP adding information without true realible source. Terrence Tan (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Persistent addition of inappropriate and unsourced content at Richard V. E. Lovelace

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.

---

• Richard V. E. Lovelace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently we need multiple pictures of the subject climbing mountains. Created by a WP:COI account who refuses to divulge or engage. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

p-blocked from article, perhaps that'll encourage them to discuss. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Some possible WP:OWN concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 3 January 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.

Block this weird user

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 you please check on this user history (Sandy Anugrah), he loves to delete images from wiki biography page without any reason which is weird. I try to revert on Elvira Devinamira but yet he's doing the same thing again and again. I think this user should be blocked from wikipedia, its very disruptive ... As you can see here>>> (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16)--Terrence Tan (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please use WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• uninvolved user note this is the second currectly open AN/I thread about Sandy Anugrah, the first one is here. - Kevo327 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours for lack of sources, lack of edit summaries and lack of communication, as per the section above. Thank you, Kevo327. Bishonen | tålk 13:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC).

Terrence Tan, I am curious, oh WP:PRECOCIOUS one, where did you attempt to resolve the dispute with Sandy Anugrah? You didn't post to their user talk page... You smell like User:I Nyoman Gede Anila. Shall we see what a WP:SPI turns up? Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrence Tan is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of I Nyoman Gede Anila and has been blocked. Elizium23, instead of accusing someone of sock puppetry and threatening to file an SPI report, just go and file a report. There is absolutely no benefit to the project when you accuse someone of sock puppetry and threaten to file a report like this. If they're trolls, you're just encouraged them to keep up what they're doing before they get blocked. If they're being deceptive, you've just told the user that you're on to them, which encourages them to go create more accounts before they see their account blocked. Plus, it saves you from looking bad and having to apologize should the SPI report come back that they're unrelated. ;-) Next time, just file a report at SPI and don't let the user know that you've discovered who they are. It, in a way, defeats the purpose if you do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:53, 3 January 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.

Legal threat by IP

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.

---

• Rangers F.C. signing policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2A02:C7F:B014:BD00:ADBA:4F1D:2CDB:D68C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

On Rangers F.C. signing policy, IP @2A02:C7F:B014:BD00:ADBA:4F1D:2CDB:D68C: has made a spate of vandalism attacks on the page but his last edit brought my attention where he says in the summary =997732145&oldid=997732073 "Libellous content. Interdict pending", which is a Scottish legal equivalent of an injunction. I know @Bongwarrior: blocked him for 3 days but I feel longer might be needed, even if it is Old Firm-inspired mucking about. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 addresses turn over really fast, IIRC, so a longer block would probably be pointless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 2 January 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.

Jacob de Joe – linkspam

• Jacob de Joe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have just come across Jacob de Joe (talk · contribs), who popped up on my watchlist adding a reference to an article,[439] which did not support the claim being made (the source says nothing about the stand being dismantled in 2012). Looking through their edits, this is a repeated pattern (e.g. adding a reference (citypopulation.de) to Nematabad-e Ghar despite the source not listing the village and doing the same for Maleh-e Shirkhan). They are also adding links to Wikispecies despite there being no corresponding content there.[440][441]

Slightly more worryingly, many of their edits are to add links to spammy scraper websites,[442][443][444][445][446] some of which are briefly mentioned at WP:RSN (Mapcarta, AnyPlaceAmerica).

My suspicion is that they are using Wikipedia for search engine optimisation or to get traffic for the spammy websites. I would suggest a mass rollback, but there are a few good edits in their log (linking to Wikispecies in cases where there is a corresponding article). Is there a bot that will remove links to inappropriate websites, or can they be added to a blacklist to prevent further additions? Likewise, despite the few good edits (possibly to cover up the others) is this a WP:NOTHERE block? Cheers, Number 57 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Number 57 - There is a spam blacklist that you can add URLs to. It's located here. Make sure that you know what you're doing though; it requires knowledge of regex in order to fill in properly. If you need help with this, you can message me on my user talk page and I'll be happy to help. I believe that the majority of bots will only revert edits as they see them come in and as they're compared to the spam blacklist live; I don't know on the top of my head if there are any that remove links from articles if they happen to match an addition to the blacklist later (I could be wrong, though, so don't quote me on this). I think we should go through the user's edit history and manually roll back the edits that add these links. Is this sufficient enough for a WP:NOTHERE block? I'd have to go through and look before I could determine that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions by Bgkc4444

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.

---

• Bgkc4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Bgkc4444 was warned in a previous report by Ivanvector to assume good faith in dealing with editors, such as myself, to which they responded, "I do apologise for assuming bad faith, and I will try keep a check on that." ([447]) Having been pinged to a discussion at Talk:Surprise album#Removal of sourced material, given my contributions several months ago, I noticed they are still making bad-faith accusations and suggestions toward other editors, Fezmar9 specifically, and I see these are similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before.

• [448] "no matter if you personally dislike those facts", is how they opened the discussion after their only series of changes to the article in recent memory was reverted yesterday
• [449] "And you do not own this page so how dare you tell me to 'leave well enough alone' because you personally don't want to accept or display these basic facts." ("own" was pipe-linked to WP:OWN)
• [450] "we shouldn't not be making articles encyclopedic because we personally don't want readers to know the full story."
• [451] "It's funny looking at what you're trying to force into the article."
• [452] "Watch your tone, and it would be great if you stopped with the whataboutism and actually responded to my points. And well, no. As much as you'd love it to be the truth, Swift's albums aren't the main events in surprise album history like Radiohead and Beyonce's albums."
• [453] "Again with the ignoring of my points? ... I hope you're not refusing to engage in discussion, because this isn't your article, and you should want to reach consensus to ensure it is encyclopedic." ("this isn't your article" was pipe-linked, again, to WP:OWN)
• [454] "I'm not the one reverting to force my contradictory opinions onto the page."
• [455] "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."
• [456] "The way editors on this page are trying to bury that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album in a "shared" paragraph really isn't helpful."

I gave own input on the content dispute, with comments focusing strictly on the editor's changes and the content, rather than the editor's conduct or intentions, and even restored a piece of information that had been undone from Bgkc4444's original edit, but with a more appropriate source. Bgkc4444 replied by quoting a remark I made several months ago about what I felt was toxic and condescending behavior by them, while accusing the editors in disagreement with them of "trying to bury" information and "hiding the significance" of a particular subject. In my own opinion, I did not see anything suggesting Fezmar9 or BawinV have behaved or intended to behave in the way Bgkc4444 has said or suggested.

Content disputes can get heated and emotional. But, considering Ivanvector's advice in the aforementioned report, for more diligence in reporting incidents, I feel obligated to report this activity. Perhaps it will deter this kind of behavior so the rest of us can feel comfortable and encouraged, rather than compelled, to comply with more civil and patient standards of discussion about content. And so potentially toxic or unfair comments do not become normalized or countered by similar accusations and suggestions in discussions that should not lose focus of the content. Thank you. isento (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you say "similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before", but I believe you're referring to your continuous personal attacks despite final warnings from administrators, which caused you to be blocked just ten days ago. I also believe you admitted your personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), said you want no further interaction with me multiple times, and called this administrators' noticeboard a kangaroo court of hypocrites, so I genuinely cannot think of a good reason why you'd join a discussion that you know I started and then complain about my actions to the same noticeboard.

