Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042

Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

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.

---

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

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

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

MWise12 background

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

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

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

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

Netoholic background

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

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

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

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

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

June 26 disruption

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

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

• MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
• After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 2#Department of Homeland Security's statements
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
• Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
• Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
• Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
• Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
• Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
• MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
• NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics/Archive 2#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Netoholic is topic banned from American Politics broadly construed

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

Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to close

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

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

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

• COMMENT REGARDING NETOHOLIC'S FINAL POST, AND ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE APPEAL – Netoholic's comment above appears to me to be setting himself up for a procedural appeal, a la SashiRolls. I would like to comment that I see absolutely no grounds for such an appeal, as there were no procedural irregularities at all. The criticism Netoholic raises regarding admins not keeping the discussion narrowly focused etc. are not, in fact, irregularities at all, as they are not policy-based in any way: there is nothing whatsoever in WP:CBAN that supports Netoholic's various claims for adminsitrative malfeasance. The community can discuss what the community wishes to discuss, and individual editors can base their opinions on whatever they wish to, whether "ancient history" or a current dispute. The closer can, of course, give these more or less weight depending on their evaluation of the discussion.
  It is my opinion that if and when Netoholic appeals this CTBAN, the appeal should not be granted if its basis is procedural irregularities. It should, instead, deal with Netoholic's behavior in editing other subject areas in the interim, and how that sheds light on whether his appeal should be granted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would like this to be a part of the record here so it will be seen when any appeal from Netoholic is heard. Probably as a result of my comment above, I began being harassed by Netoholic. He followed me to two articles he had never edited before, with the sole purpose of reverting my edits there. I reported his behavior to Bishonen. [21] He then went to SMCandlish and -- all innocence -- asked him to look into my editing restriction -- more harrassment. [22] El C gave him a warning on his talk page, [23] and a further warning to Netoholic on SMc's talk page, [24] and there's been nothing since then, but his decision to harass me immediately after being sanctioned by the community with a CTBAN again speaks to WP:Battleground behavior being the basis of much of his editing. I believe this should be taken into account at the time of any appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• That is shocking behavior, especially given the ANI discussion Netoholic linked at SMcCandlish's talk page, and claimed to be following up on, is over a year old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 18 July 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.

Note: Per IAR, I have moved the {{abot}} template so as to include the last three posts when this gets archived. Bishonen | tålk 08:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC).

Edit-war

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Kindly look at [25]. The OP is still doing reverts and POV pushing but I am exhausted now. Balolay (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @MelanieN:, @EdJohnston:. Take a look at this! User:Naranirma makes a comment above above but immediately removes it. The comment is talking about Balolay's edits, but it is written in first person. Then one minute later Balolay makes the same comment. Should I open a SPI? Their edits are very similar too. This seems like obvious sockpuppetry to me.VR _talk 15:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have suspicions about Special:Contributions/Epipagni too.VR _talk 15:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this has already been taken up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balolay.VR _talk 15:40, 17 July 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 disruption at Jack Buckby

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

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

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

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.

Predictions made by Shah Nimatullah Wali

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 article was created yesterday with maintenance templates from June. It obviously was not written by its creator, Linguafocus (talk · contribs) or if it was there is something very odd going on. The editor also created Alvi (tribe) yesterday, which Beshogur has taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvi (tribe) saying that "This article is pretty much artificial, claiming there are Sunni Alevis. Also the user is putting Turkic peoples category every time. Such thing doesn't exist. Source 2, 3, 4 and 5 may show like such people (?) is actual, but all these texts are copy pastes from other articles mainly Alevi. Especially the infobox looks ridiculous. It should be deleted, pure original research." I was also bothered by their replacement of the founders in the Hindu infobox which said no founders with an academic source with something that claimed that Aryans founded it sourced to what appears to be a very good children's website, but in this case simply wrong. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make some of the sentences but, you are messing, because many sentences are made by me, and there are many Alvis who were converted to Sunni Islam. Linguafocus (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Article needs better sources, probably a new title, and some major work in general. But it does seem notable? One of the sources is an academic journal paper that discusses the predictions (poems) in context and in history. Doug, is this report about the article (in which case idk why it's at ANI) or about an editor? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: both really. @Linguafocus:'s reply is apparently about the article at AfD, I'm more concerned about an editor creating somehow an article complete with maintenance templates. I don't know if we have a competence issue here or what, and figuring out how the Predictions article came to be may help decide that. I'm going offline shortly, it's after 8pm here and I'm up at 5 to walk our dogs before there are many people around. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, I am so sorry, bro, i am in stress, and you are considering my articles of speedy deletions, in my country (Pakistan), It's 12:30 here, For now, I can't being the part of discussion, so i am worried. - Linguafocus (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller and CaptainEek, I can say with confidence that this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Fixed ping. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Whom? Linguafocus (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I saw Predictions made by Shah Nimatullah Wali mentioned at FTN and redirected it to Shah Nimatullah Wali. Most of the sources don't mention Wali, others are social media and/or purely religious sites. Nothing reliable that I can see. And it's full of copyright violations, for instance from https://daiyah.fandom.com/wiki/Ghazwa-e-Hind. I expect "your" academic journal paper makes a word-for-word appearance, too, CaptainEek; there are so many footnotes I haven't had time to study them all in depth. The steeply varying quality of the English prose suggests which bits are copyvio and which were written by a Wikipedia editor (not a native speaker, I assume). Redirecting seemed a way of fixing these things, but at the same time I don't think it's much of a redirect; perhaps it should be deleted. Linguafocus, please note that you are not allowed to copypaste pieces from copyrighted material that you find on the internet. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

Can we get a checkuser to take a look, given the LTA concerns? If its a hit, I'd say just G5 Alvi (tribe) and Predictions made by Shah Nimatullah Wali. That redirect is an alright solution, but its an unlikely target tbh. Other exciting pages by them include Draft:Predictions_made_by_Bill_Gates and Draft:Predictions made by Nostradamus, which seems CSD worthy but I wasn't sure what tag to throw on them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to what? As I said it's jusr an artificial article. Not sure what he is talking about. Alevis? Those are Turkish speaking socio cultural group, nothing to do with his Indian tribes. Beshogur (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The user has been confirmed as a sock of the LTA mentioned above. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Guy Macon

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.

---

Guy Macon is edit warring to impose his preferred format on an RfC I filed at Talk:Daily Mail#RfC: sourcing of "widely criticized for its unreliability". I posted it in this format, he boldly altered it here. I reverted his change, asking him not to alter my preferred formatting, explaining that both are optional under the guidance, and for obvious reasons, the person filing the RfC does get first choice. Instead of proceeding to a discussion to establish a consensus for his change, as part of this edit, the first revert of an edit war, he again imposed his preferences. Please restore the status quo ante, pending any support arriving for his preference from someone other than himself. BorkNein (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@BorkNein: Both are a bit confusing because of your quite long !vote, but Guy Macon's version is better. You don't "own" your RfC. - Alexis Jazz 03:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said I did own it. I said I get to choose the format as filer, and he doesn't get to edit war to enforce his preference without a consensus. Better is subjective. His is better for him, clearly, but better for Wikipedia? Better for resolving this specific question? I doubt it. Why is that even the issue here, rather than his edit warring? You can't justify edit warring on the basis you think you might be proven correct, you can't justify it ever. Who told me that? Guy Macon. BorkNein (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@BorkNein: It wouldn't be unreasonable to think you've been around lot longer than 14 days. If that would indeed be true, it would be wise not to file reports on noticeboards. Just a hypothetical. If you want to accuse Guy Macon of edit warring, there are instructions at the top of WP:AN/3RR and more info on Wikipedia:Edit warring. - Alexis Jazz 05:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been unreasonable to have at least expected you to have clicked that noticeboard link before you let your imagination put 7 and 12 together to get hypothetical 58 cubed. BorkNein (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Borknein in this thread: "I never said I did own it [the RfC]". Borknein at the RfC: "I do 'own' the RfC". It's all becoming a bit Trumpian. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

In the sense you're spreading fake news? Yes......"I do "own" the RfC in the sense the format is necessarily first chosen by whoever first posts it." BorkNein (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Beware of curved Australian wood that starts in one direction and does a 180 to return from whence it came. — Ched (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say, oh helpful one. Beware of official looking letters from relatives who learn their loved ones slit their wrists because you misjudged a room. Speaking hypothetically of course. It's all just fun and games here, with me and my pal Nomo. He's got my back, he said as much, and I believe him. BorkNein (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Can another admin take a look at this?

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 off to bed for now, but I just stumbled across this mess of a page. Too tired to sort it out right now. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Add this mess, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected both pages for 2 weeks with instruction to make use of respective article talk pages. El_C 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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 and Edit-warring by User:Chrysalix

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:Chrysalix is involved in edit-warring and disruptive editing at Whigfield. The user keeps adding unsourced controversial information. I have warned Chrysalix three times on their talk page, but that didn't stop them from disrupting the article.--Harout72 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 07:34, 18 July 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.

Repeated off-site canvassing by Moamem

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior mod interactions

-EEng

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Interaction ban between Jadebenn and Moamem

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

Poll (interaction ban)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Jadebenn: :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll (block)

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

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

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

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

Reason for report

Editing others' comments

Page

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

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page

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

Requested remedy

Topic ban on article

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This goes deeper than I thought. From what I can see, you (allegedly) posted on various forums to try and get support for an RfC discussion in (alleged) violation of WP:MEAT because someone who you thought was an admin (but wasn't, and even said he wasn't) said it was okay, treated it as if it were an end-all poll] WP:PNSD and said you would make the changes to the article yourself because you crowned yourself the winner. You blast Jadebenn for making more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, when you've basically done it yourself [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. I'm sorry, but from the looks of it all, if anyone's gonna get the ban, it's probably going to be you first. Klohinx^talk 07:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Chris Tomic (again)

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.

---

• Chris Tomic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Idris Elba - English or British (again)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Chris Tomic
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Racism (at Idris Elba)
• Talk:Idris Elba/Archive 1#English is an ethnicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English and British are synonyms for sure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Guy, his log shows an edit warring block in 2015, and another in July 2020. We need diffs that show disruptive 3RR editing after the July 6th edit warring block. Probably racism?? Where are the diffs? That's a hefty accusation without any diffs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nom. Regardless of whether or not our MOS or guidelines are murky on the issue, you don't go through being told not to do something and being blocked for it and then just go back to doing exactly the same thing like nothing happened. Add a picture of this editor to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, based on edits at BLPN, Niko Bellic, and others discussed above, and also based on apparent failure to take feedback on board so far. Race/ethnicity/nationality, especially of BLPs, need to be handled with care. Also, may I recommend Countries of the United Kingdom#Identity and nationality. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• {non-admin comment) Support. Not least because of this diff, "[Idris Elba] is civically British, not ethnically British. According to the logic being deployed here in this instance, it would mean that on moving to NZ I would become a Mauri."

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. British isn't an ethnicity - ask my cousins on my mother's side, who identify as British, despite having one English parent and one Dutch. This is dog whistle stuff at best. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• NOTE I've unclosed this as apparently it was closed too soon (my mistake, I thought it was full banning discussions that needed 24h). Given the time closed, this should now run until at least 20:00 UTC. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Edits that are racist in effect, whether or not made with racist intent, need to be kept out of the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive SPA editor mid-AfD process

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

---

We're in the middle of an AfD deletion process for the article "Jill Phipps", and a single-purpose account has been disrupting the process with COI-type edits to the article. User Love n Peas (talk · contribs) started editing in January of this year and has edited ONLY this one article. The types of edits and reversions this editor has performed point to someone who personally knows the subject of the article.

The user has been "softening" the image of the subject, Jill Phipps, by removing details that are mentioned in reliable source news articles. During January and July 2020, the user removed content mentioning Phipps' affiliation with a radical group, removed a quote about the details surrounding her death during a protest, altered (to lessen) the sentences imposed in a criminal conviction, removed details of a crime, and added inapplicable information about some other disreputable person that isn't relevant to the article.

The reverts/alterations they have made are: in January, on 7/14/2020, on 7/14/2020, and on 7/16/2020.

I have tried numerous ways to communicate with the editor and get them to stop, but have been unable to reach them, or they are ignoring the warnings.

• I placed the soft edit warring notice on their User Talk page.
• Another editor (Ponyo) placed a COI warning on their User Talk page.
• I have placed a thread on Talk:Jill Phipps alerting of SPA activity (giving details).
• I have put COI & POV hatnotes on the article.
• I have twice tried waiting 24 hours between reverting their edits in the hopes they would see any of these messages.

Despite the content coming directly from the citations, this user has removed properly-cited content and offered no citations/sources as explanation, leaving only edit summaries with such wording as: Removal of factual errors. Correction of misrepresentations. Removal of some individuals names in the interests of privacy. Factual inaccuracies. Removed irrelevant and incorrect information. These phrases, coupled with the types of changes they made to the article suggest the user is very close to the subject.

I can think of nothing further I can do to stop the disruption. Please, is there some sort of an intervention that an administrator can do?

— Normal Op (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted it and will keep an eye out. I'm actually not sure what the editor is trying to achieve, as some of the sourced material they have removed is not critical of Phipps at all. AFter the AfD is closed I may try to untangle the mixture of reliable and trivial sources, having looked at it there are useful sources out there that can be used. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Someone "speedy keep'ed" the AfD and renamed Jill Phipps to Death of Jill Phipps. Someone restored some of the parts removed by 'Love n Peas'; I'll take a look at the article now and probably restore some of the other edits that weren't (yet) restored. But I sure hope 'Love n Peas' doesn't repeat the behavior. Normal Op (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Normal Op: It wasn't speedy-kept; it had been open for more than 7 days. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Looong list of stuff that sholdn't be happening, courtesy of User:C. A. Russell

C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

→ WP:AN3/User:Drmies reported by User:66.90.149.252 (Result: No violation, OP warned)

• Personal attacks against other editors (clueless users like User:Calton), calling other editors (dishonest), threatening to harass others (notwithstanding blatant invility (Quit fucking up)), more incivility (Grow up, grow a spine).
• Comments such as this—especially to a blocked user's User Page which you know they cannot edit—is outrageous: a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the recipient is indefinitely blocked.
• Comments such as "and then tries to retrofit some bullshit argument to justify their original actions. Let's watch the next instance of this unfold... now", rather suggest that this whole episode was engineered by CAR to get this very result. That's wholly unproductive behavior.
• This edit summary, is a clear personal attack, considering its contents (f*** Codename Lisa).(Now redacted)
• Is C A Russell not aware of the policy regarding logged- out editing, which instructs that editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors. In this particular case, it would appear they did both deliberately. ——Serial ^# 11:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• warned about edit warring by RexxS.
• Personal attacks continue (Go screw up some other part of the encyclopedia, combined with incivility in edit summaries (Go the fuck away, and then doubling down on the same PA.
• Reinstating personal attack.
• Multiple admin warnings
• Trolling Drmies' talk page; one of the few editors I've seen that have been effectively requested not to post there again! (...not counting the trolling of Cabayi's talk or my talk.)
• For someone as keen as C.A.R. on telling people to "knock it off" ([34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39]) they be pretty keen on keeping it going.
  Needs sorting one way or the other: they've managed to tie up the energies of—nine, ten editors?—to quote Objective3000, they need to take a break, voluntarily or not. —— § erial 09:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I was already inspired by the convo on your talkpage to consider blocking C. A. Russell for personal attacks (so it tied up my energies too), but I lost heart when I realized that three or four of your diffs, with very nasty-sounding quotes, were simply links to the history of WP:ANEW. They look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=history. Something went wrong with the copypasting, I guess. Unfortunately you've got these not-diffs here to, in the first sentence, "Personal attacks against other editors ("clueless users like User:Calton"), calling other editors ("dishonest"), threatening to harass others (notwithstanding blatant invility ("Quit fucking up")), more incivility ("Grow up, grow a spine")." Could you fix, please? Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. My copying is socially distancing itself from pasting by the looks of it, thanks for catching. I think I've fixed 'em now. Cheers, —— § erial 10:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for 48 hours. Considering how bad-tempered and all-over-the-place the attacks are (managing to get in a glancing blow at Calton? What's that about?), it's a short block. But I'm also considering the previously clean block log in twelve years of editing. Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think that's reasonable. Thanks for dealing with this so promptly —— § erial 10:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Is there a museum of all your past signatures somewhere? --JBL (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Bregegg at Khazars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive reversion of talk pages

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

The usual three users:

• ජපස
• Roxy the dog
• LuckyLouie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since it would violate your topic ban to get involved in discussions about Dean Radin (e.g. [40]), I recommend you let others talk to me on your behalf. jps (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guerilla Skeptics [41] first time I've heard of it but apparently an actual movement to tag team on Wikipedia? No mention of specific users in the original comment and it was edited (not sure why) later. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

• What toxic behavior? My only connection to this kerfluffle is the single edit [42] I made on WP:FTN suggesting review of recent edits to the article [43], many of which appeared to flaunt WP:FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Gtoffoletto, please don't talk like that, it's very rude. You seem to be discussing the (apparently irredeemably bad) character of the three users you enumerate, when you call them the usual three users who are at it again and are ganging up on another user as they so often do. You should either stick to the specific behavior you're complaining about at this moment, or else support your generalities about "again" and "often" with specifics. You know, diffs. The worst part IMO is linking to WP:GANG with reference to three named users, again without a scintilla of evidence. Please write "Comment on content, not on the contributor" on the blackboard a hundred times, or until you have internalised it. Bishonen | tålk 15:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Problematic user repeatedly adding unsourced info

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

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

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

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

Someone is erasing my contributions

An editor named kevinmce is going through my list of contributions and erasing them because he's mad about a minor incident in an article and is trying get revenge....I'm fairly new to wikipedia but I believe these are valid, relevant contributions and he's gone through the last 20 edits I've made over the past month and erased them is there anything I can do aside from fighting him by undoing the edits??? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

comment @Raleigh80Z90Faema69: please give us somewhere to look. I cannot go through edits to ferret out the offending edits. Perhaps start with the most offensive edit/revert. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks as though you need to communicate on these content matters. I haven't reviewed this thoroughly, but it does seem as though you're adding what could be considered irrelevant trivia to several sports/athlete articles, which is to say you're adding information which, although it may be correct and verifiable, is not relevant to the subject of the articles you're adding it to. For example, on Lance Armstrong: "Had Armstrong not won this World Championship then Miguel Induráin, who finished in 2nd place at +0:19, would have become the only rider aside from Eddy Merckx and Stephen Roche to win the remarkably rare Triple Crown of Cycling." Most likely correct (although you didn't provide a source) but this information is just not important to an article about Lance Armstrong. Or, if it is, you need to do a better job of explaining why, which you should do either by expanding in your edit summary, or starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits aren't just trivia, but frequently lacking sources and scream of original research. [44] Also, if you've been on Wikipedia for over two years, I'm not sure "fairly new to wikipedia" is an accurate description; by now, you have little excuse not to be familiar with basic WP policy around editing behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And this looks a pretty clear-cut personal attack [45] instead of responding to the concerns being raised. Grandpallama (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• While there is a policy against WP:HOUNDing an editor, there's an exception for if you have related problems on multiple articles, which seems to be at least a reasonable position for kevinmce to take given that you seem to have been adding similar unsourced trivia to a bunch of sports articles. You need to add reliable sources for the things you add, and make sure that they're actually relevant to the article where you add them. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely true although I am not a regular editor as I have less than 1,000 edits and just created my first ever page last night. With that being said I absolutely understand the importance of the information being truthful and relevant to the article being edited.... As far as some examples on the article for Davis Phinney I made an edit which stated that aside from Greg LeMond he was the American that came closest to winning the Green Jersey in Tour de France history.... Yes this isn't a big deal but it's a true statement and I provided the link to the 1988 Tour de France which shows him finishing 2nd in that competition.... Just because it doesn't seem important to someone doesn't mean it isn't important and I had to look through every single edition of the Tour de France to verify this was true.