Secondly, I do not see how these are "continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions". I certainly stick by my contributions to the discussion that I had made, unless I violated Wikipedia guidelines that I am not aware of. It is certainly true that both in the previous discussion and in the current one, editors explicitly agreed to ignore my points (especially you, when you said: "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.") and then consequently claimed that consensus was reached. I am happy to go through each of the out-of-context quotes you brought here one-by-one, but I don't want to waste time and would appreciate an administrator's POV. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My conduct has already been addressed in the previous report. I have learned from and am over it. Nor will I be baited into further behavior of that kind -- as I clearly said above, I was pinged to that discussion and had contributed significantly to the article. WP:HOTHEAD makes it clear that project[ing] negative mental assumptions about someone you're in a disagreement with is wrong, and saying things like "no matter if you personally dislike those facts" or making repeated accusations of page ownership seemed to fit the bill to me. So I reported it. I think a more formal warning rather than a block is appropriate, especially since Bgkc444 responded so defensively and was quick to highlight my past transgressions rather than reflect on their own behavior. They have demonstrated a pattern of making inflammatory or unactionable accusations ([457], as warned by Escape Orbit, and elsewhere: [458], [459], as warned by the since-retired admin Ad Orientem). And believe they should be held accountable for it like anyone else. isento (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this WP:BAIT? I believe bait would be something like - after being blocked for continuous attacks on an editor, pledging a personal intolerance of them and pleading to not have interactions with them again - joining a discussion that that editor started, "remaining superficially civil" (e.g. as you said, you "even" restored a small piece of the material that I added) and "then complain to an administrator". I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hoped you had changed and wouldn't try and ruin my editing experience for me as you have continuously done for months, but unfortunately I took the bait and here we are. Fezmar9 and I were in a NPOV dispute and we both accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on both mine and Fezmar9's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here. The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not both editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate. Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday at the aforementioned discussion, while pointing out the source-integrity flaws in Bgkc4444's original edits to the article, I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail.

This editor appears to routinely attack the intentions and credibility of other editors who do not agree with their Beyonce-focused content changes, such as at Alecsdaniel's talk page here a month ago: All of this does not indicate you are acting to improve this article, and instead shows that you're trying to make the film seem "worse" ... As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles ... repeatedly trying to force your edits onto the article that you know violate Wikipedia policies related to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. This is another example where the editor was disagreed with and overwhelmed the other editor with WP:HOTHEAD-like accusations and suggestions, and when the other editor gave a valid response addressing the issue and then bowed out, Bgkc4444 still continued with the same line of argument, accusing the other editor of "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and "pretending to not realise why your material was removed and repeatedly blame it on my intelligence or personal agenda (it's because it violates Wikipedia's policies, by the way)" while suggesting that they have not been "engaging in constructive discussion". isento (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I can honestly say my experience with Bgkc4444 was the worst on the English Wikipedia. "Black is King", a film by Beyonce, had the 'Reception' section filled only with overly-long praises from various sources and failed to address any criticism. In order to give the article a level of objectivity, I've added reviews or points made that weren't praising Beyonce, which the user removed. Despite having a conversation and a vote on the talk page of Black is King, in which other users agreed the points I raised were valid, he continued to remove anything he didn't see as good reviews. I've tried to talk to them, but, as seen from the answers given to Isento even here, they fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar. I truly believe this kind of attitude is toxic for people to interact with, which is why I left them to their device, and there is still only praise on the "Black is King" page. Furthermore, since they lack objectivity, it is really hard to say how much their contributions value on Wikipedia, as this is not a fan page. But not everybody gets that. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Seriously, are you not tired of this? And are you refusing to address my points even here?

"I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail." - Very benevolent of you, but because Fezmar9 and I are currently in a discussion regarding this content, I did not want to add material without ensuring there was consensus on it. And I'm not having a discussion with you while you're trying your hardest to get me blocked on here. I learned my lesson from the first bait-taking.

And seriously, why are you bringing up months-old content disputes? It's actually sad that you'd try pick out random out-of-context quotes from a content dispute I had with someone months ago while ignoring their same messages to me as well as their personal attacks on my intelligence, something you have also done for months. I'll bring it here again. Fezmar9 and I, and Alecsdaniel and I, were in NPOV disputes and we all accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on mine, Fezmar9 and Alecdaniel's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here (and, to add, a months-old discussion isn't an emergency either). The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not all editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate.

This is hilarious. Isento says I should be blocked because I said another user is "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and not "engaging in constructive discussion", and Alecsdaniel follows saying that I "fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar". Alecsdaniel you can say that all you want! Accusing me of avoiding the issue is a wrong characterization, but that is certainly not something that goes against Wikipedia's policy or warrants administrators' attention. If it does, Isento, again, why not address both of us? To that end, @Alecsdaniel: please bring one question that I did not answer, because I can bring up many that you did not answer. No, as I said months ago, polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that your material violated WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT (you admitted that you looked for sentences in reviews that matched your personal opinions of the film), yet those issues are still something that you haven't addressed months later. I've stated many times that I welcome additions of "negative" content to the article, added such material myself to the article, cut the rest of the material considerably down, and have tried to have constructive discussion on the article talk page and your talk page. I don't see the point of continuing our discussion here when no-one replied to me when I tried making discussions on the talk pages. This is a noticeboard to get administrators' assistance, not discuss content disputes. I feel bad, Isento, that you're trying to drag this on. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your answer just backed my claims. Thanks! Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for being hard on you in the past and saying things out of frustration that I did not mean. I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in. I also know how it feels to become defensive and distressed when we feel our space violated or threatened. As I stated above, I do not want you blocked. But for us to coexist, we all must change. When there is a pattern of conflict, we must see that there is fault in some behavior or aspect of our behavior that we keep repeating. And as harsh as it may appear to read, our comments have truth to them. isento (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? Your condescending comments and faux psychoanalysis are extremely inappropriate. Please see your talk page. To stay focused on the actual discussion. What conflict do we currently have? The only thing I said to you was a comment last week saying that something "isn't helpful", and with another user I've had an NPOV dispute. These are not urgent or emergency matters that require administrators' discipline. The discussion here isn't going to go anywhere if you continue to ignore the points I raise. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You have admitted to having mental health issues here and here, and my point was to try relating my own experience with mental health issues to you so you would stop compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD), and instead appreciate the good faith that is there. But this response tells me I failed to do that -- instead of seeing the effort through good faith, you completely misread it through a bad-faith lens, which betrays a problem. And this noticeboard is not only for "urgent or emergency matters". It is also for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." isento (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Where do I admit that I have "mental health issues"?? I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health. I never said I have "mental health issues", nor that I've lived in an "abusive household", nor that I "feel handicapped by it", nor that I "use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in". It is highly inappropriate and actually quite disgusting that you'd make those assertions about me. If you'd want to appear as acting in good faith, it would probably be best to avoid telling other editors that they are handicapped idolaters with mental health issues. And I don't believe you're stupid so I know that you know what the right thing to do is.

Unsurprisingly, it's hard to see good faith in someone who has abused me for the better part of a year with horrible personal attacks and insults, which evidently hasn't stopped. It's hard to see good faith in someone who was blocked for this abuse against me just last week, who admitted their personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), and has said that they want no further interaction with me multiple times, but then reply to a discussion that I started and then when I reply, immediately report me to ANI. That doesn't indicate good faith. I assume you know that you yourself have problems with "compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD)" and making personal attacks, because every time I have to discuss this issue with you, either I write a note on your talk page under another note on your talk page about incivility directed against another editor, or other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them. If you know you have a problem with other editors so much, and especially me, and if you truly want other editors to view your actions as being in good faith, there are many options you can choose to do that. Interacting with editors when you know you shouldn't, reporting them to ANI and continuing with baseless personal claims about them are not some of those options. To that note, how would you know if those issues are "tractable" if instead of writing a polite message on my talk page, you either write uncivil or condescending comments or go immediately to ANI? Again, this makes it harder for me to see your actions as being in good faith, if that is truly what you want to gain from this discussion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences. Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally. As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning and getting accused of mocking them ([460]), merely because I said please don't restore the content again. These responses are consistently combative and distracting the focus from their behavior to mine when mine has already been addressed in the previous report. That is by definition intractable. That they respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue. isento (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for all the mean, intolerant things I've said to you in the past 😢 I'm sorry if they hurt you so much. I believe my concerns here are valid and of good-faith, but I am still sorry. isento (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences." - No, you said: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." Saying "know how it feels" means that you're making those assertions about me. That's obvious, Isento, and if you want to appear as acting in good faith then pretending you never said that doesn't help. "Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally." - Again, I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health, not that I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues.

"As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning" - No you didn't. You just repeatedly placed warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replied sarcastically when I asked you to clarify. This clearly shows that you were not writing polite messages on my talk page, despite the fact that WP:UW clearly states that "issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with", not writing personal messages, and not clarifying yourself can all indicate that the editor is acting uncivilly. And even if you did write a constructive message on my talk page (which you didn't), we're talking about a discussion from this week, not 6 months ago.

"respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue" - Telling me that you relate to me because I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues and you get where I'm coming from is not in any way an apology, and having an issue with such accusations is not being defensive nor "indicative of this long-term issue".

Isento, it is not "past behavior" or "things I've said to you in the past" because this is very clearly an ongoing problem. Yes, your comment to me is highly inappropriate and I tried discussing it with you on your talk page, but you deleted it (as you always have done when I write personal messages on your talk page regarding your behavior) and replaced it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today". And you're clearly not sorry or bothered about ruining others' experiences on Wikipedia if, when I tell you the distress that you've caused me, you say that I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Alecsdaniel was right. You're proving my point. And as for the song, not everything is about you - we all have our own lives and crises of conscience to which you have no relevance. I was rude and sarcastic in the past because I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego, since this noticeboard post isn't even a content dispute and since you have verbosely attacked the merits of this post, God knows why if you don't think it has any merit to begin with. I apologized and took responsibility for the past, but your continued aggression makes me feel regretful and foolish for doing so, since you seem incapable of considering or taking any blame on your part when multiple editors have pointed out to you that you've got a problem. I will now leave this in the more capable hands of administrators. Bowing out 🙏 isento (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see here, I wish users Isento and Bgkc4444 would WP:DISENGAGE. Both of you keep going back and forth, often more heated than the last. In my opinion, as an uninvolved third-party, both of your behavior toward each other is inappropriate and unacceptable. Regarding specific issues: Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out. However, Isento is a very experienced editor with over 120,000 edits and has been here since 2008. Given that breadth of experience, I feel that they should be more than capable of handling this type of issue without being so easily brought down to a level of interaction which is lesser than should be expected of them. (Personally, to witness this happening to such an experienced editor is disheartening.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan, I am sorry for disappointing you. It was a very rough year, and I let it seep into my activity here sometimes. But I am healing. Hence the inspiration for posting the song. I'm not a machine. I've had issues too. And I really got to sympathize with what I sensed the editor was going thru because I've been there too. I hope my shortcomings have at least served to help another editor see theirs. Because they have positive potential that can help the project. isento (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your comment. Could I possibly ask you to clarify when I "ignore[d] local consensus on pages"? Is that regarding my quote that Isento brought saying: "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."? Because that sentence is certainly true. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, mostly, as you admitted to it, consensus is a complicated thing. If you're on a page and there's a total of four editors (yourself included) discussing things on a talk page, and three of them are in agreement and you disagree, you're facing growing local consensus. Now, if you don't think you and your arguments are being given a fair shake, that's why we have the RFC system and dispute resolution system, where third parties can be brought in from a wider scope to the page and help weigh-in on disputed matters. If you find yourself facing down three editors (concurring with the position you oppose) by yourself, without any other support, and you keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself without using some of those systems I just mentioned, that is definitely a fertile ground for problematic behavior, if not somewhat problematic in itself. I heavily disagree with you saying it is certainly true, as it is more likely to be untrue than true (in this context). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your response. That isn't exactly what happened. Editor A started a discussion about various edits done by Editor B, and I tried to bridge the two and voiced my agreements and disagreements of points within both arguments, however this was met with intolerance (e.g. "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.". WP:CON states that "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.", so the conclusion of that discussion cannot be considered a consensus just because it's "3 vs 1" and especially if the "3 side" explicitly said to ignore the "1 side"'s concerns. I also believe that I do not "keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself". WP:CON further states that soliciting outside opinions should be done when there is a deadlock, but the discussion lasted for only ~12 hours before my opinions were told to be ignored and that request was heeded, so I didn't solicit outside opinions because we hadn't even had a proper discussion, let alone form any consensus. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, thank you, but I've already gone through plenty of pages related to the contributions of both you and Isento so I can make informed comments.

Regarding the incident you linked, I would also like to point out your comment. Both of you have been editing music-related pages (most notably Beyonce-related), so it makes sense for you to end up in the talk pages thereof. Things really didn't become personal until that comment, which targeted Isento with an implication of WP:HOUNDING. (Such that BawinV discouraged you from that behavior.) If you feel that they are, then you need to report that, you don't escalate the confrontation. Reading through the talk pages, it seems that after Isento appeared you become much more disagreeable and your statements became pointed.

Both here and in examples that have been pointed out, you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering which isn't very constructive for the purposes of the project in my opinion. The number of other editors who have expressed their dissension with your interactions is concerning. While trying to assume good faith, I am also inclined to point out that someone more cynical might think you're gaming the system, as Isento likely does, as they have accused you of making bad-faith accusations.

I would also like to point out that when Isento has posted a good list of diffs regarding your content, you have been misdirecting the conversation. While I appreciate the link to Isento's statement, they have already been disciplined for it. This AN/I is not about them, it's about you. To ignore the accusations of misconduct by you by pointing out the misbehavior of others is whataboutism and not a very good-faith tactic to engage in.

These are the reasons Isento and Alecsdaniel have said that your statements prove their points and I have to agree with them to a certain degree, which I don't necessarily want to. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that consensus was reached on that page even though WP:CON states that consensus is not when editors ignore others' concerns nor when there's 3 vs 1? And apologies that I made a suggestion of possible hounding on that talk page three months ago, but Isento's personal attack to me is not justified because of that, in the same way that my suggestion wasn't justified by his preceding personal attacks to me. And I don't understand why you're pinging other editors....