Other articles include Georg Totschnig didn't have much of a biography so I added and expanded to it by researching all of his results from every Tour he ever entered and that got erased.... I also added clarity to an incident involving Andy Schleck that explained what happened in a certain race that was erased....

It's not that I have a problem with someone altering an edit as obviously a large group editing ensures accuracy and I have thanked people on many occasions all I am saying is that just because Kevinmce got mad at me regarding an edit on the history of the Tour de France he went through my contributions page and deleted every single edit I made over the past few weeks..... Not because the information was false, or irrelevant but because he got mad, wanted revenge and decided to attack me and it shouldn't be allowed if my contributions were made in good faith, are relevant to the article where I made them and are verifiable as being true even if there isn't a direct source to link them to Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment thanks for the response. I saw that you only had 900 edits and I considered that information when I read your first post. Congrats on the article creation, i am going to go look at it now. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a bad first article attempt. I did not determine notability but I formatted, the layout and added an infobox. I will look further. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simply put the, onus is on the person who adds the information to make sure it is sourced. If you do not, others can remove it. If you did research all these results, then you should have citations you can make along with the statements. It doesn't have to be a direct link, but you should be able to provide a citation to a book or other work, and provide a direct quote on the Talk page if necessary so others can verify the citation.

Also, it is unlikely that Kevinmce got mad, wanted revenge and decided to attack you. More likely, they saw you added unsourced information, looked at your edit history and saw how often you added unsourced information, then removed those instances. Which is what's supposed to happen for unsourced additions — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

comment

@Lightburst: Thanks it was my first time creating an article and I wasn't entirely certain what I was doing but when I finished it looked like a wikipedia article.... As far as being notable I figured that since he is a NY Times bestseller and had articles in the Washington Post and Publishers Weekly that it would meet notability requirements.

Regarding the other incident I can appreciate and understand how information can be removed if it isn't relevant, isn't proven to be factual and that sort of thing and this happens all the time and is what makes wikipedia so good because it's people upon people all fact checking each other.... What I was saying about this KevinMce editor is that he got mad regarding a legitimate post I made in the history section of the Tour de France and then he literally went to my contributions page and deleted about 20 consecutive edits... Possibly more.... Edits he knew were in good faith and edits that he likely knew were true because they were true or I wouldn't have included them otherwise and which could have been easily verified through the statistics and history of the race in most cases..... Is it possible that some of them could have been removed on some technical grounds? Of course, but none of the other editors who monitor those Tour de France pages found anything wrong with them....it was just upsetting that out of spite and revenge he decided I'm going to delete this guys contributions and that is exactly what happened because soon after this Tour de France edit he went right down my list which I didn't notice until today and I just didn't think it was fair someone could be allowed to do that. Especially for such childish and petty reasons.... Not because they were inappropriate edits because if they were inappropriate someone else likely would have removed them immediately.

Thanks for the infobox and the formatting on my new page! I also never knew about citing direct quotes or other evidence and legitimate reasons in the talk page so thanks for that as well. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Great work! I moved your article to main space after some additional work. Regarding your WP:PAs we need to get you to stop doing that. Always speak about the research/article and not about the editor. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Raleigh80Z90Faema69, it is difficult to understand exactly what your concern is since you did not link to diffs, as you were asked to do (in teh bright yellow box at the top of the editing window). But you mention three pages, so I looked at your contributions to those. In Davis Phinney you added original research here. Kevin McE reverted it with an edit summary explaining why. I agree with their assessment. In Georg Totschnig you added quite a lot of minor statistics and original research again, here. Kevin McE reverted it with an edit summary explaining why. In Andy Schleck you added some text that looks like personal reflections or evaluations, here. Kevin McE reverted it with an edit summary explaining why. In each of those cases you reverted back with accusations of "vandalism" or "childish spite". Given that all the edits you provided as "evidence" are in fact examples of Kevin McE doing due diligence by reverting edits that were not constructive, and given that there isn't any indication of inappropriate behaviour from them, I think it would be a very good idea if you simply dropped this matter and went through your edits with a bit of reflection on why they were reverted. Looking at this edit history (which is what you claimed was the root of Kevin McE's alleged annoyance, right?) I see why they were a bit concerned, though I don't see any annoyance, much less any signs of them being "mad". Did you try to talk to them about your edits to Tour de France? I can't see any other posts to their user talk page by you than the personal attack linked above. Where did you try to discuss the issues? --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst I don't get mad at all when someone edits, alters or deletes something I've done. As long as there is a legitimate reason that's what wikipedia is for other people make it better... What I got upset about and launched that attack on my talk page is a result of this:

About 10-12 days ago I made an edit on wikipedia with citations regarding these miraculous incidents. This editor KevinMCE deleted this edits stating more or less that miraculous is not encyclopedic. I let it go and his edit remained. A few days later I came up with another edit on the Tour de France page since 1988 in the history section mentioning Lance Armstrong encyclopedic and Miraculous in the same sentence as the reason for an edit which is true but I was adding the [[]]. and also an edit about Roger Rivière regarding the 1961 Tour de France page which was factual evidence I found on his wikipedia page and Kevinmce reverted claiming it wasn't factual but he didn't even click on the page of Roger Rivière to find out and did no verifications. I didn't notice it at the time but 11 days ago KevinMCE clicked on the " contributions" section of my page and started going through and reverting every edit... Even though none of these edits were inflammatory, questionably false, or irrelevant and just undid every contribution I made one by one.... I had no idea what to make of this as I do not know Wikipedias full rules.... I could get you every example if you don't check the contribution pages of editors.... It's not something I want to spend the whole day worrying about, it just seemed like it should be against the rules unless there are clear and deliberate violations of the spirit of wikipedias rules. Could some of these edits I made been removed, sure, for legitimate reasons if every single sentence of wikipedia should have a citation which even current events articles that matter right now don't always do.... In any case thanks for the help, with multiple things regarding wikipedia and if talking really is the best solution which the talk pages should be it would have been better if this kevinmce came to my page first and said something and I wouldn't have accused him of vandalism for obviously targeting my contributions which is basically attacking a page where he might not even have read the article or the edit he was removing .... Nevermind putting something better in its place... which isn't in the rules. Again Thanks for the advice and ways to better learn this website Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you are talking about your edits on the 1960 Tour de France; Kevin McE replied on the talk page, and explained why he removed it. You say that you found it on Riviere's article, but as Kevin McE says, this article does not say that people thought he was dead, it did not say that he fell 50 feet, it did not say anything about the lack of cries. (Kevin McE also says that there was no source that Nencini was considered one of the best descenders; there were two sources, but you moved this statement away from the sources.) At best, you found this information somewhere else, but forgot to add sources. At worst, you made it up. You say that Kevin McE did not "click on the page of Roger Rivière to find out and did no verifications"; this is provably incorrect: he followed that link and found that the Riviere article did NOT contain this information, and even replied that he did so. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I have encouraged Raleigh80Z90Faema69 to retract a personal attack against Kevin McE, which they have not done. Best, Darren-M talk 08:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RPA Any editor may remove personal attacks and I have done so Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.. The questionable PAs were on the editor's own talk page, and RPA states: Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. From the editor's lengthy comments on their talk page they understand. I do not want us to beat up this new-ish editor any more. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I Move to close with no action newish editor has been educated about processes. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

AKLand refusal to communicate re: mass unsourced changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conduct of User:Engine850

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 respectfully request an uninvolved administrator review the conduct of this user. They are editing Wikipedia based on their own knowledge and interpreting sources similarly. For example:

• On No. 617 Squadron RAF, removing the statement "While deployed, the squadron continued its pioneering heritage by becoming the first RAF squadron to fire the MBDA Storm Shadow cruise missile on 3 March 2003." Despite the following references:
  • https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/squadrons/617-squadron/
  • [www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-raf-launches-first-storm-shadow-strike-aga-426777/]

Also relevant:

• [46] Edit summary including "I WAS THERE" when references from raf.mod.uk disproves the statement.
• As above
• And on Air transport of the British royal family and government, persisting with editing the article to say a recent £900k spend on repainting an aircraft was part of a previous £10m refit with no evidence and/or sources. This has been discussed in more detail on Talk:Air transport of the British royal family and government.
• This edit which suggest that every reader of Wikipedia should have industry knowledge

An important aside - Whilst below the 3RR, I have been involved in some edit waring on these issues for which I am ashamed. I find it hard to leave unverifiable information on Wikipedia, however that is not an excuse and as such I apologise. Mark83 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have reverted Engine850's response here due to it being placed, unsigned, inside the text of the opening paragraph. I have left them a talk page note advising them to resubmit with caution. El_C 07:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for not formatting my response correctly, I am no expert on Wiki etiquette.

• Engine850 Response* The link makes no mention whatsoever about 'pioneering heritage' (really an opinion not a fact) or the Storm Shadow, there was a link to another squadron firing the Storm Shadow 8 years later. Later in the evening I found an accurate link, for the actual Squadron, and wrote an accurate entry with the correct, accurate source.

• Engine850 Response* Not entirely accurate, I removed a statement as it was not accurate, and again, the link, which was to something else entirely, I then pointed out, that no verifiable source would be found for the statement, as none existed, I knew this, as I was there at the time (I did NOT write this on the wiki page)

• Engine850 Response* I have posted many links to verifiable, accurate sources, the Ministry of Defence, Royal Air Force, UK Parliament and several specialist aviation sources, all clearly support my statement. Mark continually replaces these sources, with blogs and newspapers, I appreciate this was a topic which many people in the UK wanted to make a statement about the Government wasting money, including Mark and the newspaper articles he keeps posting, however, that does not make them valid or reliable.

To sum up, nowhere have I posted personal opinion, I have posted nothing but accurate, verifiable sources, from Military, Government and Aviation sources and removed unverifiable, inaccurate links and sources, and removed inaccurate, personal opinions, as an expert in the field, with 35 years as an Aerospace engineer with the Royal Air Force, BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Airbus and the Ministry of Defence, I have no political or personal bias, and simply want to see accurate, factual statements. Engine850 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 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:SporkBot is malfunctioning

Hello Admins, I've been developing a page in my sandbox. Since yesterday the SporkBot has effectively wiped several hours of work. What is the appropriate action? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Forget this. I should be in Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia. Apologies for the distraction. ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Saurab Mani Rimal

• Saurab Mani Rimal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Nuwakot, Nuwakot (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nuwakot, Bagmati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nuwakot, Nuwakot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Doing some WP:WCW work and happened upon Nuwakot, Bagmati and Nuwakot, Nuwakot being redirects to a user talk page. On investigating, the editor appears to have blanked the page then moved it to a User talk page for a user that doesn't exist. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerod Lycett. I have reverted the page move and blanking, and I shall check the editor's history to see whether what is needed is a friendly message about why those steps were mistakes, or something more serious. JBW (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Raval77

I am bit concerned about the amount of new page content that Raval77 is creating regarding World Games, every new creation might have one single citation entry. But this seems like mass creation without regards for true GNG. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eh, that's not good. I've warned the editor not to create any more whilst this is discussed. None of these articles, as far as I can see, are viable - they're only sourced to primary source, and are about sports events from a minor meeting, comprising mostly non-notable athletes (I mean - Lifesaving at the 2017 World Games - Women's 50m Manikin Carry - really?). My temptation is to just nuke the lot of them, but that's very IAR (they don't conform to any CSD catergory), and alternatively I really hate bundled AfDs. And in this case there are around 460 articles. Just PRODding them all (quite apart from the effort involved) will of course attract one of the usual suspects who just remove the PRODs for no reason, meaning we'll end up at AFD anyway. So - ideas? Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if we get a response from Raval or not, but every time I see one of these articles I might start PRODing them. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A request for help with a sockpuppeteer

A sockpuppeteer is being highly disruptive: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dunnt717. New socks are coming up and editing so rapidly that it is impossible to keep up with all the blocking and reverting that is needed. Several editors have been helping with reverting, but none of us can keep on doing so for ever, and I am having to leave soon, after working on this one case non-stop for about half an hour. Any help from any editor in reverting, and in spotting new socks, and any help from administrators in blocking, will be very welcome. JBW (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously protecting pages that have been attacked by more than one sock could be possible, but I am afraid that might just lead to the sockpuppeteer moving on to other pages that we don't know about, making it harder to spot. I am in two minds as to whether it's worth a try. JBW (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been reverting on his latest sock User:Magi717 - they appear to be putting a tag on that gets removed by a bot, which removes the ability to rollback?   Kadzi   (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's crafty - if they're all editing from the same IP, it may be worthwhile to implement a block to the IP and account creation Ed6767 talk! 11:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor has edited from an IP address without using an account. It's an IPv6 address, which makes it possible that the editor has been easily able to switch to new IP addresses within a /64 range, thus evading autoblocks each time a new account is blocked. If that is so, then blocking the /64 range with logged-in editing blocked should put a stop to the shenanigans, so I've done that. Whether it works remains to be seen, but if that is indeed the case then doing IP editing was a gift to us. JBW (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

See notes at the SPI. We've put some blocks in place to slow them down but I expect they'll be back. But generally yes, if you're blocking an IPv6 address you can safely default to blocking the /64 range. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 for a technical explanation, but generally you can assume that a /64 is one end-user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't do hard blocks on Verizon Wireless. That's just going to cause endless collateral damage without accomplishing much of anything useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, Could someone range-block 2.218.85.153 as they keep adding redundant categories and don't ever listen, The last discussion was at User_talk:TKOIII#Ford_Fiesta where the same IP chimes in there, Blocking alone never achieves anything as they simply return whereas rangeblocking sort of does a better job, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, Can you point out some of the other IP addresses so I can put an appropriate rangeblock together? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey CaptainEek, 2.123.32.0/20, 2.125.184.101, 2.127.78.222, 90.195.58.193 and 90.195.51.28 are the most recent I know of, Apologies for not mentioning these earlier, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the originally reported IP, but the 2.12/././ IP range is too big to rangeblock. If they edit again, let me know their IP so we can narrow down their current range. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay will do CaptainEek, Many thanks for your help here, It's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The other ranges have been blocked; it looks like this range is 2.218.84.0/22. Peter James (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Barakah The Prince

Hello,

Barakah The Prince had been drafted by user @Jikaoli Kol: and I think it's not the right thing to do.

1. Barakah is quite popular in East Africa and has been involved in quite a number of awards, mostly African and has 1.5 million followers on Instagram.
2. Instead of imposing a draft on it, it should have a reference stub.
3. Some of the info there, I was given directly by the management of the artist, and I cannot post that as evidence well because of privacy issues.

Please resolve this issue in the most amicable way possible--RazorTheDJ (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that the only source cited in that article which isn't a broken link would fail WP:RS, I'd say that draftifying the article was about as 'amicable' as could reasonably be expected. You should probably familiarise yourself with WP:RS and WP:N, and quite possibly with WP:COI too. 109.159.88.21 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So there are there broken links in the article?--RazorTheDJ (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Only the first two links work. They are both to the same page, which is written by the article subject, and as such no use whatsoever in establishing notability. 109.159.88.21 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: RazorTheDJ has now moved the article to Barakah Da Prince (note 'Da' not 'The'). I sincerely doubt that the independent sources cited establish notability according to Wikipedia criteria, and the claims made which might possibly establish notability lack sourcing. And the name change looks to me to be questionable, to say the least. 109.159.88.21 (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Samurai_Kung_fu_Cowboy

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 user named Samurai_Kung_fu_Cowboy seems to have a bone to pick with me after he was sanctioned for behavioural issues last year. In 2019 he was issued a long-term block for edit-warring, and since his recent return he has been regularly contacting me because he feels that I'm responsible for his block, rather than his own behaviour. It was made very clear to him by the blocking Admin that upon returning from the block, he should consider himself on a short leash [47], while that same Admin also noted that he was likely making efforts to evade the block [48].

At any rate, his most recent tangent began after two of his edits were reverted (this one [49] and this one [50] for failing to source and for contravening the MOS) and the reasons for both reverts were explained to him via the edit summaries. He didn't react well, and he first left 4 separate irate messages on my talk page making various accusations such as acting in bad faith, stalking him, and bullying him [51], none of which I responded to, before he made it clear that he forbids me from initiating conversation with him [52], before he followed up with multiple additional messages [53]. There were then two additional messages left on his own talk page [54] which are just more random accusations.

Finally, it looks like he sorted through my edit history and found another editor who I was involved in a dispute with at some point, and he actually canvassed that editor to join with him and "do something about" me [55]. I'm sure some line must have been crossed by now. SolarFlash^Discussion 00:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I notice that the two reverts you mention (but neglect to take credit for) were also your first ever edits to those pages. It's a bit funny that that's not part of your story here. Also the part where you called them "paranoid" twice. Maybe you should come in again. --JBL (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This place is for dispute resolution, not dispute creation. Your reply seems in bad faith. Yes, both reverts were mine and anyone can see that, so I don't need to take credit for them. Go instigate confrontations somewhere else. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The best thing to do right now is probably deescalate by not interacting with or commenting on one another for the immediate future. Does that work for both of you, SolarFlash and Samurai Kung fu Cowboy? El_C 01:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That works beautifully for me but clearly it's easier said than done. He honestly believes he's being stalked [56]; sooner or later our paths will no doubt cross and I have a hunch he'll take that same tone again and we'll all be back here for another round. So as long as you're fine with that, the matter's out of my hands. As it stands right now, today, that particular user has edits that need to be fixed or reverted but I know damn well I can't go anywhere near them because he'll start screaming that he's being bullied and harassed, so clearly I'm already doing my best to de-escalate. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you or another Admin at least ask him to strike out or self-revert [57] the edit in which he openly solicits another editor to join up with him to "do something" about me? I'd have to look through the guidelines but that type of behaviour has to be against one of them. SolarFlash^Discussion 02:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. If Samurai Kung fu Cowboy does not respond to this report soon, I'll just warn them on their own talk page. El_C 02:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Obliged. SolarFlash^Discussion 02:18, 18 July 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.

Long-term Belarus vandal ranges

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.

---

Since December 2019, nothing but vandalism has come from the Belarus IP range Special:Contributions/178.120.255.0/21. They have also been vandalizing Russian language Wikipedia. The same stuff is coming from the Belarus range Special:Contributions/37.214.240.0/21, starting earlier, in October 2019.[58] Can we get two rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of one year. El_C 07:57, 18 July 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.

POV user persistently adding unreliable sources

Ninos2576 (talk · contribs)

I tried to fix him in one page and warn him about using unreliable sources. But I saw lots of things to fix by taking a look at this user's edits and there were warnings about unreliable sources at his talk page already. For this reason, I am bringing it here for admins' and community's attention. 217.131.85.124 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies in advance my response on this page is not formatted correctly, since this is my first time responding on a noticeboard page.

I do not recall ever receiving a warning about the reliability of my sources from anyone. Perhaps a few months ago when I was still new to Wikipedia I may have gotten one that I didn't notice. But the only warning about sources on my talk page is referring to an edit that I made where I didn't include a source at all, not one where I included an unreliable source. And I quickly fixed the non-sourced edit that is referred to on my page.

In terms of my other edits with unreliable sources, the report has not made it clear at all which sources I have ever used that were unreliable. If I had some more specificity, I would be happy to go back and revise those as well. But I currently don't have that.

Lastly, I believe that the assumption that I am a "POV user" simply because I am an ethnic Assyrian who has edited pages that pertain to Assyrians is very problematic. The argument essentially comes down to the idea that I cannot be objective when writing about my own ethnicity.

This last argument is not only somewhat racially insensitive, but also ignores the fact that I attach reliable sources to every edit that I have made in recent times, even when they are about a group of people that I am a part of. The only notice I have ever received on my talk page is about a time when I didn't include a source on an edit I made, (not about including an unreliable one). And I quickly fixed the issue as soon as I was made aware of it. I will be happy to go back and look at/fix/get rid of the sources that I have used that are considered unreliable once I actually know what those sources are. But since a notice hasn't been left on my talk page and I do not have any prior memory of being told about it before, I don't how what sources are being discussed here.

I am happy to look at them if a message is left on my talk page about what sources are specifically being mentioned. Ninos2576 (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP has failed to substantiate their case (by submitting evidence in the form of diffs), so their complaint risks casting aspersions. El_C 07:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

EL C I agree. I should have provided diffs but there are lots of things to link and I have just started fixing his latest edits on a page and I will leave his other edits on other pages to others. They were warned by other editors for not being careful about neutrality and reliable sources. I invited one of them to the discussion. In addition, civil pov-pushing is still pov-pushing and still diminishes the reliability and reputability of Wikipedia. 217.131.85.124 (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

IP, you are still making complaints which lack diffs. That's not good. Please be accountable to participants — attribute any respective claim about other editors with diff-evidence, so that the information could be verified. El_C 08:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editing by Za-ari-masen

Za-ari-masen has been relentlessly pushing Bangladeshi nationalism on large number of South Asia-related articles. He has violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:EW, and WP:Civility. I’ll share examples of these, in brief.

In languages related to South Asia: Za-ari-masen has been changing shared the Bengali and Assamese script to the Bengali script only. In Bengali–Assamese script, he moved a shared Bengali and Assamese script to Bengali script.[59] He was warned by Amakuru not to do so ("please stop moving this page without consensus") even though their previous attempt to POV push on the page failed.[60]. Without discussion, using a random claims, which was challenged in Bengali–Assamese script, he changed Bengali-Assamese script on mass to Bengali Script, this can be seen here for Rangpuri language, here and here for Hajong language, here for Chittagonian language, here for Sylheti language, here for Chakma language.

To provide some background, the Bengal region is shared between the countries of India and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan, which was created through the partition of India in 1947 along communal lines). In South Asian cuisine, he has been changing many articles to Bangladeshi only, even though it is a shared South Asian dish that both the Bengali people of India and Bangladesh consume. It would be neutral to list the origin as the Bengal region of South Asia or medieval India or of Bangladesh and India, but not Bangladesh alone as they have been doing. In chomchom, the Banglapedia source he used, only stated it was a favorite in Tangail, but used that to put the origin of chomchom of Bangladesh, however, this was reverted by admin Utcursch with the following: "The source doesn't support what you're stating". This again after edit warring with Gotitbro here. At the same time, in Bangladesh Liberation War, he removed all mention of "India" on the infobox.[61] This has been a trend by him in many articles, he removed all mention of "India" from the infobox on many South Asian cuisine and unilateral modifications involving "Bengali" to "Bangladeshi" and removing any mention of India or Indian cuisine from the infobox as they have done here on Misti doi, here on Bakarkhani, here on Mughai paratha, here on jhalmuri. Even after on shorshe ilish from May 2015 it was decided that Bengal will be given "dish clearly predates the division of Bengal", he removed any mention of "India" and changed it to Bangladesh only as seen here. His edit warring on edit warring on Bakarkhani resulted in two blocks [62], he has started a new edit warring in Mishti doi, as seen here, here, and here, again a blatant violation of WP:EW, multiple refs were provided to him that misti doi was a shared dish as seen here, here, and here, still he decided to stonewall and wikilawyer.

In Bengali and East Indian history: he changed in Gauda (city) the entire lead and infobox to put Bangladesh in prominence, even though the majority of the city falls in Malda district of India. [63] When he was confronted by Gotitbro, "sources are pretty clear that the Gauda falls in Malda, rvt POV alphabetic arrangement and coords" instead of engaging in dialog in the talk page, Za-ari-masen moved to edit war.here and here. Pala Empire, he inserted "Bangladeshi art and Sculpture of Bangladesh" in there. Bangladesh was founded in 1971, long after the Pala Empire. The Palas spoke proto-Bengali, not even modern Bengali[64]. NavjotSR explained this on the talk page of Bakarkhani.

Za-ari-Masen consistently conflates Bengali ethnicity with Bangladeshi nationality, though once again, the Bengal region is shared between India and what is now Bangladesh. He then went to engage in an edit war with Soug, redirecting Bengali American to Bangladeshi American. As mentioned, the user has a consistent habit of conflating Bengali with Bangladeshi, even though there are 100 million Bengalis in India. The edit war with User:Soug clearly violated WP:EW as seen here, here, here, here, and here. Five total reverts over the same subject on the same article with two editors.

I tried to discuss the issue with the editor in question on his talk page but nothing worked out. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the alleged civility problems; As for EWing maybe there's an issue, I don't know. I find the story telling format hard to follow. YOu might get ideas for presenting the EWing problem by reviewing other cases at the edit warring board WP:3RRN. (Comment by nonadmin) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Response by Za-ari-masen: Suppose the article Gumbo is unsourced and shows North America as its place of origin. Now some editor added a citation from a WP:RS and changed the place of origin to Louisiana, United States, would you call him an American nationalist POV pusher? :)

This is pretty much the summary of the whole dispute in different articles mentioned by Aman.kumar.goel. The dispute started with Bakarkhani where all the uninvolved editors agreed with my edit that the bread originated in or primarily associated with Dhaka, Bangladesh.[65], [66], [67], [68]. This failure to push the unsourced Indian nationalist POV on Bakarkhani made him to follow my edits, compile them and eventually leave messages on my user talkpage[69], [70] in extreme bad faith, along with sending inappropriate notifications by pinging users who share his POV in that discussion.

These cuisine/history related articles have also been regularly disrupted by the now indefinitely blocked (and earlier topic-banned) User:Highpeaks35 and his sock IPs to push the Indian nationalist POV, as discussed and proven here and a lot of my reverts went to undo the sanction evasions by this user. I have also been targeted by Highpeaks35 and his IPs as he left messages on different pages attacking me as well as tagging editors who share his POV, Aman.kumar.goel is one of them.

If I was really pushing plain nationalism in different articles, I wouldn't be starting discussions or taking initiatives to solve the dispute as I did on Bakarkhani[71] and Talk:Mishti doi[72]. Without even participating in the discussions in a civil manner, Aman.kumar.goel directly reported me here which shows his intentions basically lies in getting his ideological opponents blocked/banned than having the disputes resolved. This is also validated by a comment made by an admin earlier on Aman.kumar.goel's grudges against his opponents, [73]. Also, notice, Aman.kumar.goel has a habit of misrepresenting diffs as he did in this discussion by falsely claiming some diffs as my edit warring. Earlier another editor has also claimed the same about Aman.kumar.goel's behaviour.[74]

Aman.kumar.goel has also been previously blocked [75] for edit warring, yet he has continued to edit war and revert my edits, [76], [77] as well as other editors in different articles, particularly on Bangladesh Liberation War, [78], [79], [80], [81].

I have explained my edits in each of these articles below, a lot of which have been copy-pasted from my user talkpage where I've already explained these things.

Extended content

Mishti doi: after Utcurch expressed his concern, I added few more sources and again, made changes according to the sources. [82], [83], [84]. All these edits were reverted by Gotitbro, claiming Utcursch endorsed his revert.[85] The claim was proven false when I asked Utcursch if he really endorsed that revert[86], which he denied saying "I have not made any similar edits, so I'm not sure why my name is being used. I don't endorse those edits."[87] Gotitbro again removed those sourced content, claiming The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is a "problematic ref".[88]. I opened a discussion at the talk page requesting to explain there before removing the sources.[89] It had been 13 days and no response had been given. The references provided here by Aman.kumar.goel don't even contradict my sourced edit in the article about the origin of the dish, rather just mention the dish as Bengali dessert. My edits did include the mention that Mishto doi is also popular in India, so I'm not sure what nationalism Aman.kumar.goel is talking about. Mughlai Paratha: had also been affected by sock IPs of Highpeaks35. I checked the sources and there were plenty of source misrepresentations which I removed (my edit summaries there already explain this). I went through the history of the article and restored the better sourced version. Same story with Jhalmuri and Chotpoti, I added sources and made changes per the sources. Shorshe Ilish, Pala Empire, Gauḍa (city), Chomchom were all disrupted by evasions of Highpeaks35. On the language scripts, sources for all these languages say they use Bengali script as the writing system and I changed the infobox accordingly. Bangladesh Liberation War, a small glance over the history of this article can show Aman.kumar.goel has been practicing WP:OWN to push his Indian nationalist POV on the article and has been reverting and edit warring with every editor who edit this article. Bengali American has been put into AFD twice, 1, 2 and in both times, the consensus was to convert it into a disambiguation page which I tried to restore but they were reverted by the article creator and Gotitbro who was simply reverting all my edits at that time as I was having a dispute with him on Bakarkhani.

Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Aman.kumar.goel, Za-ari-masen, your respective reports are too dense. Try limiting yourself to a few summaries with diffs attached rather than all this prose. We are all volunteers here. El_C 02:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've shortened my statement a bit but I'm not sure which part to remove further and would like to wait for Aman.kumar.goel's shortened report, to make appropriate response. Till then, my collapsed extended content could be ignored if that helps. Apologies for the troubles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• The small version of my report would be: Za-ari-masen, who even calls things a "hoax"[90] without any basis, is still engaging in WP:OR,[91][92][93] (revert with twinkle rollback), [94][95] even after having been clearly told about it[96][97][98][99] and continues to edit war over the content. Fact that he does not see any problem with his edits is really concerning. His justification for such POV pushing as seen on the talk page that "Modern Bangladesh was formed in 1971 that doesn't mean cuisine that originated here should avoid being called Bangladeshi. Also take a look at the featured article Gumbo that shows United States as the place of origin even when the origin of the soup predates the foundation of the United States. Same with Maple Syrup."(from 14 July) just shows that he lacks any idea about how WP:RS and WP:OR works. Since he prefers keeping his preferred but problematic version while the dispute runs and in violation of WP:EDITWAR and WP:OWN this is why the user has become a time sink. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• All my edits are adequately sourced from reliable sources and can be easily verified in the diffs, so I'm not sure where WP:OR is coming from, rather the versions before my edits were largely unsourced. When the accusation of nationalist POV was not enough to challenge my edit, he began questioning The Daily Star (Bangladesh) as a WP:RS, which has been widely cited on Wikipedia including on featured articles, an example of his WP:Gaming the system. The example of Gumbo was brought to show the convention on related featured articles over the infobox, when he nationalistically pushed for removing any mention of Bangladesh from these articles, despite being already refuted on the discussion in Bakarkhani. WP:OWN rather applies to Aman.kumar.goel himself as he has quite zealously kept his preferred version on Bangladesh Liberation War, reverting all other editors who disagrees, in violation of WP:EW, [100], [101], [102], [103]. He has made similar reverts in content disputes on Ayurveda [104], Nathu La and Cho La clashes[105] and on countless other articles. Notice, the editor YuukiHirohiko who he has a dispute with, has also been reported by him at WP:ARE, a continuation of his WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Why I called the term "Eastern Nagari" as hoax and what came of the move discussion of the article, can easily be found in the talkpage's archive so I'm not prolonging my statement by adding unnecessary details. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

New editor adding articles en masse to parent category, possibly politically driven

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.

---

D.S. Morgenbesser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared today and has been adding numerous article to Category:Conservatism despite the articles already being in appropriate sub-categories. Dimadick reverted them at Pat Buchanan, D.S. Morgenbesser restored himself with the edit summary "It is reasonable to suggest that a stronger overview of conservatism can be acquired by Wikipedia's readers if notable adherents of it are categorized by both their subcategory in it, and their being found on the main category. This might be perceived as redundant if not for the need to carefully, thoroughly map political alignment, minus excess of technicality. I respectfully dispute reversion." The behaviour is extremely suspect, and I believe should be reverted on sight. Thoughts? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have mass-reverted the mass-additions. I also cautioned D.S. Morgenbesser that their approach is problematic. Hopefully, they will move on from this to edits which are otherwise uncontested. El_C 10:51, 18 July 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 Bearcat protection 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts:

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

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

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

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

• @Swarm: - "Protection should be set at the lowest restriction possible". Should be, not must be. Bearcat made an error. That's OK, because we all make mistakes (even you). There was no malicious intent involved or misuse of the tools. ARBCOM do not need to be bothered re this matter. They have more than enough to do as it is. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mjroots Man, will you stop at nothing to make excuses here? This is hilarious! You suggest the policy wording of "should be" is not binding, and may be ignored because it doesn't say "must be". Yet you simultaneously concede that "Bearcat made an error". If Bearcat did not violate a policy, due to the fact that it said "should", and you retort with "must", then where is the error? If Bearcat did wrong, and you're making half-cocked attempts to cover for him, then you're a pathetic disappointment of an "old-guard" admin who is making excuses for blatant violation of policy and should resign the tools in shame. There is no middle ground. You either make excuses for abuse out of loyalty or you stand against it. If you do the former, you're no member of this community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Swarm: - For the record, I haven't had any interaction with Bearcat as far as I can recall. I'm not trying to "cover for him" as you put it, but merely stating the situation as I see it, without any partiality towards either him or you. I accept that Bearcat did not know about partial blocks at the time. Had he known of them, and how to apply a partial block, maybe that would have been the course of action taken. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Swarm, this is the second time today that I'm asking you to please tone down the rhetoric. It's a bit much. El_C 06:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• El_C I'll "tone it down" when admins quit making excuses and turning a blind eye to obvious, blatant, arbitrary and willful abuse coming from "power users". Until then, I'd ask you to please refrain from tone-policing me. I find it trifling and condescending. Particularly multiple times in one day. If I'm involved and letting emotions get to me, by all means, remind me to take a step back, but when I review a situation as an uninvolved admin and find it so egregious that I'm choosing to invoke strong rhetoric, I think it's more problematic that you find a problem with my tone than the behavior that has me so outraged to begin with. Both Bearcat's backhanded response and the editors eating it up and saying "he made a mistake" is nothing short of pathetic. There is not a single person in this crowd who isn't actually aware of the fact that Bearcat, after 1.1 million edits from 2003, knows about our norms, our policies, our standard practices, and knows exactly what he is doing. If I sound outraged, it's because this is an outrage. I make my fair share of mistakes and I'm not one to throw the book at a "mistake", but that's not what this is. This narrative that people are trying to run away with, that "admins make mistakes", when this was nothing short of egregious abuse of the tools, and people are quite straightforwardly turning a blind eye and bending over backwards to make excuses, it's a serious problem. It's a problem that has existed since I was dabbling in this project as an IP over a decade ago. We all know about it. It's even what led to FRAMGATE, but how quickly we've forgotten those lessons. It's absolutely insane to me that you're worried about my tone while rubberstamping Bearcat's statement. This is just another abusive "power user" who's unwilling to do the bare minimum in terms of accountability, and yet you're fine with that. What "boxes did he check" for you, El_C? He did not admit to wrongdoing beyond 'maybe going a bit too far even though he was right', which is a misrepresentation of the situation. He did not offer any resolution going forward, he simply says 'I will take comments under advisement' (oh, how magnanimous). He has given no indication that he actually misunderstood anything that he was supposed to understand, nor that he has learned anything that he needed to learn. To me, his response checks no boxes; if it were an unblock request, even you would decline it. It's an empty statement, a vapid placeholder whose only purpose is to give people an "out" to justify excusing and defending the incident without any prolonged drama. If your focus is on diffusing my rhetoric and closing this thread, then you're part of the problem. I like you, El_C, you know that, but don't come at me while excusing this user's abuse. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Yes we all make mistakes, but an admin believing that preventing every user on the project from editing a page is preferable to blocking a single user, under the mistaken impression that there has to be a sustained pattern of repeatedly violating our rules across numerous articles, not just a temporary issue on one article, before editblocking the user is appropriate or justifiable is a serious issue. That and admins are supposed to be up-to-date with current policy - that Bearcat had never even heard of partial blocks until this thread is extraordinary.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Move to close. Thank you Bearcat for your response --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose this does not go far enough. We need to see some kind of indication that Bearcat understands why their approach is problematic, but so far all we've seen is defensiveness. I appreciate that it's unpleasant to be called on the carpet at ANI, but this kind of scrutiny comes with the job. Bearcat needs to adjust their approach to page protection and, based on what we've seen so far, a polite request will be insufficient to produce that outcome. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Like I said before, I'm not looking to drag anyone to arbcom. All I'm asking for is some sort of indication that Bearcat understands why his actions were inappropriate and a pledge to do better in the future. Doing better in the future looks like this: Instead of jumping the gun and the protecting pages at the first sign of disruption, he will block the relevant disruptive users (using his discretion, partially or sitewide) and only protect pages as a last resort (i.e. excessive vandalism or sockpuppetry from numerous accounts/IPs). If he is involved on the page (involved meaning he created it or changed it significantly) he is strongly encouraged to post his actions on an admin noticeboard for review. Simple, really. Also, since Bearcat seems unwilling, it looks like it's going to be up to us as a community to review all the sysop-protected redirects and titles he SALTED up till now. Sro23 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone made a mistake. That mistake has now been brought to their attention (and that of the community). If it happens again, then come back here or ArbCom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Admins are allowed to make mistakes. As long as they are learnt from there is no need for major drama, such as this. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 18 July 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 disruption at High Speed 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 hours have passed and no response from Admins, so I am going to re-post. Cnbrb (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User: Krimuk 2.0

So I started a discussion at Alia Bhatt who has been getting a lot of backlash from public and media publications for her behavior within the film industry. This incident has been widely covered by the media and I was surprised to see that there was no mention of it in this article. Hence, I opened a discussion but surprisingly was reverted by User:Krimuk2.0 and in the summary he made a CONSPIRACY THEORY AND ACCUSATORY remark that This is not twitter; stick to sending rape and death threats to people like Bhatt and me on social media. This is a serious false accusation. NOTE: I have not interacted with this editor outside of Wikipedia talk pages since last four years and have NEVER interacted with him on any social media. So this false accusation should be taken seriously as it is a very serious violations of our "assume good faith" (AGF) guideline and "no personal attacks" (NPA) policy.Krish | Talk To Me 18:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of any other concerns, and regardless of whether Krimuk's response was appropriate, WP:BLP policy applies to article talk pages. I suggest that if you wish to discuss changes to content, you cite sources. And don't state allegations as fact. 109.159.88.21 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war?