Please explain in what way I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" (and gaming the system)? That's a pretty serious claim to make and one that is considered an insult if it doesn't address a specific argument.

Which brings me on to this. I still don't understand exactly what my supposed violation of Wikipedia guidelines that warranted this ANI report was, any more than I was in an NPOV dispute which I don't understand why it would warrant such an approach. In my first response to this discussion, I said so, and have said so repeatedly throughout this discussion, but I am none the wiser. Also, there's nothing wrong with giving the full story to any administrator reading this because there is no "immunity" for reporters (WP:SHOT). Bgkc4444 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The far more serious claim that I took serious offense to and ended up losing faith and seriousness for you was being accused of racism and misogyny: To quote Ivanvector in the previous report: "I read isento's comment from August (this one) criticizing a source as "just some neurotic vapid lecture about Swift "oversharing"", which in the next edit you described as "[isento] dismissing this article by saying "it just isn't a serious piece of commentary" because the work of a black female writer "is just some neurotic vapid lecture" and said it "sounds extremely misogynistic and racist"." When I warned you about it in August as a personal attack, you doubled-down on the claim: "Calling out your racism and misogyny is not considered a personal attack, because there is evidence of this behaviour" Now, I was going thru a lot at the time in my life, so I was bone-headed enough to talk down to you in response, and from there, I ended up stooping to your level further, as Gwennie-nyan suggested. There was no legitimate reason for accusing me of that. And you never owned up to it. I don't want to be a hypocrite and assume bad-faith as to why you'd accuse me of that, or why you'd continue denying that you have demonstrated a problem. So I am left with no other conclusion than it has been a mental health issue. To avoid the complication of improving an article we both have an interest in, for instance, I really hope we don't need an interaction ban, but it seems from your responses that you still don't get the problem, which resigns me to leaning toward Gwennie's proposal, sad to say. isento (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, for your understanding, consensus is a variable thing. If you're facing superior numerical resistance, the strength of the argument you need is much stronger than if otherwise. However the spirit of consensus is plurality is probably the best, not always, but probably. One of the biggest factors in gaming and wikilawyering is trying to cite policy to go against the spirit of policy, cherry-picking arguments, or such that make you look better without actually improving your case.

Regardless, you just did it again, we're not talking about Isento's conduct, we're talking about yours. They already received their 3-day block for it. In fact, this AN/I report is directly a result of their admonition by the admins, recommending they file more reports instead of fighting you on talk pages if they have a concern. (Additionally, I ping other editors when I reference them in case they want to comment on or correct my portrayal of their comments.)

Full stories are fine, but it's quite clear you cherry-pick Isento's comments out more than you defend your own. There's not immunity for reporters, no, but unless it's extremely evident that a report is made in bad faith, part of assuming good faith is to assume the reporters have the best of intentions. Equally another part is to discuss and try to have the accused explain their actions. Isento has owned up to their bad conduct, admitted it, accepted their punishment, and is trying to follow admin recommendations for the future. No one expects an editor to be perfect, heck I'm not, but we do expect some modicum of self-awareness and self-critique. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: I do not understand how I can explain my actions if no-one explains their problems with them to me. Am I right in saying that you're claiming that I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" solely because I said that reaching consensus involves incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns, and that you believe the spirit of consensus is not based on incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns? If so, I'd have to strongly disagree. Further, I'd appreciate more examples that warranted the unsubstantiated claim of a "significant amount of wikilawyering" and gaming the system, and tenditious editing. And that's not what the administrator said; they said that they should report "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if an editor is having an NPOV dispute with someone. And Isento has not "owned up" to it because they continue to tell me that I have mental health issues. I don't see why you expect me to be okay with these insults. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Having had some interactions with Isento, it is my fair opinion that he is the problematic one, not Bgkc4444. In regards to Beyoncé's 346 ASCAP-registered songwriting credits, Isento typed : "If I were to compile 346 parking tickets, that would not make me a professional criminal.", "It is up to editors to make judgement calls." All editors were calm, but he increasingly got emotional and argumentative. In my observation, he's the one that showed tendentious and POV pushing issues, even editing my own post and repeatedly using the history page to antagonize other editors. Yes, Isento was disciplined for his actions, but he did not show much remorse, calling ANI a "kangaroo court" [461]. Also, on one occasion, Bgkc4444 questioned consensus in regards to the lead of Beyoncé's article but did not edit the lead to reflect her position. There was then another RfC in regards to the infobox, and consensus was reached. Israell (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that when having a disagreement with Bgkc4444 over the "Black is King" article, as seen here [462], a strange thing happened, which I am not sure if it's notable or not. I've added a review in that article in which I mentioned that some African people didn't like their portrayal in the film, to which Bgkc4444 replied that "Also you previously said that it was "Africans" who said your criticism, and yet you're Romanian" - my nationality, ethnicity or any other part of my identity, I think, shouldn't matter, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Futhermure, he continued by mentioning that "As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles.", which, frankly, seems to accuse ME of racism, as I was a fan of a white artist (as he clearly pointed out several times during our conversations) who added negative content in that article - even if properly sourced. I believe that is very serious suggestion which shouldn't be treated lightly, Gwennie-nyan. I've let it slide, but after reading what Isento had to say, it seems that this is not the only time he has done so. It further affected my personal time on Wikipedia, as I was now debating if adding a negative review meant I was contributing in some way to the micro or macro aggressions that Black people have to face every day. Please take notice of this comment as well. Thank you! Alecsdaniel (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe Alecsdaniel knows that's not what happened and that they shouldn't misrepresent what I said or the case. They added three positive reviews, two from Black Americans and one from Africans, but picked out-of-context negative-sounding sentences from the reviews and put it in the article, despite all three reviews refuting those negative points. They said it was because they wanted to represent the views of "actual Africans", but the one sentence that they did bring from a review written by Africans wasn't written by the reviewers, but was by a Twitter user that the reviewers quoted and said they disagreed with. I tried to clearly explain how this violated the policies related to issues such as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but was told by Alecsdaniel right from the beginning: "you are showing a clear bias" and that "often fans of singers like Beyonce and Lady Gaga take control of an article". These are claims they stuck by, even though I have said many times both before Alecsdaniel said that and after that I welcome negative points in this article and this is not what the content dispute is about and have added a policy-compliant summary of negative points to the article as well. They then told me "it is not a personal attack, my comment about those fandoms come from my direct interaction with those fandoms", which is not a justification for their actions. Isento then joined in against me and started an RfC. Alecdaniel's one of only two contributions to this was, after Isento told me "Five paragraphs of regurtitated praise and you're quibbling over a few measly sentences suggesting less-than-flattering yet valid thoughts? Forget personal attacks. We're dealing with a Beyhive attack.", they replied "So it would seem ...". The unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that Alecdaniel's additions violated the policies about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and that editor, Isento and I were having a lengthy and (mostly) constructive discussion about the material.