• 86.168.29.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turnabout (game show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello people! I appear to be in a slow-motion edit war with a user who is hopping IP addresses. Diffs: [106] [107] [108]

The IP is also making other wrong or wishful-thinking unsourced edits elsewhere, several of which I've reverted, as have others. But this one subject, Turnabout (game show) of all things, is where they are most obsessed.

What are my next options here, given that the IP keeps changing? And am I at risk of making trouble for myself if I keep reverting them (3RR?) over this minor, but annoying, problem?

I've not contacted the IP editor on their talk page (about the edits or about this ANI post) because the IP keeps changing and I don't think I'll catch the current user if I do - I always seem to log-on a few hours or days after they've last edited; they are however reading my edit notes as far as I can tell. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Trey Maturin, FYI they are all Doncaster IP from the ISP BT. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What about a vandal block on the single IP, and a semiprotection of Turnabout (game show). EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Gulshanravilahore

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.

---

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

The user has a ton of warnings, including at least one fourth level warning, on their page for their disruptive editing. I actually went to their page to mention their removal of a maintenance tag for an article needing copy-edits (Muhammad Junaid Journalist). That's when I noticed the many warnings and the fact that they had the same version of the article moved into draft-space before creating it at its current name (Draft:Muhammad Junaid). They were also already blocked once for some of their actions, and have been warned about their actions five times since returning. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Jerodlycett, I have blocked the user from article space due to failure to WP:ENGAGE. Guy (help!) 22:18, 18 July 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:2.140.93.244 - Personal attack

User 2.140.93.244 sent personal attack message at Talk:UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 - see here. Warning message sent at user talk page - see here. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like he might have realised his error as he deleted his own comment about 30 mins later. — Czello 07:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The abusive message was sent at 06:33 and self-reverted at 07:07. The warning was issued at 07:21, i.e. 14 minutes after the IP self-reverted the message, and there hasn't been any further disruption from that IP address since. Furthermore, it looks like the feedback from the IP's message was implemented by none other than Cassiopeia him/herself so it apparently wasn't just an attack but also an actually good, if inappropriately expressed, idea on how to improve the article. What exactly is this ANI thread supposed to achieve? Iaritmioawp (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Pls note that I was the one put back the correct info. No sure the editor has mistaken; the language used is not civil and rude for sure which violate one of the Wikipedia pillars. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A comment here. If I put into my edit summaries what I thought for some of the pages I cleanup with WPCleaner I would rightly be banned. Constructive editing and disruptive behavior aren't necessarily connected. That and redacted rant on certain types of articles. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp To improve an article or seeking for assistance can be asked in a civil manner and not using the four letter words -two different things here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this is pretty bad. It is good if they self reverted though. Hopefully, we can go on productively from here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra and Iaritmioawp: Agreed Deep. "FUCK OFF WITH THEIR FUCKING NAZI IDEAS" to me is not seeking collaboration /assistance / discussion " an actually good, if inappropriately expressed, idea on how to improve the article." put it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You did change the number like the IP suggested though, didn't you? At any rate, we're talking about a one-off, self-reverted—without being prompted to—instance of an uncivil talk page message from an IP. Since a "last chance" warning has been issued, I strongly oppose any sanctions unless further disruption occurs. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yash Chandrashekhar Shetty

Yash Chandrashekhar Shetty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent disruptive editing by this user—WP:BLP, WP:V (e.g. [109]) and WP:NPOV (e.g. [110]) violation, making broken edits (e.g. [111]), using misleading edit summaries (e.g. [112]), marking major edits as minor (e.g. [113]) and edit warring in the Siddharth Nigam article. The user keeps adding unsourced information to articles, ignoring all requests to stop. There is also an obvious WP:CIR issue—the user is incapable of understanding what a source means on Wikipedia, or even the fact that they are obliged to add a source, as evidenced by the post on their talk page. The user has been repeatedly and clearly asked to provide a reliable source, for example on the Siddharth Nigam talk page ([114]). But the user just keeps ignoring these requests, in a typical WP:ICANTHEARYOU fashion. There is no point in warning the user anymore, as they have already received (and ignored) a final warning.—J. M. (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

IP on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mezzo Secolo Di Ritornelli

151.52.254.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) copied and pasted this message [115] that they'd left on my user talk page (minus my reply, but with a couple of the others) to the closed AfD discussion that they were angry about, with a shouty comment about the Mafia [116]. They then reinstated (but without the Mafia bit) after I removed it [117]. Any chance of a block? YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it was IP user 151.38.94.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that posted the comment of 151.52.254.197 to the AfD page. I can only assume the same person is behind both; in the message they note that they are the same person as 151.74.138.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (but deny being the same IP as other ones on that AfD). I'll notify all three of the IPs about this discussion. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Strikethroughs added; I'm prepared to accept that the other two IPs are unrelated, and withdraw that portion of this report. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 10:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As well as adding the copy-paste back to the AfD page a couple more times [118], [119], the IP ending in 117 also left a couple of cryptic messages on my user talk page [120], [121]. I think they think I'm Merynancy, but it's hard to tell (I'm definitely not). YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 21:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

They were referring to people supporting the page's deletion as a "mafia", it seems like a sort of persecutory delusion to me (they also assumed I had something personally against the book's author when, in fact, I had never crossed him before his pages were SALTed on it.wiki for persistent spamming and I noticed they'd been rewritten on here). Nothing serious imo, they're just pressed "their" page got deleted. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I cleared the AFD earlier. If their IP changes that often, a block is meaningless. If they keep trying to change the AFD page, I will just semi-protect it for a few days. Kind of off the beaten path to do that, but it works. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Very funny that I wrote a message to User:YorkshireLad in his talk page about how his accusions of me being some other IPs were wrong and his response is a complain about me being 151.38.94.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and disrupting closed AfD pages...I have nothing to do with 151.38.94.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), never talked about mafia, never edited a closed AfD, never changed IP from my message I left to him in his talk page. I'm just guilty of having voted a "WEAK keep" in an AfD with another IP which had some COI as well as some disruptive behaviour as to become myself automatically a COI accomplice. Really a lot of paranoia out there. --151.52.254.197 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. btw, as I wrote in YorkshireLad's talk page, it would be enough to read the arguments and the style of mine and of the other IPs to easily understand we are different persons. Bye. --151.52.254.197 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Posting the wrong user at the start of this thread was an honest mistake which I corrected as soon as I noticed. If you really are a different person, I apologise, but I couldn't for the life of me think why someone who had never edited before would want to copy-and-paste your comment somewhere else, unless they were indeed the same person—especially when, as you accepted yourself, your IP address had already changed once [122], so it seemed entirely possible that it would change again.

My initial response to your message in the previous diff, incidentally, was not to report you here; it was in this diff [123] in which I said: I'll also point out that following me to my talk page simply to express your irritation with me, and not to make any actual request of me, is bordering on wikihounding (as you should know if you've been here for ten years), and I'd request that you stop. (The ten years bit is, as you'll know but others reading this may not, a reference to your comment about how you'd been here for years.)

Frankly, I felt a little unsafe when the Mafia got brought up, however much I knew the actual Mafia were unlikely to be involved in a deletion discussion about a book of singles. That, plus the fact that I'd already had a pestering message on my talk page (btw, I should thank Roxy the dog and Merynancy for replying to that before I got chance to), was what drove me here. I'm not after any sort of retribution; I just wanted the hounding to stop. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 22:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No wikihounding, at least from me: I left a single message in your t.p. to reply and clarify my position about the accusations of COI, this is what personal talk pages are meant for, my message was very polite and civil, and I think Roxy the dog and Merynancy understood my points perfectly. As long as you insist, let me say I am frankly APPALLED from so much bad faith: you need to read Wikipedia:IPs are human too (and note the plural). I cannot respond of other IPs' bad behaviour. As for me, I took part to many others AfDs, I was probably decisive in keeping some articles like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Robin's, and never met anyone accusing me of all this nonsense. After some time my IP changes (not by choice) but if you check the geolocation the area is always the same, and its very far from the other IP. For sure I am not that schizophrenic as to leave a message like this one [124] and shortly later writing nonsense [125], going full rant, not even knowing how to sign messages and then going on to disrupt a closed AfD. I think it's obvious the other IP (the one with COI) noted my message and tried to exploit it to re-open the AfD discussion, obviously knowing nothing of Wikipedia rules. But if you prefer to think I am so seriously bipolar go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and ask for further investigations, I have nothing to hide. 151.52.254.197 (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. On a sidenote, please read more carefully WP:WIKIHOUNDING as it has nothing to do to what you pretend it means. --151.52.254.197 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, I've previously been told that WP:SPI is not for reports that solely concern IPs. But anyway, look, I have no wish to cause you any harm; I just wanted to be left alone. Perhaps I have failed in WP:AGF in lumping you in with the others, for which I can only apologise; your message on my talk page would not have been cause to report you here, and I'm happy to withdraw the portion of this report that relates to you. In mitigation, please do accept that my own actions were in good faith; as I have said, I was feeling threatened, and in the heat of the moment one IP looks a lot like another. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 10:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine, given your words above the incident is closed for me too. About the other IPs from Milan area, I think they arrived in your talk page following Merynancy (as they have a grudge against her for having nominated for deletion their walled garden of articles) and you (and I) were just caught in the middle. I would not take them seriously, btw. Bye. 151.52.254.197 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken

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.

---

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has a self-acknowledged reputation for unpleasantness (see the note at the top of his talk page which says Warning: Don't post here, you won't like me.), but lately his behavior has crossed the line from annoying to disruptive. Just within the past 24 hours:

• He edit-warred with Lugnuts at Mary Tyler Moore ([126], [127]). He also edit-warred on the same article with a different user several days before.
• He banned Lugnuts from his talk page [128] and then nominated Lugnuts' own talk page for deletion (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Lugnuts).
• He twice insinuated that Levivich is a sockpuppet ([129], [130]) despite having been previously warned to take such accusations to SPI [131].

It would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved admin could intervene to prevent further instances of this kind of behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The above was posted as I was composing the below. Please consider Lepricavark to be Lugnuts' outrider for this incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have no relationship with Lugnuts and am not particularly impressed by his talk page banner, but there's something blatantly disruptive about nominating another editor's talk page for deletion during the middle of an unrelated article dispute. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Accusing someone of being a sock should not be tolerated, especially since there is no defense one can utilize because you can't do a CU. BMK has been warned by @Lourdes: to stop and for some reason he feels that he can continue to insinuate that Levivich is a sock. We should not tolerated this behavior. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• <redacted> Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn, per El C's explanation of the scope of his warning, below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Surely you have diffs to support this assertion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• BMK, I already warned you about socking accusations that are not backed by evidence. You are risking imminent sanctions. El_C 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is the same incident you warned me about, and I acknowledged. None of this happened after your warning. Please check the time stamps. So, yes, Lep. came here with a complaint about something that an admin had already dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• BMK, you've acknowledged my warning on 13:04, 20 July 2020 . You've repeated the accusation here on 13:44, 20 July 2020. El_C 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Really? You think that my comment that <redacted> I don't see that, but I guess you mean the warning to be "broadly construed", so now I know that and will comply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• BMK, no evidence — no consideration. Otherwise, it becomes an aspersion. El_C 18:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, that's quite clear, got it, and thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, which CheckUsers told you that they think I'm a sock? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• BMK, when did you talk to CUs about me? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no need for the "banned from talk page" message other than to be provocative IMO. Per WP:BLANKING Beyond My Ken is fully within their rights to remove further comments, or even started a thread here if it was offensive or disruptive and he had simply asked Lugnuts to stop politely. Ed6767 talk! 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

+1. BMK is problematic as an editor. They rarely outright cross the civility line but they are so frequently right up against it. They are very quick to make uncivil accusations against those who disagree with their edits. Additionally BMK has been happy to ignore good editing practices such as BRD, and accepting that a controversial edit shouldn't be in an article if the talk page discussion is in a NOCON state (even if a RfC is in process). Part of the issue is they are a technically skilled and active editor but unwilling to see any flaw or issue in their own work. Regardless of how right or wrong their article level edits might be, the incvility towards others is unacceptable. I've certainly been the target of quite a bit of BMK's hostility. I would strongly support a clear CIVILITY warning with outlined tbans to follow. Springee (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nahhhhh. What really happens is that BMK points out problematic disruptive behavior by another user that user then runs around tearing at their clothes and crying “how dare you, that’s a personal attack!!! Oh the humanity!!!”, that user’s friends then jump into a pile on, BMK gets frustrated, his every word is scrutinized and examined with a magnifying glass for signs of “incivility” (cuz you know, incivility is like that, like a germ that can hide in the cracks of a users comments and it takes super dooper wiki sleuths to detect it and cleanse it) and then there’s drama.

Dudes, just don’t comment on each other’s talk pages if that’s what’s been asked of you. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Um. Now that we've seen the contents of the talk page BMK nominated for deletion, perhaps we should just close this and move on. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  If you saw problematic content on a user talk page, would you 1) confront the user in question about the content; 2) open a thread at the appropriate noticeboard, or 3) nominate the page for deletion even though it's common knowledge that we don't delete user talk pages? I'm guessing that you wouldn't chose the third option unless you had some reason to want to be pointy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:14, 20 July 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 there a reason this was closed so quickly without addressing the repeated aspersions of socking? BMK is not a new editor and he was warned a while back about making insinuations of socking and told repeating it can get him blocked. Not sure why @El C:'s warning is now seen as news to BMK that WP:SPI is the place to go for a sockpuppet investigation. This is absurd. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Meh. I think the aspersions were sufficiently addressed by El C's warning. If the accusations are repeated, BMK can't plead ignorance. That said, the discussion was still ongoing when it was suddenly shut down and the closing statement doesn't really reflect the contents of the thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue on Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin

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.

---

For two weeks now - including on each of the last three days - an anonymous user at the range 2603:6000:8D40:77F:0:0:0:0/64 has been making a series of edits to Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin that, with the very greatest of respect in the world, do not demonstrate competence.

Their edits have included changing serial and date ranges...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=965983967&oldid=965980919
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=966013310&oldid=966011122
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=966035642&oldid=966022389

...changing stated dates to ones in the future...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=966014547&oldid=966013431 (to "July 7" on July 4)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=968229621&oldid=968220012 (to "July 20" on July 18)

...and adding trivia that is not only unnecessary, but also poorly worded.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=966035976&oldid=966035642
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=966036430&oldid=966035976
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=966037337&oldid=966036673
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&diff=966038048&oldid=966037337

And the edit summary field has been left blank for each and every one of these edits.

As ever, it's not for me to comment on this individual's state of mind, background, or English literacy skills. But I will say that, having reported them previously, I am disappointed that they have continued to make these edits, to the extent that I have felt compelled to report them for a second time. I don't really like reporting other users, but sadly this is one of those situations where I feel I don't have much choice. Klondike53226 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've put a partial block on editing Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin by that range; I agree that these are broadly good-faith edits that are just generally sloppy and incompetent, and they haven't communicated with others. There's been a level of unhelpful contribution on other pages too, but intermittent and minor - if they go off somewhere else and start failing to help, let me know and it can be made a full block if needed. ~ mazca ^talk 19:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Mazca. :) Klondike53226 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 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.

Intractable behaviour from IP editor 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE

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 posting this again because earlier complaints on this page have been ignored by admins.

An anonymous IP editor at 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE with a history of disruptive editing and WP:INCIVILITY has returned after a period of quiet to post unfounded accusations at other editors of being paid to edit Wikipedia on the High Speed 2 article. Previous attempts at addressing his/her content concerns have only been met with insults and slanderous comments. This is persistent, intractable behaviour.

Previous incident reports concerning this IP range can be seen here:

• March 2020
• May 2020.

These only resulted in temporary bans for the IP range. The editor simply waited for the ban to expire before returning to behave disruptively.

I was prepared to let all this lie now, but just this week, the IP has reawakened to start causing more trouble.

• This talk page message looks to me like the IP is WP:CANVASSING another (innocent) editor to participate in retaliatory edit warring to get revenge on User:Sceptre for an earlier disagreement.
• In this article talk post the IP editor has ignored previous warnings and has started to accuse other editors of being "pro HS2 fanatics", having "vested interests" and being "astroturfers".
• Yesterday I was once again accused of being an "astroturfer" in a public forum. The IP has been explicitly warned not to call people "astroturfer" - a warning that the IP has blatantly ignored.

It is extraordinary that nothing is being done to deal with this. Why is this persistently abusive IP being treated so leniently? A permanent ban please - we're all fed up with this. Cnbrb (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• 2A01:4B00:881D:3700::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one year. Indefinite bans of IP addresses are more or less forbidden by policy, but a year ought to give them time to find something else to do. They are the only user on this IP range. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

At last, thank you so much. This was dragging on for way too long and a number of editors were getting very frustrated. Cnbrb (talk) 16:20, 18 July 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:Brycenn

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:Brycenn is a "new" user whose initial edits involved creation of three football rivalry articles. These articles bear a strong resemblance to articles created by blocked user User:CalebHughes and a long series of sockpuppets. Brycenn has responded to my inquiries with personal attacks and by removing my comments from third-party talk pages. Diffs as follows:

• Personal attack: here.
• Striking my comments from third-party pages: here, here, here, here, here, here.

I would appreciate an uninvolved admin looking into this. Cbl62 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

He's been vandalizing the page Nick Saban. User3749, 06:16, 19 July 2020

As referenced in the above unsigned comment, Brycenn is vandalizing the Nick Saban page by repeatedly changing the subject's name to "Satan". See diff]. Cbl62 (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Brycenn:'s response, particularly the edit summary, is not encouraging. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Indeffed by Materialscientist --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to thank Materialscientist, and you too, Deepfriedokra, for dealing with this blasphemer. I remember CalebHughes as a vandal, but who knew there would be more to it than this--no doubt this is a deep conspiracy paid for with orange and blue money, originating from that "quaint little ******* on the Plains". Envy is a terrible sin, and I call upon Volunteer Marek and User:AuburnPilot, who have made no secret of their affiliation with that Ag school, to repudiate these terrible lies. No one, no one should be allowed to impugn the character of the second-most divine coach in the history of college football. I am glad this was handled before I saw the report: I've been told I might have a weak heart. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 19 July 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.

Jason Drummond vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JulianParge, wow - please try to be concise! So, you say that you've been contributing since 2006, which is technically true, but in all that time you've made roughly 20 edits that weren't about Drummond, so I think it's probably fair to describe you both as single purpose accounts. I'll repeat what I said previously - editing with a POV is not vandalism, and since you confess that you find him inspiring and interesting, it would be fair to say that you have your own POV. Now, we absolutely will not allow someone to turn any article into an attack page based on primary sources; then again, we also don't permit whitewashing by removing negative information which is sourced to secondary sources. What we have here is a content dispute between two SPAs who have different perspectives. You need to work it out on the talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing to work out, this person CLEARLY has it in for Drummond and you've ignored every previous edit of his that I've reverted or changed - he already DID attack Drummond using primary sources, so you're talking absolute nonsense by saying you don't allow this - you did allow it, hello?? His only purpose for the 2 month old account is to contribute the most negative things he can find on Drummond (see latest contribs). In addition, I'd say it's relatively certain that he's the same person from the private prosecution - a person who has submitted forged evidence against Drummond, and now he's here on Wikipedia, continuing to attack Drummond. What I find most frustrating however, is that in this situation, where I've spotted and raised the matter to the most senior people on Wikipedia, rather than being helpful and investigating properly, your first reaction is to criticise me and incorrectly label me as an SPA. You can see why I've only made 20 edits in the last 14 years, it's because this platform and its community is completely backwards. I'm so sick of this website, it's such an infuriating and phenomenal waste of time and effort. JulianParge^talk 19:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

JulianParge, hi, sorry I just saw this. When I said 'We won't allow...', I meant that we would support anyone removing content like that, if they were to persist on adding negative stuff based on primary sources we would prevent them from doing so. They now seem to have stopped doing so, and are making factual assertions based on secondary reliable sources - on the face of it, that's OK. I have no view on their private identity, and it's inappropriate to comment on it here based on personal suspicions. I'm sorry if you were offended by my description of your account as an SPA - it wasn't intended as an accusation of bad faith, but I think it was an accurate observation based on your contribution history.

The long and short of this is that any editor without a WP:COI is welcome to work on the article, provided they do so within our guidelines. Let us know if anyone persists in editing in contravention of our guidelines and we will intervene. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Afshaarn, block evasion, bad redirects

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.

---

• Afshaarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshan Mahmood

Take your pick, either a sock (above SPI case was opened by Yamla, who declined to block immediately out of caution, which I certainly appreciate, but given the ongoing damage, I didn't want to wait for the SPI to get looked at; the behavioral similarity is fairly striking looking at the archive...), or continuing to create a lot of bad redirects (hundreds and counting, see contribs, they're basically all like this) despite being asked to stop. Someone comfortable with using WP:NUKE would be welcome here, with the caveat that I noticed that they actually moved a couple existing redirect pages, so watching out for those few might be prudent. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I firmly support Deacon Vorbis's statement that these hundreds of redirects are bad. Whether or not this account was created to evade a block on Zeshan Mahmood (I believe so, but am not certain in this case), we are probably well past the point where they need to be stopped and nuked. But, well, I'm going to bed now, so hopefully someone else can clean up. :( --Yamla (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

All these redirects should be deleted but with the precaution suggested by User:Deacon Vorbis, above. I hope someone who knows how to use Special:Nuke will volunteer for this tricky task. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

National Church of Great Britain -> Liverpool Cathedral - really??? Narky Blert (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Afshaarn is now blocked by NinjaRobotPirate as a likely sockpuppet of Zeshan Mahmood. Remaining work: someone who is good with Special:Nuke to nuke everything from orbit. --Yamla (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:24, 19 July 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.

Machinexa

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

Despite several warnings and guidances by me and other editors, Machinexa persists in adding content to articles about health effects while using citations that do not comply with WP:MEDRS. Latest is Berberine. See also Nicotine. This results in a very high revert percentage. David notMD (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa is a problem editor who, despite numerous warnings about adding unreliable sources and poorly composed content - and even admitting inadequate knowledge or competence on topics (mostly in WP:MED articles) - continues unabated, causing other editors to clean up a mess. MED topic-ban recommended. Zefr (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Topic ban from medical articles, broadly construed, for their failure to understand WP:MEDRS. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Amkgp: I have undone your close, as admins cannot unilaterally impose topic bans in this area. It must instead be a community sanction. My statement was a !vote for a topic ban, not saying that I had imposed one. Admins may only unilaterally apply discretionary topic bans in certain areas. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I second the suggestion of a topic ban. I have also interacted with Machinexa. They seem in general to be acting in good faith but cannot or will not follow WP:MEDRS. They make significant numbers of edits everyday that require review and policing for quality and conformity to sourcing and citation rules. Wallnot (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Topic ban per above ~ HAL333 21:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dunno if this is a BLP violation, or simple bragging...

...but don’t think it really matters much either way. Cleanup on aisle [Silver Ghost]. Qwirkle (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, gone, borderline IMO but better safe than sorry. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle and GeneralNotability: The revdel was good, but we should probably keep an eye on the user who made the edit. I actually recognise the name (which is similar to the username) from a weird incident I had on here years ago ... see User talk:Graham87/Archive 22#Michael Jungura, where he/a family member tried to insert the same/similar name into several articles about Aboriginal rights, without a source; also see these contribs. I didn't block the user then and I don't feel a block is needed for the latest editor right now, but it may be needed in the future. Graham87 06:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Graham87, looking at those diffs from 2012; Bungarra as a surname is not common, however it is the name for the Sand Goanna in some of the languages from the Pilbara region (Western Australia). The 'pidgin' English appears entirely unbelievable; it just isn't what is normally seen. Overall, it appears to be some joker doing a poor imitation of an Aboriginal person, and if the diffs which have been revdelled are anything similar; I'd take the claims with a grain of salt... Happy to discuss further if there are any queries; just ping me or flick me an email. Jack Frost (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive overlinking

Drag net

Net drag

Zlobnik Urac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently added links discouraged by MOS:OVERLINK to articles. [132][133][134] They were blocked in April for 36 hours over the same issue, and have been not acknowledged multiple further warnings on their talk page about overlinking since the block. It appears to be a single-purpose overlinking account. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: A "single-purpose overlinking account" is a pretty mind-boggling concept, but I have looked at a significant number of the editor's edits, and you appear to be right. 2,340 edits, every single one of which, to judge from what I have seen, consists of making inappropriate links of one kind or another, and never any response whatever to messages. Even if this were someone making good-faith but misguided edits, they would sometimes make good links; 100% bad links looks very much like deliberate vandalism. However, whether it's vandalism, incompetence, stubborn refusal to accept consensus, or whatever else, when an editor has done this much disruptive editing and no constructive editing at all, will not communicate at all, and is undeterred by a limited block, it's time for an indefinite one. I'm on my way to the block button. JBW (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC) L

Thanks for block the account, which was a net drag on the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I dont know the language, but i looked up zlobnik kurac (sic) in Wiktionary and was not surprised. —Soap— 11:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jorm removing talk page 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.

---

• Jorm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello, I have been thoroughly frustrated with the conduct of Jorm on the talk page of the Black Lives Matter article. They deleted discussion that did not violate any talk page guidelines, simply claiming that it contained "white supremacist talking points" and "conspiracy theories". All of the comments that were removed by Jorm were entirely civil and respectful in my opinion; they were simply arguing that racial disparities in reported crime rates should be taken into account when discussing statistics showing racial disparities in police officer-involved fatalities.

Whether or not you agree with that argument, it seems clear that it's a fair and reasonable argument to make, and deserves to be debated and discussed in the context of how best to convey the statistics included in the article. This manner of simply dismissing opposing arguments — no matter how civil and respectful and well-intentioned they may be — as "white supremacist" and deleting them from the talk page strikes me as a dangerous form of censorship. I understand that race is a sensitive subject, but that does not mean any arguments contrary to the prevailing narrative should be censored, even if they may be offensive to some editors (WP:CENSOR).

I followed up on their talk page [135] but just got more of the same — accusations of white supremacy and being a Nazi.

My understanding is that Wikipedia is a place for civil debate, not censorship, and I don't see how Jorm's behavior can be tolerated in this light.

Diffs

• deleted first comment
• deleted follow-up discussion

PS: I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, so I hope this is the right place to file my complaint and I apologize for any formatting errors. Stonkaments (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk:Black Lives Matter (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

As can be seen on Jorm's user page, I've explained how the IP's claims are deceptively dead wrong, and multiple users have explained that the IP's claims were talking points used by white supremacists. Binksternet also removed the talking points (as would I have), so I don't know why Stonkaments is pointing to just Jorm. Neither Jorm nor anyone else has accused Stonkaments of being a white supremacist, and Jorm has not called the IP one either. Indeed, I'm the only user I'm aware of who has used "white supremacist" as a noun instead of an adjective, and in reference to white supremacists in general or hypothetical individuals. In hindsight, one of my comments could be read as suggesting the IP is one, but it's curious how Stonkaments mischaracterizes anyone using the words "white supremacist" as if they were accusations toward him.

So what we have is a user who edit warred to restore a talk page post that multiple experienced users identified as white supremacist disruption, who isn't listening when everyone gives an explanation why it should be removed, who is now mischaracterizing people explaining to him that white supremacism is a bad thing as personal attacks, who seriously argued that authors of a study requesting their work be retracted is meaningfully distinct from their work actually being retracted because that study supported the questions he just wants discussed, who has a history of misrepresenting sources to portray BLM in a negative light ([136], [137]), censoring the right-wing nature of criticism of BLM, and edit warring to downplay the legitimacy of studies that support BLM claims. Hm, does that sound like someone who should be editing that article? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I have my biases of course, as we all do. Ian.thomson has Black Lives Matter at the top of their user page, so I'd question their bias as well. And they've been asking other editors to "pile on" here, for what it's worth.[138] As far as I know, all of my edits have ended up with positive contributions to the article.

It seems clear from Jorm's most recent response on their talk page [139] that they were calling me a Nazi and said I was promoting "white supremacist talking points".

Censorship of the talk page is a much larger issue in my opinion. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is civil debate, is it not? If an editor can simply delete a reasonable, respectful, well-sourced argument because it goes against their preferred narrative, then what sort of civil debate is that? If an opposing argument can't be expressed on the talk page, even when it has at least two peer-reviewed studies supporting that line of reasoning, then what sort of disagreement is allowed? If this type of censorship is condoned, then what does Wikipedia even stand for? Stonkaments (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Do black lives not matter?
If Jorm had called you a Nazi, he would have written "a Nazi" instead of "nazis" plural. He was not calling you one. You are continuing to mischaracte-- No, you're straight up gaslighting about the situation.
At this point, if I wasn't involved, I'd've blocked as WP:NOTHERE since this video series is proving all too relevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Are you claiming that the OP is a secret alt-righter or are you just soapboxing that Youtube series? --Pudeo (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Are those my only options? I don't have the option to suggest that OP has unwittingly fallen for alt-right talking points but hasn't been consciously radicalized? Or that they are operating in good faith but with the problematic assumption that neutrality is achieved through always playing devil's advocate? Or that they're just truly ignorant of white supremacism and stubborn to fix that, only accidentally and coincidentally fitting a pattern of behavior common to the alt-right? Or any mixture thereof? Possibilities that still assume some degree of good faith, make no attack about his person, but still highlight the problematic behavior? Must I be stuck with the False dilemma of bad-faith choices you're leaving me to pick from? Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's a difference between everyone having their own biases and WP:CIVILPOV-pushing to defend a drive-by attempt at crusading for a debunked white supremacist mantra. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Stonkaments, regarding the "pile on" - Ian.thomson was merely notifying Binksternet that they were mentioned in an ANI discussion as a courtesy. It's not strictly required, but it's adjacent to "if you report someone at AN/I you're required to notify them" - if you mention someone in a discussion it's polite to tell them that they've been mentioned. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• It might be best for all concerned if Stonkaments did not edit in areas concerned with post-1932 US politics. Just a first impression. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• I got nothing on this beyond what Ian.thomson said above, except to add that the simple idea of "having a debate" about white supremacist talking points is a pretty common tactic to attempt to normalize white supremacist rhetoric. It is left as an exercise to the reader to ponder that.--Jorm (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Censorship my hind foot. OP is saying all the right things-- for me to consider them WP:Nothere, to consider them WP:Pointy and to concur with blocking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  And Jorm is correct. We've seen all of this before. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there is fault all around here. The new editor is walking into a highly political topic and with a POV that doesn't align with some of the active, experienced editors. That's a bad combination. The discussion of the study and it's retraction seems like a legitimate talk page topic so long as the discussion focuses on use in the article and doesn't violate WP:FORUM. I think Jorms retraction here[[140]] is heavy handed and probably a violation of talk page guidelines regarding the deletion of other editor's posts (WP:TPO). The study and it's retraction have been covered by several mainstream sources [[141]], [[142]], [[143]]. It certainly would have been more CIVIL to discuss the issues with the study and (I presume) why the study or what ever BLM article edit, was not DUE/RSed/etc. There is certainly a level of WP:BITE in the way this was handled though Stonkaments needs to know that only the first edit to the article is BOLD. After that it's WP:RECKLESS. Springee (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If you "don't know what was said on the BLM page", then you really shouldn't be commenting on the matter, now should you? Someone making edits like these really shouldn't go defending someone who edit warred ([144][145][146][147]) to restore a drive-by white supremacist trope to a talk page. (Nobody should need an explanation to understand what's racist about 'black people get killed by police more because they commit more crimes'). If you hadn't gotten involved here, I'd conclude your edits fall under "everyone's got their biases but we try to operate in good-faith." With a history like yours, blindly stumbling in to defend someone by accusing other editors of politically motivated behavior is a huge risk if you ever get caught up in Arbitration. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So rather than discuss the merits of my concerns you have created a bad faith strawman to attack the messenger. This is not the sort of behavior admins should engage in. Springee (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I am trying very hard to maintain belief in your good faith. This is not a hill to die on: these were not "talk page discussions" that might could improve the article--they were forum posts containing talking points used and overused by white supremacists. I'm sorry, but you are wrong here, and there's no "fault all around". "New" "users", if that's what they are (because often they are not new, and often they are not users--they're just here to troll), aren't any of the good people you might hope to find on both sides. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This becomes a difficult discussion and one I really would rather not get too involved with given Ian is already, in effect, accusing me of something along the lines of white supremacy. Regardless, I firmly believe the new editor went into this in good faith and reacted to what seemed like a very strong yet unforgiving reply. [[148]] Springee (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hardly a "strawman" when the biases of the CPOV-pushing editor in question are so blatant, and dispositive of the fact that their mask of reasonableness and neutrality is just that, a total sham. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think actually following policies is a bad thing. It does explain some of our previous negative interactions. Springee (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, do you have a reading disorder of some sort? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Stonkaments tried to use statistics to disprove the anti-racism basis of BLM,[149] bringing in a June 2020 opinion piece by an anti-BLM ideologue, Heather Mac Donald, who was citing a paper that was already being seriously questioned[150] and that the authors have since retracted.[151] When this was reverted, Stonkaments doubled down and made a more aggressive attempt to disprove the basis of BLM by adding a section called "False narratives".[152] The talk page removals were correct, as they were a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, with Stonkaments trying to argue numbers to undermine BLM. Stonkaments shows a very strong wish to fight against anti-racism. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Binksternet: In the deleted discussion you claimed that the article was retracted because of faulty methodology, but the OP actually quoted the authors from the link you posted which contradicts that: Although our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the question we actually tested (the race of civilians fatally shot by police), given continued misuse of the article (e.g., MacDonald, 2020) we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections.. The Black Lives Matter article discusses police statistics and mentioned that particular study, so it seems completely appropriate to discuss the section and the study on the article talkpage. It seems like quite a stretch to claim, just based on own reasoning, that these need to be removed because they are "white supremacist talking points". --Pudeo (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Jorm's actions were appropriate and beneficial as explained by Ian.thomson and Binksternet. WP:NOTHERE IPs dropping far-right garbage onto multiple talk pages is a problem that has become progressively worse since 2015. Jorm also helped keep this at bay after Stoneman Douglas High School shooting when dozens of IPs and disposable accounts posted numerous falsehoods and far-right conspiracy theories onto a dozen or more articles. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, a debate club, or a place to prove fringe ideas. - MrX 🖋 11:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing IP from such discussions may be appropriate but should be done with caution. I recall some of Jorm's actions with respect to the SDHS shooting and related articles. In fact I recall Jorm outright ignoring policy to restore obvious synthesis in an article. Stonkaments is a new editor but in good standing. The material in question is hardly some alt-right article. Discussion of the retracted research paper certainly isn't something that should be censored from the article talk page given it's coverage in mainstream media. Stonkaments may be wrong in what they want to add to the article but to delete the discussion (which leaves the door open for others to try to discuss the same material) is against talk page guidelines. Springee (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm, not aware of Jorm having "ignor[ed] policy to restore obvious synthesis" and I was very active in that topic area. Of course, it has no relevance to this discussion anyway. Also, I didn't say alt-right, I said far-right. Talk pages are for discussing specific edits, not for advancing fringe theories. If Stonkaments wanted to propose an edit, they didn't need to wait for a drive by IP to open the door for them. - MrX 🖋 12:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

IP was discussing a specific edit though: "If the disparity of police involved fatalities of black people is included and compared against white people then the crime rate differences should also be included, other wise it comes across as omitting information in order to push a narrative."