Months later, Alecsdaniel then readded the exact same material that they knew violates Wikipedia guidelines without further discussion, and acting against what was spoken about in the discussion, saying "There was a vote, the paragraph stays" despite the fact that polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the main conclusion from the discussion was that the material violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, something which they haven't recognised (eg. they then told Timeheist: "I can't even imagine what you consider "material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia" if reviews from trust-worthy sources fall into that category for you".) Then I started a section on their talk page so that we could discuss this. Alecsdaniel unfortunately met me with claims of "You simply want it buried", "If you cared about being objective", and "I am afraid you don't understand what an encyclopedia is", as well as "some fandoms are notoriously ... difficult, even here, and you only seem only too willing to push that narrative". I raised the issue of their personal attacks, but I was told "I feel like you are reading too much into what I say or do - and not even paying attention to everything". Alecsdaniel then also said that they added those negative points because these were things that they personally believed when watching the film. That is when I highlighted the fact that they're not African, not to say that their concerns should be ignored (and I obviously think the opposite because I was the one taking part in a lengthy constructive discussion on their suggestions, not them, added material to the article to match what they wanted, and started a discussion on their talk page), but to highlight that their argument changed from that the material that violates Wikipedia guidelines should be added because it was written by "actual Africans" to because those were their personal beliefs. And no, I never called them a racist or said they were engaging in micro or macro aggressions, but I apologise if my comment suggested that or if they felt that I was making personal attacks. Again, if I believed Alecsdaniel was only making these edits because of some malicious agenda, I would not have constructively engaged in the RfC discussion, tried to reach consensus, edited the article to accommodate their views, or written a message on their talk page. In fact, the opposite of these 4 points applies to Alecsdaniel's actions. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Israell, I agree some of their behavior has not been acceptable. They have been (to some extent) and will be held to account if it becomes problematic. I have heard similar opinions from other editors regarding Bgkc4444 as you have regarding Isento, I think a general two-way interaction ban is the most fair to two editors. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: To reply to your point in the other thread, I've repeatedly asked you and Isento to explain your assertions about my behavior, but still I receive no reply - I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "Don't just wiki-link a bunch of policies... Quote what you mean." and also "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'." Further, "bringing up that again isn't always the best thing to do" and "if it becomes problematic" aren't the best comment to make on a case where an editor who had just been blocked for personal attacks against an editor repeatedly tells that editor that they have mental health issues. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, understanding is important and since you and I are having trouble seeing eye-to-eye, let's try changing the format to be more clear. Please respond to this message with specific assertions you need explained (preferably one per line) and I will do my best to reply to them in an itemized fashion (as I've done elsewhere).

(Also, side note which is optional but helpful, consider putting quotes in {{Talk quote inline}} or {{!xt}} templates depending on venue. This can make it much easier to read by separating quotes from message text.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan Thanks. Just starting on two points, you said:

• "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering"
• "Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out"

I do not believe either assertion is correct. I went to the help desk to ask about wikilawyering because the way you were describing it didn't make much sense and seemed to go against Wikipedia's guidelines itself. I was told "Wikilawyering tends to give me a certain vibe that a person thinks they are clever, and above the rules due to their cleverness. You did none of that." You repeatedly claimed that the spirit of consensus isn't about reaching some conclusion together (which is what the "con" part of consensus refers to) but instead about whether it's 3 vs 1; however, this is not based on the policy itself (and again, I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'.") and this actually goes against what the policy specifically says. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, thank you for listing this plainly (apologies for the delay, life has been very busy for me)

• regarding wikilawyering: In some of your general talk posts, you seem to constantly try to cite policy or guidelines in a very copy-paste-link manner and try to argue them like this is a court of law or tribunal, it's not. While policies are more rigid and there's WP:IAR waiting in the wings too, ultimately rules on the Wiki are mostly fluid (except for certain legally-required rules WMF enforces). Additionally you seem to apply them mostly to excuse yourself but not others. Unequal application is not a practice that is typically found among those arguing in good faith.
• regarding tendentious-ness and POV-pushing: you tend to edit in a way that (assuming good faith) is poorly-worded from a social point-of-view. It seems to imply that your edits and perspective are best in certain situations, and the core focus on tendentious-ness is repeated WP:NPOV issues.

I would like to point out that the ANI Advice you linked isn't a policy or guideline, but an essay. It's not considered authoritative. It is a single user's perspective. Additionally, that quote about WikiLawyering is, again another editors perspective on the issue. These perspectives above, however, are mine. The aggregation of perspective is the basic element of consensus. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

As someone shared their experience with this user, I also want to. Particularly gatekeeping "Savage (song)", in which I removed content from bad sources months ago, citing the reasons, several times. I've checked the article again after all this time, and he put it back again. There's a considerable level of wp:fancruft with his edits, saturing articles... Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced material (Billboard isn't a "bad source") and making trivial edits (random spaces, removal of full quotes) is not constructive editing, and I've tried starting a discussion with you four times here, here, here, and here, but for some reason you don't engage. It'd be preferable for everyone if you pick one of those to continue the content dispute instead of ANI where your actions will be scrutinized also. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged so I thought I'd chime in. It looks like my interaction with Bgkc4444 at Surprise album has already been brought up. I felt their edits of up-playing Beyonce and downplaying all other artists on that page demonstrated a clear bias. There's a lot to read here, so I admit I didn't read all of it, but I hope it has not gone unnoticed that this discussion is about Bgkc4444's bad-faith assumptions and the majority of their responses here seem to assume bad faith and take a defensive tone. My interactions with Bgkc4444 have been meandering and loaded with aimless whataboutism tangents that don't actually go anywhere, so I do not wish to comment here further. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolution Proposal

(Non-administrator comment) As a non-admin who has dug into this issue, I would like to propose the admins implement the following proposal:

• Talk/Interaction Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 interacting with the other, anywhere, unless required by policy, enforced by blocks. (This would hopefully resolve the ongoing issue between the two editors.)
• Topic Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 from Beyonce-related pages, broadly-construed. (Recommended by Levivich)
• Formal Admonishment
  • of Bgkc4444 for tendentious editing, wikilawyering, and periodical whataboutism.
  • of Isento for tendentious editing, hounding Bgkc4444, and casting aspersions.
• Mentorship for both Isento and Bgkc4444 to help them learn from this incident and to move forward in more productive fashion for the project.

Respectfully, ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) (Updated: 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

After reading this thread and some of the talk page discussions linked therein, I think this proposal is too weak. Warnings have already been issued; this isn't the first ANI thread. As far as I can tell, both editors are creating disruption in the topic area that is wasting other editors' time. A 2-way interaction ban will stop them from disrupting each other, but not from disrupting everyone else (plus, ibans are a pain to enforce for editors who edit in the same topic area). I think tban them both from Beyonce, broadly construed. Maybe also an iban, but an iban alone won't help. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, added your suggestion above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So how long is this block gonna be this time? isento (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, it hopefully won't be necessary, provided you both abide by the iban, provided it's implemented. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I'm down for an iban. I'm also down for simply disengaging from "poorly worded" remarks by editors. I am down for healthier activity and conduct. isento (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I'm glad you're beginning to take this route. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