I wasn't waiting for IP to open the door on anything. I simply saw what appeared to be an overzealous removal of talk page discussion, just because it challenged one of the "sacred" beliefs of BLM, which struck me as a dangerous form of censorship stifling civil debate. I think it's important that Wikipedia as a whole, as well as specific articles, not become a one-sided echo chamber.[153] That is my main POV, if you can call it that: in favor of civil and open discussion in pursuit of articles that accurately portray reality; against echo chambers that stifle debate and deeper understanding. Note the other article I've focused on editing is Tesla, Inc., which often has a similar echo chamnber dynamic. WP:POVFIGHTER: "If you see it as your mission to protect article content from any edits that are against Wikipedia policy, you are a good Wikipedia editor."

I'll admit I was unaware of what sounds to be a pervasive problem of IPs spewing falsehoods and far-right conspiracy theories — I can understand now why someone would be quick to delete any comment that smacks of that. And I understand there's a dilemma between wanting to support civil debate, while not wanting to give voice to bad actors just looking to promote fringe racist or conspiratorial theories. But the situation at hand seems so far removed from that — the argument being advanced was well-sourced, and in good faith, seeking a more accurate portrayal of relevant statistics — that it feels unconscionable to allow someone to prevent that discussion from even happening. Stonkaments (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Any sort of sanction against Stonkaments is uncalled for. At worst they didn't understand the minefield they walked into and they got bit. They are understandably frustrated given they likely feel they were acting in good faith. That should be the end of it. Springee (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Newbie mistake - doesn't understand the ins and outs - perhaps he could be mentored? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll count on the two of you to show up and forgive the next editor who takes similar actions but isn't a right-winger. I'm sure that you'll both be arguing for no sanctions when a liberal or socialist or BLMer or antifa-ist is involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whatever you want to say about the merits of the suggestion itself, the comment removed here [154] is very obviously an attempt to discuss the article and what material should be included. It doesn't violate any talk page guidelines and should not have been removed. Just because you disagree or think it's wrong isn't a reason to remove the discussion from the talk page. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussing a controversial minority view is one thing. Arguing in support of a viewpoint held by ideological extremists, based on a source which has been disavowed by its own authors, who have requested that it be struck from the academic record, using the argument that "it has not been retracted, the authors only asked for it to be retracted"... Hmmm. Hard to find any good faith academic motivation in that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Then just write a comment explaining that. Or alternatively, just ignore it. There's no reason in WP:TPO for removing it, and absolutely no reason to edit war over it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that white supremacists see civil debate as legitimization or even as winning. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Also it's patently incorrect to say TPO does not allow for removing it. TPO justifies "Removing prohibited material" which, it explicitly states, includes "advocacy" and "propaganda" from WP:PROMO. TPO additionally justifies "Removing harmful posts". I think posting white supremacist talking points with no academic basis pretty uncontentiously qualifies for removal under TPO. The argument for the post's academic validity comes across as nonsensical, as I have previously stated, and the policy justification for removal is clear, as I have just explained. I will also point out that removing white supremacist propaganda is not a petty squabble over politics, it's about whether talk pages can be used to post radical ideological extremism. Such topics can be discussed academically, of course. However, there's nothing academic about humoring such a discussion purely on the basis of a study which has been rejected and disavowed by its own authors, simply because a procedural technicality exists. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The retracted study is a total red herring. There are two additional studies cited in the article (one by the same author as the retracted study) that both found no racial bias in police-involved fatalities after controlling for racial disparities in crime rates and/or number of police interactions. Stonkaments (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This response is a red herring. This is your own report, and it is not even about the content you're mentioning. From what I can see, that content is not even under discussion. Per your own complaint, an IP first misrepresented sources, then independently interpreted raw statistics to justify a racist talking point. You objected to this, citing an invalid study, on both Jorm's talk page and on the article's talk page. Per your own complaint, an IP's POV-pushing was deleted, and then your subsequent objection using an invalid study was deleted. Intentionally or not, both discussions invoked racist talking points without any legitimate academic basis. Thus, both removals were justified, per the evidence you yourself presented in your own complaint. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe you're mistaken on a lot of the facts. First off, I don't believe the IP misrepresented sources or independently interpreted any statistics. I disagree with your claim that these talking points have "no academic basis" because of the one retracted study, since there are two other studies in the article that reached the same conclusion. Also, I don't believe the study I cited on the talk page was the one that the authors retracted. Lastly, I disagree that the retracted study is "invalid", because in the authors' retraction statement they reiterated "our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the question we actually tested". I agree that this is not a content dispute; it's a question of inappropriately deleting talk page discussion. Stonkaments (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of "belief" though. The IP did misrepresent the statistics initially, which you yourself refuted. They then retorted with a statistical table from the FBI. The FBI source makes no statements, opinions, or claims, yet the IP made the purely-independent, editorial judgment that the statistics were meaningful on their own merits. There was no thought given to the context of the statistics, there were no sources articulating that the IP's interpretation of the statistics was meaningful, there was no source-based backing that the IP's statistics were relevant to the article. There was only a claim. We're talking a common, run-of-the-mill, racist claim. And the evidence to support it was not an academic source. It was some random IP's statistic, followed by said IP's personal interpretation of said statistic. That you reported this, that you're defending this, well, it puts you on a fast-track ban towards a ban from American politics ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

How many editors were involved in this edit war at the talk page? It does not sound like Jorm and Stonkaments were the only editors involved. Should the page be locked for a few days to avoid further edit wars? Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't just Jorm removing the material. Also, Stonkaments was the only one who broke 3rr. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We are having to semi-protect way too many articles, and more and more talk pages. But that is better than keeping ourselves open to this kind of disruption and the never-ending wikilawyering and "process" discussions that follow. Who's got time for that? Well, besides Jorm, haha! Drmies (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that's clear here is that multiple users including Jorm consider that any discussion of information they disagree with is "using the talk page as a forum". Discussing information which may be relevant to an article on its talk page is not a violation. Just because you don't agree with the information presented does not give you the right to remove discussion of it. Furthermore, it is absurd that Jorm and others are claiming the study was fully retracted, as it was not - the study authors specifically say they are retracting their conclusions, not the data itself. The data they gathered is perfectly valid and relevant to the article, and should be discussed for inclusion on the talk page. Furthermore, the likes of Ian.thomson making multiple direct accusations of "white supremacy" against other editors simply for wanting to maintain NPOV in this very ANI thread should have already resulted in warnings if not sanctions against them, but it's apparently okay because this is "anti-racism". This is absolutely absurd that this has gone on for so long without boomerangs against Jorm and Ian.thomson already. It's even more absurd that people are okay with this guise of "anti-racism" and "anti white supremacy" being used as an excuse to remove perfectly valid and encyclopedic information (or discussion thereof) from the site. And people wonder why Wikipedia is claimed to be biased. 173.219.156.237 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— 173.219.156.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." And again, "black people get shot three times more often by police because they commit three times the crimes" is pretty obviously fucking racist. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's say we want to determine whether there's a gender bias in police use of force. After all, "Women’s risk of being killed by police use-of-force is about an order of magnitude lower than men’s risk at all ages".[155] Is it sexist to note that nearly 90% of people arrested for murder are men (and over 80% for violent crime overall) — and consider how that might impact the number of police killings by gender? Stonkaments (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would absolutely be sexist, without a doubt. Discrimination against men is a common theme in extremist misogynistic ideologies such as the Men's rights movement and Inceldom. Setting aside the fact that we don't interpret statistics to begin with, and that doing so would be OR and POV-pushing, using raw statistics to, or hosting discussions about whether they can or should be used to, validate extremist talking points, without any valid academic credibility, would be patently sexist. The comparison is a good one, and I thank you for drawing such a good parallel. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No, stating simple statistics that are validly created is not sexist. It is not sexist to state "men are arrested more than women for x crime", nor is it sexist to state that in addition to stating "men are at higher risk of being killed by police". However, this is a content dispute which should be continued on the article talk page but this can't happen there because users like Jorm remove any attempt to. It is appaling that multiple experienced users here (Jorm, BMK, Ian.thomson, yourself, DFO, Drmies) have been attempting to censor valid discussion based on false premises, while making personal attacks and being extremely uncivil towards others, yet nobody has stepped in to warn or sanction any of you. This is absolutely absurd, and I wouldn't be surprised if this discussion was brought up as a prime example of Wikipedia being biased and toxic... oh wait, you don't want to be those things I thought? Or it's okay to be biased and toxic as long as your worldview/opinion is the one that's in the articles? Send the content dispute over inclusion back to the talk page, sanction Jorm for inappropriate removal of talk page comments, and sanction many editors who posted here for uncivil comments, personal attacks, and blatant WP:RGW activity in their biased pushing their POV as the only acceptable one and censoring anyone they disagree with. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As a wise man once said: "cool story, bro." Dumuzid (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• As you say, it is not sexist to cite statistics or to state simple facts. However, that was not Stonkaments' question. Stonkaments asked if it is sexist to editorially examine and interpret statistics to justify something that is an ideologically-extremist view, without any academic backing. Editors independently assessing and interpreting sources is OR and POV-pushing. When an editor is doing so in support a sexist or racist viewpoint, that's POV-pushing of said racism or sexism. It does not necessarily mean the editor is a racist or sexist, but still, racist or sexist POV-pushing without malicious intent does not render it valid, it is still an unacceptable level of ineptitude. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You believe it's ideologically extremist to "note that nearly 90% of people arrested for murder are men (and over 80% for violent crime overall) — and consider how that might impact the number of police killings by gender?" Stonkaments (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not stating any of my beliefs. I'm merely answering your question. The premise of your question was examining "gender bias", against men, based on statistics, and whether doing so would be sexist. That's was literally the scenario you presented. The "gender bias" you refer to is, as I said, a radical misogynistic ideology. That is not "my belief", that is objective fact based on the mainstream body of reliable sourcing as is reflected by our own articles on the relevant ideological movements that propagate such beliefs, in spite of the statistics you cite. So, yeah, in the context of mainstream reliable sourcing, a Wikipedia editor making their own independent editorial interpretation that any given statistical percentage translates to the validity of an extremist ideology, then yeah, it's pushing the extremist POV and should be eradicated without prejudice. Do you disagree with this? Or are you seriously suggesting that non-academic posts, which correlate with the advancement of a radical extremist ideology, are valid and important on Wikipedia? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not gonna lie... that is not something I'd ever thought I'd read on Wikipedia. It is now sexist (and even misogynistic) to note that men commit 90% of the murders, and that's why men get shot by police more often... we need equality in violent crime and police shootings by gender, do we? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Again violence against women or racial minorities is an egregious injustice and I will never, ever, apologize for speaking out against it. I literally, literally, literally, literally, literally... Literally, literally, literally, literally, stated, that it is not "sexist" to notate a simple statistic. I'm positively doubtful that you have even read any of my statements, and yet have still left this comment. This is either a willful misunderstanding or a willful ignorance at this point. Yet again, argumentation for a radical ideological extremist viewpoint without any academic basis is radical POV-pushing, not fair and not legitmimate discourse. If you're not willfully ignoring mainstream academic views, then no, you'll find no objection from me. Luckily mainline acadmeia is the standard we hold ourself to, and we do not give a single flying fuck about an editor who sides with an ideologiclaly-extremist view. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh I read your statements; you just refused to read Stonkament's and, by cause, called their suggestion that men are shot more often by police because they commit more violent crime, and I quote absolutely sexist. It does not feel good to be misrepresented, now does it Swarm? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I did not ever accuse Stonkament, nor their statistics, of being "absolutely sexist". They presented a hypothetical scenario in which statistics might be used to interpret a discriminatory bias against men. Such a bias is an unrealistic perspective held only by sexist movements, so yeah, I opined and still do opine that editors interpreting statistics to justify an extremist claim would be sexist. They asked a question, if you want to persecute me for giving the honest answer, then so be it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, it's completely possible to become a wikipedia administrator by continually insulting others, being here to WP:RGW, making personal attacks, and advocating for the censorship of viewpoints they disagree with for no policy based reason whatsoever. Last I remember, IPs can't file arbcom cases, and they're the only ones that can remove a sysop - so what is the next step here? The behavior displayed by Swarm in this thread is not only unbecoming of an administrator but is in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies that, if I were to violate as a dynamic IP, would get me indefinitely banned within 10 edits. Why is this permitted? 52.119.101.2 (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is tough. I almost have to agree, since when you bold things they become infinitely more persuasive. Almost. Dumuzid (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Then please, feel free to create an account for the sole purpose of reporting me to Arbcom. I'm certainly not one to hide from accountability for my statements. If you feel that I should to be desysopped for my statements in this thread, then go ahead, make your case to Arbcom. I can admit when I go too far, I can admit when I am in the wrong. But in this case, I will defend myself all day and all night. I'm not even a friend of this Arbcom, I've criticized them relentlessly. It's certain that I'll receive no preferential treatment. So go for it. If I'm going to be desysopped for arguing against racism, then that is a hill that I will gladly die on. I only ask that you do not make empty threats, that I will be given a full case, and that everything in this thread will be fairly examined. If you cannot refute my points here, then I will gladly challenge you to do so in a full Arbcom case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You've just quite literally admitted that you are solely in this discussion for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW reasons, which are not only both major policy violations but are grounds for desysopping. There is no "refuting" your points necessary - you have blatantly insulted other editors and admitted to using Wikipedia to further your own personal "arguing against racism" (well, what you perceive to be racism) viewpoint - which is the definition of battleground and righting great wrongs. It's absurd enough that it's coming from the typical untouchables such as BMK (who isn't going to be sanctioned for literally insinuating someone has a reading disorder. But from an administrator? Wow. Hey, by the way, where's your RGW attitude against BMK's trivializing mental disability and utilizing it as a personal attack against someone else? Since he's on your side of the argument/RGWing, it's okay? 52.119.101.2 (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is that the posts in question were, overall, focused arguing over BLM and on making an argument intended to convince the reader about BLM, not about sources discussing BLM or other stuff related to article content. "Here's a bunch of papers that I think prove BLM is totally wrong" isn't a discussion about article content (we're not allowed to perform original research, which includes digging up primary sources and using them to try and form an argument about the article's subject ourselves in the article text.) Those discussions were clearly devolving into people bickering about or taking the opportunity to soapbox about BLM rather than discussing anything that could plausibly been used to improve the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Amazing. Active discussion regarding multiple users violating multiple pillars and policies of Wikipedia, including an administrator, and the discussion is silenced because "go create another discussion". Furthermore, there was not "no consensus" to sanction Jorm, there was in fact a consensus that Jorm's removal was not in line with talk page policy - consensus is based on the strength of the arguments, not how many people show up to support Jorm's WP:RGW behavior. This is going to be swept under the rug, nobody is going to be sanctioned for the multitude of policy violations on this page, and this bias and silencing of discussion/viewpoints that some prolific/untouchable editors disagree with will continue. Great close Tony. Let people violate policy and say "you need to start another discussion if you want them sanctioned for it". 52.119.101.2 (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• So you're arguing that the closing statement got it wrong, and that rather than a "no consensus" result, there was a consensus to refute the complaint and exonerate Jorm? If so, I agree entirely. Although it is a bit unclear if you're saying "discussion was silenced" while simultaneously saying a consensus refuted the complaint and that it was a "great close". I agree that this discussion was going nowhere and that further problems should go straight to AE for topic banning. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not particularly sure why you are complaining: the only other suggestion that hinted at sanctions was of Stonkaments by Deepfriedokra, which is what I was referencing in my close. You, Swarm, and a few others were having a back and forth that was going nowhere, and that type of exchange is exactly what AE is designed to avoid. Basically it was evident that there was not going to be an agreement that Jorm violated any norms here, arguably there already was an agreement that he didn't, and there was unlikely to be an agreement about anything else that had come up. It'd become a back and forth not discussing ways forward for the problem presented. When that's the case, allowing the ANI thread to continue usually doesn't make much sense. If another uninvolved administrator disagrees with me, I don't mind my close being reopened, but I also don't think anything would change if it was reopened and closed in a few days. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBalloni: Excuse me? I asked for sanctions against multiple editors explicitly and in fact in bold multiple times. There was no "back and forth", there was an explicit request from me to sanction editors for explicit and grave violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:RGW, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:NPA - yet you ignored them (and in fact apparently didn't even read them, since you said nobody else suggested any sanctions, yet I did clearly). This reeks of a close by you to attempt to silence this as a "back and forth" since you don't like people getting called out on WP:RGW that you agree with. Maybe you should sanction BMK for the blatant personal attack he made - it seems based on other threads he has a prolonged issue with civility - yet you ignored it. Maybe you should sanction or report Swarm for their clear WP:RGW, WP:BATTLEGROUND (admitted by themselves, to boot) behavior, and their clear WP:NPA violations. You suggest WP:AE - but at the top of that page, IP editors are prohibited from reporting users there, thus I cannot even do what you suggest. Either you're deliberately ignoring obvious issues because an IP pointed them out, or because you agree with their WP:RGW behavior and are trying to silence the complaints I made. I invite you to respond to my point that "if I did half the stuff Swarm, BYK, and others did, I'd be indef-banned within a matter of 10 edits or less" - because that is damn true. I have no problem with you closing this discussion, but you should re-read it because it's clear you didn't even read it based on your blatant oversight of clearly bolded requests for specific sanctions. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I directly invited you to create an account for the purpose of submitting an Arbitration request. You declined to do so, in favor of continued argumentation. You claim that I'm explicitly in the wrong, yet you refuse to initiate any relevant procedure to punish me for it? Of course, I'm not actually "battlegrounding" or "righting great wrongs". Both apply to editors who have a personal bias that is leading to disruptive behavior. I neither have a personal bias nor am I being disruptive. I am simply expressing my neutral assessment as an uninvolved admin. I have argued why policy is on my side. I have argued why the content is not in line with policy. I did not sugarcoat my objection to ideologically extremist views, and I have done so from a policy basis. I have highlighted why my objections exist, and how they come from a policy perspective. You've expressed your awareness of Arbcom being the appropriate forum for your accusations, and yet you fail to take proceedings to that point, even though it is obviously the only solution you have at your disposal. I have essentially begged you to take this to Arbcom, which you claim is the only remedy for your percieved injustice. I have stood behind the objective policy behind me through and through. Like I said, if that's not good enough for you, challenge it. I'm a critic of this Arbcom and I have no special defense in their realm. They're already under pressure from the WMF to eliminate abusive behavior. If this is what will eliminate me, I will have no regrets. Again. Try it. Go for it. I'm literally not trying to stop you. Shoot your shot. If you're going to actually make your accusations in a meaningful way, do it. No one is stopping you. I want to face and challenge these accusations before a "court of law" process. I am begging you to create an account and file your objections and accusations. But if you're not going to, knock it off and quit wasting my time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to create an account, and you should not treat me differently because I choose not to, nor can the closing administrator ignore my complaints because I refuse to create an account. This is an appropriate forum for the accusations I'm making - ANI is defined as the place to discuss behavioral problems. Furthermore, I literally cannot file an AE or case against you as an IP - which is another problem. The closing administrator completely ignored my calls for investigating the complaints I made - which is why I responded to this again. I will not rehash this with you further. I will not continue to entertain your attempts to bully me into being quiet about your abusive use of Wikipedia. I will continue to ask the closing administrator to re-evaluate his close and to actually investigate the things I wanted investigated. You have not stood by any policy at all, but have personally attacked editors in an attempt to bully and censor them off this discussion. That is absurd behavior from an administrator, and regardless of if you get sanctioned you should be absolutely ashamed. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestions were over the top and would never have a chance of being implemented even if you were a logged in user. In fact, if you were a logged in user you'd probably be blocked per WP:NOTHERE for all the invective. I was trying to avoid pointing that out.

As for your comment about you being indef'd if you behaved the same way as Swarm and others: I did consider blocking this IP for the behaviour displayed in the thread, but didn't think it was worth it since you said you were dynamic. I did look at the range just now though, and Special:Contributions/52.119.101.2/20 appears only to have one primary logged out editor active in project space, and little other collateral, so it'd be an easy rangeblock for whomever reviews this at your request to make if you wish your behaviour as an IP to be evaluated in the same way that logged-in users are. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBalloni: So, it's okay for an admin to WP:RGW and WP:BATTLEGROUND, but when an IP points that out, it's invective? It's okay for an established user with a history of incivility to accuse another user of having a "reading disorder", but it's not okay for an IP to correctly ask that the user be sanctioned for that comment? It's okay for someone to remove perfectly valid discussion about article content from the talkpage of said article, only because enough WP:RGW editors show up to WP:NPA and call them a racist for wanting to discuss the content of the article? And when discussion is still ongoing regarding user conduct, it's okay to close ignoring the explicit requests for sanctions against multiple rule violating editors, simply because it's an IP editor who you can "easily block" as you say so yourself? Jeez. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• You have repeatedly stated that you could not take this further because account creation was required to pursue additional forums of sanction. In turn, I have literally told you multiple times to feel free to create an account for the sole purpose of doing so. It literally requires nothing detrimental from you while allowing you to substantiate and articulate your claims of injustice. Literally no one on either side is saying that we should avert more advanced measures. El_C convinced me to move on and let bygones by bygones, but if Jorm and I are so in the wrong that it's obvious that we should be desysopped, then, like I said, repeatedly, go for it. Please. Go for it. Just quit wasting our time with post-close debriefings if you're don't have the spine to do anything about this alleged "injustice". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@52.119.101.2. I edited as a dynamic IP for about a decade, so I can emphasize with you. I am actually impressed with the respect (everything is relative you know) that Swarm & TB have given to an IP who is in dispute with them. I believe you have made your points, and unfortunately no other users have backed you (I'm not convinced myself, but I feel your pain). Anyway, creating an acct just to open an AE case is all I (and it pains me) can offer. You might just want to file this away and if there is a pattern, then it may be appropriate to bring this back to AN/ANI. But I don't see any sanctions imminent. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• I myself edited as an IP for years prior to registering an account. It was literally perceived injustices from unaccountable admins and “power users” that motivated me to become involved and to make an effort for change. This is the only thing that led me to become the outspoken admin that I am today. If I ever get desysopped for being a meanie bully who is in the wrong, I will accept it because the good conduct and administrative integrity of this project is the most important thing to me. That is why I beg the IP user to create an account and file a report if they truly feel that it is the right thing to do. However I will not apologize for speaking out against basic wrongs as I see them. If this is my fatal flaw, then I invite I invite the IP’s proposed Arbcom reckoning. I can not state enough that I would prefer this go to ArbCom. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:52, 21 July 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.

Times Radio

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.

---

Harassment

User:Funky Snack appears to be pursuing some sort of vendetta against me and has recently followed me onto an admin's talk page. I fully expect him to pursue me onto this page before long. I have no idea how to deal with it. GDBarry (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is not true whatsoever. This user has been constantly battling arguing over the fact his opinion on a list on Talk Radio wasn't approved by consensus. Myself and Andysmith248 are happy to come to an arrangement, but GDBarry doesn't think Wikipedia rules apply to him. Help would be much appreciated. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's true! You've just done it, exactly as I predicted! GDBarry (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No diffs or quotes — this is not how a report should be submitted. El_C 14:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

GDBarry, and what do you mean I fully expect him to pursue me onto this page before long? You are required to notify them on their talk page. You did ping them, but that is not enough. Do you think we hear just one side of a dispute? Corrected: they did do that, sorry about that. But my questions stands. Do you expect them not to defend themsleves? El_C 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is some sort of independent dispute resolution process, then I'm happy to take part in it. I am not happy to carry on like this, where I move from one Wikipedia page to another and the same person keeps following me around and making my life impossible. GDBarry (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thing you need to provide evidence in the form of diffs for. This is the process. You submit evidence and argue your case. That's it. El_C 15:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No user called Andysith248 here at the moment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Andysmith248. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping to keep this private but it seems that I can't. There is nowhere to hide on Wikipedia, as I've just found out in a highly unpleasant fashion.

Here is my list of "diffs" as originally requested to support the charge of harassment - however, it looks as though I may need to update it to take account of furthe developments on this very page. I'm being harassed as I try to report it.

START OF EVIDENCE

From the Talk:Times Radio page, 14:09, 15 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATimes_Radio&type=revision&diff=967818592&oldid=967818241

"Please also stop with the rudeness or I shall report you."

I don't believe I had said anything rude in my previous comments.

Talk:Times Radio, 18:20, 19 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATimes_Radio&type=revision&diff=968487955&oldid=968487388

"Please give up and stop your abusive messages otherwise you’ll be reported again."

Again, I don't believe I had said anything abusive in my previous comments.

Talk:Times Radio, 18:53, 19 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATimes_Radio&type=revision&diff=968492246&oldid=968491771

"You don’t rule Wikipedia, so please stop thinking you do. End of until anyone says further."

This was after I had politely asked Funky Snack - twice - not to pre-empt Andysmith248 and to wait for his response.

Talk:Times Radio, 08:50, 20 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATimes_Radio&type=revision&diff=968589659&oldid=968584274

"You’re the one being rude and keeping on. If you make edits or reverts you’ll be blocked. You’re the one who can’t accept a consensus."

Once again, I had said nothing rude in my previous remarks - I had simply said that I was going to seek guidance from the admins and reminded Funky Snack that the warning applied to both of us.

User_talk:EdJohnston, 10:18, 20 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=968597602&oldid=968587169

"Whooaaaah. Firstly, you need to get your facts right. We were told to make no further edits/reverts on the page otherwise a block would be possible. A consensus at the moment is two against one. People with no notability should not be added to radio presenter lists, which you seem not to understand. This is the issue."

This was after I had politely enquired on EdJohnston's talk page whether Funky Snack had any authority to tell me not to edit the Times Radio page. I was not expecting Funky Snack to intervene at all.

User_talk:EdJohnston, 11:39, 20 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=prev&oldid=968605238

"I'm simply defending my opinion as to why I believe you are being disruptive to Wikipedia articles. This is an open website of which anybody is welcome to comment on anything if they wish, especially if they feel it is beneficial to certain articles. May I suggest if you don't want people to comment, you agree with a consensus and don't get upset when you don't get your own way. I will be reporting you again today unless your attitude changes."

This was after I had objected to Funky Snack pursuing me onto EdJohnston's talk page. I do not know what Funky Snack was planning to report me for, as I had not been disruptive to any Wikipedia articles. (The last time I edited an article page was on 16 July, and I have not edited Times Radio since 15 July.)

User_talk:EdJohnston, 13:18, 20 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=next&oldid=968615358

"Feel free. I have just reported for your rude and abusive behaviour and the fact you have previously vandalised articles by disagreeing and replacing what "you" think is right. So, let's see what happens. You're getting upset because your suggestion for the list on Talk Radio wasn't accepted. Now, please do yourself a favour and wait for another consensus to be reached. At the moment, myself and [[User:Andysmith248|Andysmith248) make two against one. That is a consensus over time. The result was to leave the list as it is and not include those who don't have articles. Perhaps we're all wasting our. For now, leave editing on Talk Radio as instructed in earlier posts."

I have never been reported for vandalism on Wikipedia. Nor have I ever made any suggestions about the Talk Radio page; the dispute relates purely to Times Radio. (This is not the only time that Funky Snack has referred to Talk Radio, which is a different station entirely.)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, 15:08, 20 July

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=968629613&oldid=968629518

"What behavior? Me sticking to Wiki guidelines when it comes to lists? Come on pal. You’re the one being aggressive."

This was after I had said that I was no longer concerned about the content issue but was intensely worried about Funky Snack's behaviour. I do not believe my tone was aggressive.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, 15:13 20 July 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=968630038

"On the condition you/we never mention the list issue again. Then I’ll quite happily leave it."

This was after I had explicitly asked Funky Snack to stop harassing me by following me round from page to page. It appears that Funky Snack was attempting to deal with the content issue by intimidation, essentially telling me that I wasn't allowed to mention it anywhere on Wikipedia.

Please find where I said that. I didn't say don't mention it on Wikipedia. I said if you drop it I'll drop it. I find YOUR behaviour strange just because your edit wasn't accepted? It's getting ridiculous now. Please also include YOUR quotes to show you were the one being more aggressive towards me. Thanks. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

END OF EVIDENCE GDBarry (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the most confusing submissions of evidence I've seen on Wikipedia, but oh well. Looks like tempers flared a bit, but nothing too egregious that would requite administrative intervention. I will note, however, that two against one does not consensus make. El_C 21:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Accused of harassment by user who is constantly rude over result of list on article

As above, this has become an issue where GDBarry doesn't like the fact the result of a consensus went against him. Full story can be found at Talk Radio talk page. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The correct link to the dispute is Talk:Times Radio. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, cheers. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, so you don't even know what radio station it was. And on the talk page, you told me that you listened to it yourself. My god, you've got one hell of a nerve. GDBarry (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

They made a simple mistake, it doesn't look good for you to come here with such comments. Canterbury Tail talk 14:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it probably doesn't, but I have now learned that there is nowhere private to go on Wikipedia. Anywhere I post, I'm just followed around by this one person. I have no idea how to deal with it beyond withdrawing from Wikipedia completely. This can't possibly be right - users shouldn't be allowed to hound other users off the system. This was a very minor dispute over a list of presenters on a radio station, which has somehow got completely out of control. GDBarry (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You are quite right, no one should be hounded off of Wikipedia. Since there are now two threads I believe some people with more time than myself will take a look into it. Note though that this board will not get involved in the actual content, just the behaviours. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The content is not an issue - I actually couldn't care less any more. The behaviour worries me intensely though. GDBarry (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What behavior? Me sticking to Wiki guidelines when it comes to lists? Come on pal. You’re the one being aggressive. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, your behaviour in following me around from one page to another. As I said, I don't care about the content issue any more. Someone else can deal with that. Now please stop harassing me. GDBarry (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

On the condition you/we never mention the list issue again. Then I’ll quite happily leave it. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Funky Snack, your indents do not make sense to me. I'm about ready to collapse this subsection... El_C 15:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As above, if GDBarry drops the presenter list issue on Talk:Times Radio I’ll happily drop this. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but this is not really a negotiation. Some serious charges have been made. We are still in the investigation stage. El_C 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, may I suggest you read the full transcript on Talk:Times Radio. You’ll see I was very polite stating that presenter lists should only contain those who are notable and gave Wikipedia articles. That’s when he became aggressive. Note “I do not expect to see Luke Jones removed again”. I hope you’ll be looking into my allegation against him too. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't have time for that. The evidence must be compiled properly. Claims not backed by evidence will be discounted. El_C 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It does appear you’re on GDBarry’s side here. EdJohnston please can you help as you were across this. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not on anyone's side, because neither side has provided any evidence yet. You, however, are pressing the point, for some reason which is beyond me and is certainly not in your interest. El_C 15:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry For my ignorance, how do you mean? - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple: no evidence — no consideration. I'm not sure I am able to explain it any more clearly. El_C 15:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What a convoluted contrivance this is. All these words and it took until about 6 posts up until someone said what the actual dispute was about. Wasting time to read thru the 2 talk pages and the EW report, it boils down to whether a list of TV hosts can be included in an article if and only if a person in that list has their own article. Well, NO, as long as you have a reliable source stating they were a host, they don't need a WP article to be included in the list; that is the point of a list (to prevent NN people from getting pointless articles). Y'all should be arguing over the source or lack thereof, not whether they can be in a list if they don't have an article. Take it to the talk page and ask for a WP:3O. Continuing at ANI is unproductive for both of you. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Diffs from GDBarry on Times Radio.

Diff - 15/07

Diff - 15/07

Diff - 06/07

Diff - 06/07

Diff - 06/07

Diff - 02/07

To be included in a list on Wikipedia, the name must be notable and must reach WP:GNG criteria. Either way, Luke Jones (in question) doesn't have any reliable sources. So no, he can't be inlcuded. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

GNG states it is for stand alone lists, not embedded lists. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Either way, it does not matter since they have not provided a source. Once a source has been provided, then you 2 can decide what to include. At this point, this is a content dispute and cannot be settled on ANI. Take it back to the talk page. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hold on, they did provide a source [156] so this is a content dispute. This can probably be closed unless any underlying behavioral issues prevail. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOURCELIST is the appropriate policy for what can be included in an embedded list and what cannot. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - Hope the diffs are acceptable? - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston It appears User:GDBarry has now gone on to moan about me at User:Spartaz. Do you know how I can stop this user from accusing me of something that I haven't done. It looks like he's out to cause trouble in retaliation for his edit not being met by a consensus. The opinion was met by me and User:Andysmith248. the "allegation" is also being looked into by User:El_C of whom I have sent my diffs. See User_talk:Spartaz. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the diffs and have not immediately encountered anything noteworthy (except for the first one, which is just a poor edit by GDBarry). Maybe you have some summaries and/or quote excerpts you want to attach to each of those diffs...? So I know what I'm expected to look at...? Anyway, I'm not seeing anything GDBarry has done at at Spartaz' talk page, save having send them an email. Which could be about anything. How are you coming to the conclusion that it's about you? El_C 20:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Spartaz's page, User:GDBarry added a comment and deleted it and re-wrote it as an IP address and has now been quite aggressive now he knows I've seen it (see new comment on Spartaz talk page. I'll get some quotes/summaries to you soon. As you can see, he/she wasn't happy with myself and User:Andysmith248 consensus on having a list but only with notable people. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Diffs with summaries from GDBarry's edits.

Removal of entire section on "Presenters" until dispute is resolved

Removal of Amber Rudd, Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thomson

Digby Jones removed

This edit was made by the same IP who has made a compaint about me to Spartaz (after deleting it from his username and re-writing as an IP address!)

Reinstated Luke and Calum

- Funky Snack (Talk) 20:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. But a user is allowed to have a quiet word with an admin, though the use of an IP is puzzling and is discouraged. As for the diff summaries, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from that. Looks like a content dispute, which you should try to resolve on the article talk page. If you reach an impasse there, there are dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of to help bring further outside input to the content dispute. El_C 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We've tried to reach an impasse, but he didn't like it because myself and another user rejected his edit. All he wants is for non-notable people to be included in a list of radio presenters. Please take a look Talk:Times Radio esp. at the bottom where I agreed with the other editor. This is quite petty to be honest. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

An impasse is a dead end. Anyway, this noticeboard isn't meant for content disputes. As I already mention above, two against one does not consensus make. I'm not sure what's notable or not here, that is why you should seek outside input for consensus about that. El_C 21:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly every time I put this out he pipes up. If I could put up a request for consensus knowing he won't get involved, I'd be a happy man. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

GDBarry is entitled to be involved in the consensus process. Wishing them away is not a reasonable expectation. El_C 22:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that User:GDBarry has only included MY quotes to him. None of his have been included. This seems quite one sided considering he's the one getting upset because me and User:Andysmith248 sided against him. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. As far as disputes go, it's pretty anemic. Not that it didn't get heated, but this is tame compared to what I see on the day to day. El_C 21:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can imagine. To be honest, I find it funny how he/she went to an editor who questioned my existence as "all I do is remove non-notable people from broadcasting articles". Of course he'll go to them, as they seemed they were against me on my page which indicates stalking, surely? I take pride in making sure criteria is met by Wikipedia. Like I said, if he drops this, I'll quite happily drop it and withdraw my complaint of harassment. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing for them to drop or for you to withdraw. There is no harassment here, by either one of you. This is a plain disagreement that has gone sour. There's nothing much left to do here beyond WP:DRRing it. I'm about ready to close this report with a referral to dispute resolution. El_C 21:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do - and I will arrange something for a dispute resolution. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:23, 21 July 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:Cunard

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.