[463] isento (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses

I haven't been involved in any Beyonce-related articles since my block four weeks ago and I hadn't planned to. I was pinged to the talk page of Surprise album a few weeks ago by a different editor because I had contributed there in the past, and Bgkc444 was there, on a Beyonce-related matter. I responded appropriately and strictly to the content, and they responded back tendentiously, as much on editors as on the content. And I felt obligated to report it as an instance in a long-term pattern, regardless of whether I had been involved in that pattern, because that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report. I would really rather they see the light too, so to speak, and tbh, a topic ban feels embarrassing, almost as embarrassing as my past interactions with them. As Gwennie suggested before, I brought this on myself by stooping to their level and I should've known better. But I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles. Tackling the content disputes, I will admit, was more inspired by offense to observing biased and tendentious editing. I did not intend to cause them distress or to offend them, but I did end up doing so out of my own distress and offense with them. And whether I should've tackled those disputes or not, doing so the way I did was never constructive in the big picture - it was always going to depend on the cooperation of more editors than just me or them, and the infighting simply alienated that process. I do believe I had a problem with civility even before this at times, and I am grateful this process has helped me evolve and become more patient and self-aware, and less ego-driven. I hope you can trust I won't pursue or indulge in an interaction with them, by the off-chance an opportunity presents itself, and settle on an iban. Unfortunately, Bgkc4444 and one of their cohorts appears to be in complete denial still about the former's problematic behavior and in denial of the fact that I have taken responsibility for my behavior, judging by this recent remark. So it's hard to blame whatever choice you make. But these are my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. isento (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you for your comment. I tried reading up on WP:DE and I don't see why my actions warrant a topic ban. For point 1 ("continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors"), as soon as I made an edit that was reverted quoting my "fetishism", I started a discussion on the talk page. And that is what I now do for any content disagreement, and I always reply to Isento's and other's points in discussions, but Isento typically ignores mine, sometimes explicitly. For point 2 ("fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research"), I am also not doing that, as everything I included was cited and not misrepresenting the source, and in fact I tried to make two different sentences fit this requirement because they were heavily misrepresenting the sources, but those too were reverted. Point 3 ("Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging") haven't done either. For point 4 ("Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.) again I have not done so, and in fact Isento explicitly said to ignore my opinion in a discussion and then falsely claimed that a consensus was achieved. And finally point 5 ("Rejects or ignores community input") I have said many times that it would have been much more preferable to go through the correct routes of dispute resolution instead of reporting me straight to ANI.

Further, I do not see how my actions can be seen as disrupting "progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia" in general. I have always edited to improve the encyclopedia and have always engaged in discussion when Isento and others disagree with something in content I've added and, again, start those discussions myself because I truly want these articles to be encyclopedic. Yes, this is a topic I edit a lot in, and believe I've always been making constructive edits to articles in this topic, such as writing over 90% of Black Is King, 70% of Black Parade (song), and so on. A topic ban seems to me to be a severe sanction for this.

And just quickly on Isento's points (because his behavior is being discussed in a later thread) "that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report" is an incorrect statement because what the admin advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute. I am happy to see Isento admit that he was editing Beyonce-related articles because of me personally (to note it wasn't just questioning my edits because Isento added a whole new "controversy" section to the main Beyonce article), so thank you, and if Isento did not do so to intentionally cause distress then I apologise for previously saying that. (Later edit:) On second thought, I don't believe I can fully say that. Isento says that he only edits on Beyonce topics because of me, but not all of those cases were "content disputes". For example, a week after Isento received a formal warning for his attacks on me regarding a Beyonce-related content dispute, Isento wrote a section dedicated to a "controversy" on the main Beyoncé article. This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on, and by Isento's own admission he edits on Beyonce-related articles specifically because of me, so this suggests to me that that edit was some form of 'payback' for the content disputes not going in the way he wanted and him being sanctioned. Again, I cannot be in denial if I repeatedly ask to be explained my wrongdoings and receive no reply (however Gwennie-nyan has now agreed to offer her opinion, so thank you) and it cannot be said that you have taken responsibility for your behavior when you still repeatedly tell me I have mental health issues and continue to stand by that assertion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It was not incorrect. Bgkc4444's response at the talk page, cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago and accusation of editors of "bury[ing] that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album", was an inappropriate post, which is what Ivanvector had advised to report.

I did not specify Bgkc4444 as the exclusive cause of my presence in those articles. I specified "biased and tendentious editing" as what had "more inspired" me to tackle the articles. It would be unfair to say Bgkc4444 was the cause of inaccuracies and misuse of sources crediting the subject with more than was true, such as this and this, that I rectified.

Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised, disputing the source-integrity of the section in this edit and suggesting in another comment that I was "so hell-bent on trying to paint Beyonce as a thief then of course the editor would insert an indiscriminate collection of opinions that support their belief from every random musician or journalist they can find."

I would have kindly responded to content-specific points had they not been overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me or bad-faith accusations such as those I've highlighted. isento (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeating in full one of the two comments Isento made in the original discussion that was directly stated about the issue in the later discussion is not "cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago" and the discussion wasn't "overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me" either as the large majority of what I wrote wasn't anything to do with what Isento said in the previous discussion. And, yes, I was in an NPOV dispute where Fezmar9 and I said that each other were respectively trying to exaggerate or downplay issues in the article (e.g. comments made against me include "fetishism" [464], "One look at your edit history suggests your motivations in beefing up Beyonce content here are extremely biased based on your personal perception of the facts. The page already mentions Beyonce plenty as is, leave well enough alone." [465], "you're extremely biased" [466], and so on) - I have said that throughout this discussion.

Again, what Ivanvector advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute, and not if someone makes inappropriate posts. This shows how quoting things out-of-context can completely change the meaning of the material. Apologies for misunderstanding that comment about Isento's editing habits on Beyonce-related articles. "Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised" is an incorrect assertion, because I didn't claim that I never disputed Isento's edit, I said "This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on", meaning at the time Isento wrote the controversy section. And I didn't assert that that quote was what Isento was doing, in fact I said "I hope that's not what you're doing here and, again, hope that you do the right thing for this topic." Finally, no excuse should be made for telling another editor they have mental health issues, especially not after being blocked for making personal attacks on that same editor the same month. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That they responded in kind to Fezmar9's suggestions indicates a problem on their part too, a problem they still deny, which is likely why an admin will just lean toward a topic ban instead of showing faith with an iban. That they continue to misconstrue my revelation of mental health issues in connection to their admission in the oast of an issue is further indication that such bad-faith attitudes won't cease. My mental health suffered too in part from these attitudes. isento (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What I said in my response to Fezmar9 was inappropriate and unnecessary and responses to incivility should always be non-retaliatory. I don't have a problem saying that. I am not misconstruing anything and I am tired, to be honest, of repeating this. Isento condescendingly told me: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." I wrote a message on his talk page regarding this, but he "replaced" it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today" without responding. He then replied on ANI, claiming "You have admitted to having mental health issues" and then bringing links to when I said that his incivility and personal has affected my mental health and explained how that made me feel, which is not admitting I have mental health issues (and also doesn't mention growing up in an abusive household, being handicapped by it or engaging in idolatory), and is also a topic on which he previously said I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Isento then says that me trying to discuss his incivility with him on his talk page evidences "a problem", despite the fact that WP:CIVIL lists talk page discussions as the first port of call to address an incidence of incivility, not ANI. I explain all of this to him, but he then denies he ever said it and again makes incorrect claims about me. I again respond explaining how his claims about not making personal attacks are incorrect. He then replied saying: "I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego". He also doubled down on the assertion that I have mental health issues. I have now just seen that Isento replied to Timeheist in the thread below, after Timeheist mentioned Isento's claims of me having mental health issues, saying that Timeheist only called him out on his personal attacks because Timeheist is prejudiced, writing: "If you had read my original comments and set aside your prejudices, you might have seen that." Isento says "I've apologized either way", but unfortunately this is evidently untrue from this conversation. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I went back through the posts you linked and the links in those posts as well. You, for good or ill, their post. They were saying your actions affected their mental health in context, not that they have mental health issues in general.

Bgkc4444, I'll take it from here as a third party. If you make something known and Isento needs to be confronted or rebutted, I'll take care of it. It doesn't serve purpose for you to rebut further because it continues/escalates the back and forth between you and Isento. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What exactly did I do to their mental health? Because their editing has been consistently tendentious before and since then. isento (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing like "your constant need to make my editing experience less enjoyable" makes it seem like it's a mental health problem, particularly when they use such phrasing in reference to their mental health ([467]). They are combative and tendentious, yet playing the victim; hypersensitive to themselves but insensitive under the guise of politisse (a loud "Thank you!" following a false accusation of racism and misogyny?) to others in the way of their content changes, suggesting I am personally out to get them for the sake of ruining their enjoyment, when it's clearly been the biased nature of their content changes that has been the real issue in those content disputes. Just recently they referenced other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them, when in fact those other editors is one collaborator in favor of their Beyonce-article changes, for which I'm seeing now they've been reported about back in April (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#Bgkc4444) by JzG, to which Bgkc4444 showed early signs of accusing others of mischaracterising them. I honestly cannot keep up with responding to all of their points, and often I feel demoralized by the bad-faith nature of said points. It is daunting communicating with them. At some point, if I have a deeply vested interest in a content change that conflicts with what they want, I am not sure if I will not likely lose my nerve or simply bow out. Which is why I am in favor of an interaction ban. If a topic ban for us both it must be, so be it. At this point I have nothing here to fight for or defend myself against. I think their behavior speaks for itself, and other editors have confirmed that. isento (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, both of you are clearly off-base when it comes to this specific interaction. Bgkc4444 feels and has repeatedly expressed a feeling that you are dogging them across the wiki. They're trying to contribute, albeit in a possibly misguided or inexperienced way at times. You are both accusing the other of things which aren't true via mischaracterization. I attribute this to the total breakdown between you two. Good faith doesn't exist between you two anymore. As a result, every interact is met by increasing hostility and emotion-laded responses. Like I told Bgkc4444, if you need to respond to anyone, respond to me, and I will mediate this, lest the responses get more uncivil. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for offering to help. It's important to note that I actually haven't "repeatedly expressed" that Isento is hounding me in this discussion and I apologised for previously saying that he did, so I feel that this claim is false. (Side note: I wrote a message here so that you could explain your other claims against me that I feel are false such as "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering". I hope that you can respond to it if possible because it might help move the discussion forward, thank you.) I'm not sure how bringing that old report here is constructive or meant to prove something when evidently it was a misunderstanding that could've easily been resolved with a polite talk page discussion (as with this case), with Mazca immediately dismissing the report. Unfortunately, Isento's comments even here and now indicate that the personal attacks will not stop. It is also not just a problem that Isento has with me, because I am reminded of one of the times I wrote a polite message on his talk page about his incivility, where my message was under a message from Tony1 from the day before about Isento not following Wikipedia's rules, to which Isento replied asking Tony1 if they had mental health issues (specifically Asperger's), as Isento repeatedly told me I have. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That was a joke, from The League, season 2, episode 10. It's on Hulu. Check it out. isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am on the spectrum too tbh. Perhaps that has been a source of misreading certain remarks of mine as negative. isento (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, wanted to point out that you should understand that even if you have x it's not okay to speculate or asperse other editors as x ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So, for example, no aspersing Asperger's? EEng 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

^As per him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been exasperating. Let's just move on. isento (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, if you're experiencing this much wikistress, why not take a wikibreak? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not really. That was more a takeoff on the other Asperger puns above. (ex-asper-ating) But yes, enough of this issue. isento (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the wherewithal to care about this anymore. I want to put the past behind me, let bygones be bygones, and continue focusing on content rather than editors at articles. You guys can too if you really want... isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. isento (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Related tendentious behavior from Beyonce-related coterie of editors

By Israell: [468], [469], [470], [471], [472], [473]... as you can see, this is not exclusive to Bgkc4444. The aggression continues without incentive for reform. isento (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

More suggestions of racism or sexism from this Beyonce-related coterie (Xurizuri: [474], Israell: [475]). Thoughts, @Gwennie-nyan:? isento (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In all those edits, I was always very polite, and I stand by everything I wrote. BawinV explained that the debate is about whether or not songwriting is a noteworthy profession of Beyoncé's, NOT the authenticity of her songwriting. isento opted to ignore it altogether and to solely focus on allegations of stolen or bought credits, ignoring many valid points other editors and I have made. By filing this report, isento is proving his behaviour is problematic. And there is nothing wrong in alerting involved editors about an RfC. Timeheist, Binksternet, TruthGuardians, Bgkc4444, Xurizuri, what do you honestly think? Israell (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Israell might be guilty of a trifling amount of WP:CANVASSING but Israell's defense of Beyoncé's songwriting ability is perfectly on target. I have no idea why Isento cannot allow Beyoncé to enjoy credit as a legitimate songwriter, but this stance of Isento is a problem that needs to go away. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, it is acceptable to ping other editors for consensus; I did ping editors of different sides of the debate. And once again, there is nothing wrong in alerting involved editors about an ongoing RfC, how it is developing. Davey2010 has just cast a vote, and that's an editor I had never ever come across before on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). And I agree that Isento's stance is problematic, esp. now that he is accusing me and Xurizuri of browbeating when we did not display such demeanour. All of our posts are logged, so we have nothing to hide. All I did was create the RfC and put forth valid arguments (as noted by Binksternet, and other editors agree w/ me). The RfC is about whether or not Beyoncé's songwriting is noteworthy enough; that's all! An editor has just posted a Billboard magazine article [476] entitled 'AWARDS - Taylor Swift & Beyonce Are Among the Top Songwriters in Grammy History: See Where They Rank'; it is a very recent article posted just two weeks ago. Beyoncé won Best R&B Song four times (a record) and Song of the Year once, and both awards go to the songwriters. Israell (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

So it is acceptable to suggest editors are racist or sexist and to browbeat when they question your stance? (My vote btw was "probably not" at the RfC, and my last comment there was to let the majority speak for itself)... @HĐ:, @Bluesatellite:, @BawinV:, what do you honestly think? isento (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You first voted "Probably not", then changed your vote to "No": "If you open the pandora's box of her songwriting role, you'd have to mention the controversy too. So, all that remains is editorial discretion, which leads me to say no." The allegations are mentioned in the body of the article in the "Songwriting credits" section, and that RfC is not about the authenticity of Beyoncé Knowles' songwriting! Other editors and I have made a strong point the music industry (Grammy Awards, Ascap Awards, Billboard magazine and so on) do regard Beyoncé as a legit songwriter, and there are many articles that make mention of her songwriting and/or song production, showing how involved she is. Constantly bringing up those allegations is disrupting the RfC. Israell (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, I agree, while there does appear to be canvassing going on, provided that I AGF, that's all I can see. I can understand a little of Isento's perspective, however. Canvassing can be used to WP:POVPUSH. However, unless it's incredibly obvious and tendentious, I wouldn't being AGF if I immediately thought canvassing was pov-pushing.

I agree heavily with Xurizuri (which Israell concurred to) on the specific point about checking our internal biases. As Xurizuri pointed out, many things which aren't a debate for white individuals are debated for non-white individuals. Similarly things which aren't debated for men are debated more for non-men. That's not a personal accusation of racism or sexism, that's the bedrock of NPOV.

In this section, I suggest you, Isento, to disengage. It's quite clear that the laborious, tedious, and often confrontation-laden discourse surrounding this issue to be weighing a bit heavily on you. In my opinion, you're not exercising your best judgment on these matters. (Note: This is AGF. A cynic or something who isn't AGF might think this new section as something less noble, perhaps a bad-faith redirection of grievance after going after Bgkc4444 failed to repeat desired results.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've had a consistent track record on articles about musical works by musicians of color and the opposite sex, where I've given the artists their props as songwriters (even Beyoncé's own sister's Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams). So I'm pretty confident I have no more a bias on those grounds than the editors of this particular group. It feels sad I have to dignify this idea. isento (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Isento, this isn't specifically about you and they didn't make it about you. You're taking offense to something not specifically direct at you. Do you understand that? This defensiveness isn't very becoming of an editor of your experience. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"...and editors are people..." (placed right below my last comment approving of Israell's sources, with no connection to that theme, in an inactive RfC section from several months ago)... but yes, you're right. I shouldn't have dignified it. isento (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My comment wasn't nested to yours, and I even literally asked for feedback on both appropriateness and placement. I assumed that an RfC isn't inactive until it's closed (genuinely, part of why I asked for feedback). I also don't view mentioning a possible source of bias as an attack, but I understand that others do (hence asking for feedback both in the original comment and in the one I made here). I intentionally avoided stating that specific actions were definitely racist or sexist, because it'd be patently false to claim that everyone that disagrees with you is doing so because of their bias. My point was that, given who we were discussing, it's very possible for any of us to be affected by bias and to be mindful of this when considering our and others' positions. I'm really sorry that my comment seemed targeted, but I'm not sure how I could've approached this differently. --Xurizuri (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Its okay. We all make mistakes. isento (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Xurizuri did not make any mistake. Their comment was a general one in regards to some people's scrutiny of Beyoncé's songwriting. To quote a post by Bgkc4444: "What reliable sources do say is that a) Beyonce is a songwriter, b) having co-writers does not affect a songwriter's status and is perfectly normal, and c) trying to downplay or deny Beyonce's status as a songwriter because she has co-writers is incorrect, sexist and racist (as the source that HĐ brought above explained, for example)." For instance, I've noticed a long time ago female singers' vocals are under much more scrutiny than those of male singers. Israell (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Their comment indicated editors, not just reliable sources. Given the baseless accusations of racism and sexism directed at editors in the past from another editor affiliated with you, forgive me if I was overly conscious and sensitive of that possibility. isento (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Isento, yes. None of this needed to be brought up in this venue. In fact, the sensitivity gives me pause. I really suggest you take a good wikibreak to reflect on these behaviors. These kind of outbursts can look negatively on one's character as an editor and can, given the other circumstances of this situation, result in admonishment or sanctions. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The only mention I made of racism/sexism was not directed at any person, it was a general comment that as a group we should take into account the internal biases that we all have. If something in my comment suggested otherwise, please let me know what it was so I can adjust it in the future. Separately, it is also my understanding (although I will accept that I may be wrong, I am quite new to WP) that it is normal to let relevant WikiProjects know about discussions that are occurring. I came to the discussion via one of those notices. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Xurizuri made the following remark: "I'm not sure if this is a reasonable place to put this as its my own opinion but I think its relevant to this discussion. LMK if this is inappropriate. But often people (and editors are people) will overvalue criticism/undervalue contributions of women and people of colour. It may be worthwhile to seriously consider whether your position would change if Beyonce was a white man." Xurizuri was, as you can all see, very tactful, sensitive in the way they formulated their observation, and it was not aimed at any editor in particular. An observation to which I replied: "You may have a point."

My full response: "Xurizuri, yeah, you may have a point! We've made a very strong argument that Beyoncé is indeed known to be a songwriter, having co-written 346 of her songs (most of them) and having received prestigious awards and mentions for her songwriting. And she not only writes but produces as well. And just because of criticism/suspicions raised by a few (that then gained some traction online), some editors object to "songwriter" being in the lead sentence... As you noted, such criticism is overvalued and her rightful contribution is undervalued. Not fair, and it is certainly not encyclopedical." Note: Once again, the RfC is not about the authenticity of Beyoncé's songwriting.

And yes, I did ping some involved editors for consensus incl. Xurizuri. I pinged Xurizuri since they had responded to the previous RfC isento initiated in regards to the infobox. The consensus allowed for "songwriter" to remain in the infobox. Three weeks later, I started another RfC, this time in regards to the lead. Israell (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Tactful" bad-faith suggestions are still bad-faith suggestions. Aggressively repeating your point of view as a response to dissenting editors is still tendentious behavior. Have you ever considered your aggressive stances and politely constructed suggestions of bias might cause other editors to tune you out and reaffirm whatever position they were leaning toward? No Bey-hive pun intended, but you can catch more bees with honey that you can with vinegar. isento (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I stand with Isento on this issue. Bgkc4444 implicitly called me (and other editors that voted "no") out for "racism and sexism", which is not assuming good faith by any means. It appears as if this editor (and any other that is related) wishes to put "songwriter" in the lead just to prove a point. HĐ (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm extremely confused. HĐ recommended that an article should use a source titled "From 'Mine' to 'Ours': Gendered Hierarchies of Authorship and the Limits of Taylor Swift's Paratextual Feminism", which as the title states, is about how views on authorship over music is different for men and women (and later states that race is a factor as well). When I stated that that is what the source said (not directed against any editor), they accused me of calling other people sexist and racist. I really don't understand why. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no sexism or racism in that last link that BGKC is supposed to have done. All I see is a discussion about songwritership. Mans confused right now. Games of the world (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Only one person here was rightfully blocked for aggressive behavior. That behavior continues even now. Unduly dragging the falsely accused(Israell), Bgkc4444, and Xurizuri to the noticeboard is yet another example of this aggression.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ:, I strongly suggest you withdraw this complaint, as you've completely misread Bgkc's comment. I'll reproduce it here (emphasis mine):

The paper explicitly says that Beyonce is an example of an artist "who also serve as writers and producers of their own work", that criticism of Beyonce for not being an authentic songwriter because she has co-writers is wrong, and that this criticism stems from sexism and racism directed against her.

Bgkc is not calling critics sexist and racist, they are pointing out that the article makes such a statement. Nothing Bgkc has said can be construed as calling you, or anyone else, sexist or racist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 5 January 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.