---

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

This user has repeatedly and intentionally ref bombed sources they knew were bad in AfDs as a way to try and make it seem like topics where more notable then they are. Along with claiming sources were reliable, notable, and in-depth when they either knew that wasn't the case or hadn't read the sources to make sure it was. The behavior has continued even after multiple users, including myself, asked them to stop doing it. As can be seen in many examples, including here, here where they posted clearly un-reliable Chinese sources, same herewhere they even admitted the sources they were posting didn't help with notability but posted them anyway, they did it twice in this AfD, also here where they said they would strike out the sources if it turned out they were trivial or un-reliable and then didn't when it turned out they were. As I've said, me and other editors have asked the user to review sources before posting them and to not ref bomb, but our comments have mostly been ignored or blown off. Although it does seem like the user has cut down on the pure number of sources they are posting, the quality hasn't improved any and they are still posting a lot of sources that obviously don't meet the notability or reliability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Po Sam Yuk Secondary School, Adamant1 seems to just be quoting random guidelines and policies, then accusing Cunard of violating them. For example, violating WP:OR and WP:FORUM by posting a link to an academic paper? Bizarre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, bizarre, as many of Adamant1's deletion nominations and comments at AfD seem to be. Just because a subset of peer reviewed academic papers that write up scientific experiments are primary sources for their results doesn't mean that all peer-reviewed academic papers are primary sources for everything. Cunard is simply better than Adamant1 at finding reliable sources. That is a matter for congratulation, not for bringing to ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Depending on what AfD your talking about, the problem was that they are research papers about research done at the place. Not research about the place. Last I checked to be usable for notability the source has to talk about subject of the article and the article isn't "research done at wherever." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding another endorsement of Cunard's source researching thoroughness. None of the diffs in this report support "sources they knew were bad" as a description of the added sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: With one of the sources he posted he wrote "This brief article helps more with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than it helps with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline." Also, he posted Chinese sources that he couldn't read to determine if they were reliable or not. Maybe they were, but he didn't know either way and said they were reliable without actually knowing if it was the case. If he was going to post them, it should have been without the whole "per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" bit. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1:, let me take a different approach. So far, eight experienced AfD editors, including an administrator, have posted her to challenge your assertions about what is going on in AfD's with Cunard. So far, none of them have agreed with your characterization. Are you really so sure of yourself that you think you're the only one here who's right? My advice (for whatever it is worth) is to withdraw this complaint and move on with something productive. This is not going to go well at this point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have zero problem with people disagreeing with me. I haven't said they are wrong either. I don't think this is a black and white thing though. There is a middle ground between I'm totally wrong and everyone else is completely right. Personally, I think the middle ground would be Cunard reviewing the sources he posts better before doing so and not ref bombing. Also, someone here said a lot of the problem comes from doing AfDs for non-English articles when no one speaks the language. Which I agree with. I'd like to know what a remedy for that is though, because I don't think not doing AfDs for non-English topics is a good solution. Nothing about wanting to resolve things is unreasonable and I'm perfectly fine withdrawing my complaint when they are. That said, it would be way more unproductive in the long run to not resolve those problems now when there's opportunity to. Especially when it comes to the recurrent arguments over AfDs having to do with non-English topics. I'd also nitpick that users like ToughPigs calling every conversation I've had and will have horrible isn't just people disagreeing with me on how Cunard posts sources. That said, I'd still be fine withdrawing this if a fair middle ground that will actually resolve things is reached. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The only issue here is that we need more editors who can speak other languages and evaluate non-English sources. It's a persistent problem and isn't unique to anyone in this thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's definitely where some of the problem comes from. What's the solution though? Not doing AfD for articles that have foreign language sources doesn't seem like a good one, but I'm not sure what else there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the AfD for St. Louis School, Hong Kong is another example of Adamant1's strange interpretation of policies around sources, especially the use of non-English sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• The original poster here shouldn't make comments like "multiple users, including myself, asked them to stop doing it", "me [sic] and other editors have asked the user to review sources before posting them" and "our comments have mostly been ignored or blown off" without naming the other editors involved or providing diffs. Please either do so or retract these comments, per WP:aspersions. I must say that when I have seen the first person plural used in this way before it has been a result of off-Wikipedia canvassing, often at IRC. I hope that's not the case here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Although I don't have the specific diff, ToughPig, who is involved in this discussion and hopefully will back me up, commented a few days ago that Cunard's messages where he posts a bunch of sources are hard to parse through. Cunard continued doing it after that. There was comments by other users also. I don't feel the need to find all of them just to fend off a completely baseless accusation that I'm doing off-Wikipedia canvasing though. Which is pretty odd considering your chiding me about not casting aspirations when it's essentially what your doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not expect me to back up your behavior. I believe that Adamant1's relentlessly combative approach is disruptive and unhelpful. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to back up my behavior and I could care less about you defending me. What you said about Cunard posting a bunch of sources has nothing to do with me or how I act. I'm not the one starting a bunch of those argument's or bludging the hell out of them either. Most of the time I'm responding to questions people keep asking me. Which I have every right to do. It's not being relentless or disruptive to respond to people who ping me with lying crap repeatedly like PainProf was doing. If someone is going to lie about what I said repeatedly, they are the ones being disruptive, combative, and I'm going to correct them. It's disruptive to post a bunch of trash sources repeatedly in every single AfD a person votes in like Cunard does though. Your fine with it because you vote keep on everything and don't follow the notability guidelines when you vote anymore then he does. In one AfD recently someone commented 17 times. Which was 1 time more then how many votes there were. I didn't see anyone calling them out for being disruptive, combative, or unhelpful. Sometimes things turn into a long protracted discussion. That's just how it goes. I don't like it being that way anymore then the next person, but it's not completely on me or at all most of the time when it does. I'm allowed to comment on votes in AfDs I start to. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to this, but since I see myself explicitly mentioned, I think you could try to be a bit more civil in discussions and WP:AGF in AfDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Hospital of Oran Rathfelder and myself were trying to improve this article as we noted its one of the only hospitals in a country of 40 million people with citations from sources we consider reliable but I concede you do not agree with us. Could I suggest it might be more collegial to frame your arguments like this "you do not agree with because X, X and X, this could be perceived as disruptive because of X". Otherwise it is hard to adjust behavior accordingly. I don't think I've been pinging you, replying is not pinging as it requires you to look at the page. PainProf (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

My issue wasn't that you were trying to save an article. I could really care less about the article. The problem was that were repeatedly miss quoting what I said and claiming I was taking stances on policies that I wasn't taking. Realistically, I'm not going to just nod my head and agree that I have a certain stance on something I don't. There isn't anything civil about miss quoting someone a bunch of times either. Plus you kept posting the same points over and over and the conversation wasn't going anywhere. Which is why I ended it. You'd think me ending the discussion since it wasn't productive would be the appropriate way to handle it, but apparently doing so was abusive. If the conversation had of continued people like Toughpigs would say it's disruptive and uncivil, but ending it is abusive. There's just no winning with anyone. BTW, I wasn't saying you were pinging me. There was like 3 AfD discussions going on at once that both me and Toughpigs were involved in and someone in one of the other ones was pinging me. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, at the moment you seem to simply be repeating the same behaviour that originally led you here rather than try to resolve through a talk page. In this case "I never said" when I read "pinging me with lying crap like PainProf", I don't feel that's a misrepresentation of what you said. Similarly in that AfD, I posted that point once about English sources then it was reiterated by a different user who also appeared to read your comment the same way as me. That shouldn't be read as me repeating the same point. But from the points you raise in this conversation maybe actually maybe you just need to slow down a bit and take more time to follow the conversation, sometimes it can be difficult to remember who said what if you are rapidly flipping between conversations. Personally, I don't think I ever misrepresented what you said and I didn't repeat the point after stating that English sources are not required. What Rathfelder (not me) pointed out is that you said "It's that there aren't any sources in English to determine if it's actually notability enough to warrant an article in the English Wikipedia or not". Regardless, I think the best way would just be to move on as this is an unnecessary distraction. Could I suggest you just make an undertaking to always assume good faith in afd especially when people disagree and just strike the uncivil comments, I can understand the frustration of others in this thread and I don't think you continuing it would be useful to you or anyone else. It is possible that it might also be better for you not to make the foreign sourcing argument as it seems to be causing disquiet. PainProf (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

What I meant to say was "pinging me and saying lying crap like PainProf." I totally wrote it wrong though. So that was my bad. I agree that some of this has to do with foreign sourcing. I don't think the problem is me arguing that it's wrong to claim a source you can't read is reliable though. Essentially you and Cunard are making every non-English source reliable and non-trivial, as a function of the fact that we can't read them to verify if they actually are. Then it's arguing to disagree that everything non-English is acceptable. I don't think that's a fair, policy based way to deal with AfDs having to do with non-English subjects. There should be a middle ground between every source we can't read automatically being notable and us having fair policy based AfDs about non-English subjects. If this isn't resolved now then there will continue being arguments about it. So, I'd like it to be dealt with. I don't think a good solution is just dropping it or not doing AfDs on subjects that aren't English sourced. I'm not being argumentative by pointing out the problem or trying to fix it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is why it's disruptive and unhelpful. Everyone is doing everything wrong except for you; nobody understands policy except for you; every source is trash and garbage; every vote is invalid and misguided; everything is everybody else's fault, all the time, everywhere you go, every person that you speak to, every single interaction that you've ever had and ever will have, with absolutely everyone in your entire life. I'm so sorry that that's what it's like for you. I wish I could help. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

So I'm being combative, but your the one going off in a negative way about every single conversation I've had, and will have, in my entire life. Alright. There's plenty of AfDs and discussions where I agree with people and things go well. You wouldn't know though because you aren't involved in them. People thank me for my edits and comments all the time to. It's pretty unfair to judge me based on things you have nothing to do with and to bring up things that don't relate to the discussion. At least you voting keep on everything is relevant to how your treating this. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The OP regularly makes dreadful AFD nominations. Coming here to complain, rather inaccurately, about the volume of sources cited in opposition to their proposals is a clear demonstration of cluelessness. The OP's conspicuously declining "success" rate should have alerted them to the serious defects in their approach, but this inappropriate response suggests that some level of editing restriction is likely to be necessary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what makes a "dreadful" AfD nomination. That aside, the numbers of AfDs I'm involved in that get merged or deleted far outweigh the one that don't. Anyone can look through my edit history to see that's the case. That said, it's pretty easy to find a few that were kept because people aren't voting based on the guidelines. A lot of the ones that are kept, not just mine, routinely have ridiculous keep reasons or absolute trash sourcing. There's also been a ton of sock puppet and other "special interest" voting lately. Which has made the whole process way more arduous then it should be and more prone to bad outcomes. Plus, AfD participation is extremely low right now. So it's fairly easy for two or three people to vote keep on everything no matter what and derail things, because there just isn't anyone else to come along and vote. Those are just the facts. Although, again, the vast majority of AfDs I'm involved in go my way. Me having a few bad ones doesn't have anything to do with Cunard intentionally posting trash sources repeatedly anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 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 talk:Lugnuts banner

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.

---

Note: I nominated this for deletion at MfD, [157] but the discussion was procedurally closed as the wrong venue, with the suggestion to try ANI.

This material at the top of the page on User talk:Lugnuts:

collapse for the gentle of spirit and weak hearts. avert thine eyes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

violates WP:POLEMIC:

• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

• Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.

Now, if this discussion proceeds as the MfD discussion did, Lugnuts will post various things meant to deflect consideration from the nature of the banner itself, but he will not be able to defend the material. He has explained that these are links to the titles of song and album titles, but he cannot explain what they are doing at the top of his talk page, why they are bolded, why "Attention Scum" is in a larger font, and why the nature of these song/album titles is such as to create the impression that Lugnuts is denigrating the visitor to his talk page ("scum") before they even start to post a comment.

As another commenter asked of Lugnuts: "What point your rather divisive talk header is proving? Is it positively contributing to the encyclopedia? Personally I find it completely unnecessary and ... I don't understand what you're trying to achieve." To me, however, it's quite clear what Lugnuts is trying to achieve, as I've explained above. The banner is divisive, disruptive insulting, belittling and denigrating, and should be deleted from his talk pgae. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've never heard of a song called Fuck AWB  :) In any case, this seems to be curiously related (as well as being only four minutes apart!) to the thread immediately above? ——Serial 17:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Could be a WP:CIVIL, or WP:UPNOT, maybe WP:POLEMIC. Either way, a bit unwelcoming, isn't it? Ed6767 talk! 17:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, @Lugnuts:! That's fucking unacceptable. Please take it the fuck down. (Have I adequately illustrated how jarringly unacceptable that is?) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Didn't find that quote online, except at Wikizero. Lugnuts. Your making a spectacle of your self. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Needs to go--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunate that it had to be BMK to file this thread given the above acrimony, but BMK has a valid point. Not at all welcoming or useful or even remotely humourous. More than just experienced users post on talk pages. A newbie seeing that message would be both dismayed and confused (And I as an experienced user am also dismayed and confused). I hope Lugnuts can see that, and remove it from their page. Failing that, the closing admin should remove it and admonish Lugnuts not to add it back on pain of block. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Unless I'm missing something, the banner has been there apparently for at least six years. This can't possibly be the first time it's been discussed by the community. If it is, then it's probably not disruptive. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. Especially since the above, semi-related thread, which actually discussed specific, recent behavioral issues, has been shut down without resolution while discussion was ongoing. Clearly this 'little passion play', as the closing admin so politely put it, needs to be shut down as well. If this wasn't a problem until Lugnuts dared to revert BMK, then let's move on. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Confederate statues were just as offensive before they were pulled down, and they stuck around for decades. Times change; consensus changes; public desires change. Your arguments do not hold water.--Jorm (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, Confederate statues were way, way more offensive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Stupid language; I meant to say something more like "Confederate statues are horribly offensive, and they were just as offensive before they were removed as now. The fact that they weren't removed earlier doesn't mean that they were less offensive then. I can see the problem with my wording.--Jorm (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Finding the right words to convey what one is thinking can be much, much harder than it seems. For instance, I'm not particularly thrilled with the previous sentence, but don't feel like spending 5 minutes revising it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Also, confederate statues were pulled down generations after they were put up. Are you seriously arguing that this was acceptable six years ago on Wikipedia but no longer is because times have changed? I mean, I wish that were true, but have you looked at the previous thread? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Some kinds of vandalism -- such as sneaky numbers vandalism -- don't get discovered for years. Hoaxes don;t get uncovered for years, sometimes. Bad references, or refs that don't support the material cited, get found all the time after being int he article for long periods of time. We do not, under those circumstances, say "Oh, but it's been there for years, just let it go." No, we fix the problem -- how is this different? Lugnuts is probably the only one who knows if anyone has objected to the banner before. I know that I found it objectionable when I came across it some time ago (Lugnuts says I posted to his talk page 4 years ago, and I have no reason to doubt that), but, for whatever reason, I decided not to do anything about it - or maybe didn't decide to do anything is more accurate. Maybe that's happened to other editors, I don't know. I do know that being there for six years without being dealt with is not a good thing, it's bad' thing. It wasn't acceptable 6 years ago, and it's not acceptable now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not an ideal analogy, but "nobody said it was a problem until someone said it was a problem, so it must not be a problem" is, in general, an absolutely terrible argument. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  In general, it's a bad argument. In this specific case, the user filing this report just had an edit-war with the editor they are reporting and then nominated the entire user page for deletion, which seems like a huge overreaction. So it shouldn't be surprising if some of us aren't too thrilled with the OP right now. That said, I agree with the general sentiment that Lugnuts should alter or remove this banner, although I don't necessarily think we need to keep piling on before Lugnuts has a chance to respond. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  I mean, yes, I think that's exactly what I'm saying.--Jorm (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well... ok, I can get down with that. Let's make it true. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, Lugnuts removed the ANI notification 3 minutes after it was posted to his talk page and has been editing elsewhere for the entire duration since this thread was written 90 minutes2.5 hours ago. Whilst he's under no expectation to immediately respond the fact that there seems to be a fairly clear consensus about the messaging being inappropriate would personally bring me here fairly promptly to present my case of I were in his shoes. Again this is why I removed myself from the discussion at MFD. The bad blood would indicate that this may not end pleasantly. Glen 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bizarre. The "stop hand thing" and the "attention" bit clearly indicates that it's being addressed to whoever comes to the page, but what point is Lugnuts trying to make? Is it all just a joke or do the song titles mean something? I know we give a lot of latitude to users on their own talk pages, and I can't see what "group of editors" is being singled out, if any, but we need some kind of explanation.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think any particular group of editors is being singled out by the banner, it appears to me to be directed at anyone who comes to the page, which is, I think, worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Disregarding other concerns, I have an issue with File:Stop hand nuvola.svg being used here as some newer editors who are stumbling across this page will likely see it confuse it as an official message of some sort due to some icon being used on uw4 templates and elsewhere, especially as it's coming from such an experienced editor. Ed6767 talk! 18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• As the editor BMK is quoting above I stand by my statement, I think the header is completely beyond the pale. I did slowly back out of the room when I saw you two continued to bicker and seemingly have years of baggage between you. Regardless I can only imagine if a new user came in and posted such a blatantly disruptive statement on their user page they'd likely find themselves on the end of a NOTHERE block fairly promptly. The fact this is a long standing editor who doesn't seem to see why this only causes disruption to the project is somewhat baffling. Glen 18:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Just a query, is this worse than a Hezbollah userbox? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Does it have to be? What does the price of tea in China have to do with this?--Jorm (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Because POLEMIC is the most lopsided policy enforced on Wikipedia and is most often used as a form of revenge blocking. (Note, I don't have a comment on this case, I just note about POLEMIC.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, if you don't have a comment about this case, don't make a comment. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it's inappropriate. Maybe Lugnuts can just go ahead and change it now, seeing that several people find it so, and we can just close this thread? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• This should go. @Lugnuts: Please remove it. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• I recall a thread about this appeared somewhere but can't remember where nor what the outcome was, I've never found the banner humourous but haven't really cared enough to do anything about it either, Most newbs who read that would I presume go and find help etc elsewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• To answer the question "Should it be removed?", My answer to that is Meh. It's unfunny so it should probably go but on the other hand it's remained for 6 years more or less without a care in the world, It's a fine balance really. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• While it doesn't target any particular editor or group, I do see the concern raised about how this looks problematic. I think the shock value is higher than things I've seen on other editor pages but it's not like a list of "which editor's have I pissed off" which has appeared on other talk pages. Regardless, I think this is one where it would be a show of good faith to voluntarily reduce, remove or contextualize it. I think the deletion path was an indelicate way to address the problem but I don't blame BMK for going to the community for input. Springee (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Has anyone tried mentioning to Lugnuts that song lyrics are protected by copyright? I don't know what the threshold is for lyric snippets to be considered copyvios, but having snippets of lyrics on one's user talk page can't possibly be a claim of fair use. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that a single line taken from any song for non-commercial purposes would be considered a violation. Also, putting all the different snippets together in a new way as done here is likely considered transformative thus fair use. Note that a claim of fair use is an affirmative defense thus would need a court to confirm it. Springee (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with Springee on this. I haven't clicked through the links, but if they are titles, titles aren't copyrightable. If they are lyrics, a single line would be well under the Fair Use Doctrine, and I believe wouldn't run afoul of our NFCC policy either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• It needs to be removed. It's egregiously aggressive. It doesn't matter whether this discussion was started in bad faith. This site is hostile enough to new editors as it is; we don't need them seeing this at the top of a long-term editor's userpage when they go to ask a good faith question. — Bilorv (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• We have talked about this before, and nothing came of it--it was a few years ago. Ha, every time that I haven't run into Lugnuts's good work for a while (cause they have done an awful lot of good work) and I see that notice, I'm like "wtf why haven't we blocked that jerk"--and then I remember, oh, yeah, it's Lugnuts. What's funny is that in my mind BMK and Lugnuts are very similar in their editing styles. Anyway, Lugnuts, I suppose it's time for you to show that you're not that kind of jerk. Please. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove it.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm kind of where Davey is. Yeah, it's aggressive and provocative, but I don't find it polemic, because it's directed at everyone, not a particular group or ideology or belief etc. I'm reminded of the jean jacket of a classmate of mine, it had a Kill 'Em All patch on the back. Aggressive, provocative, and maybe sophomoric too, but not polemic. Still, if so many people take issue, maybe it's better to remove it now, as you don't own your talk page the same way you own your outfit, Lugnuts. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC) (added a bit later) Another (and to me more important) reason to remove it is to stop this from being an issue and, if things escalate, keep you from being blocked. I agree with Drmies that you do an awful lot of good work). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• It's purely offensive and should be removed immediately. No need for discussing policy, if you can't tell that's wrong, you shouldn't be here. Jacona (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• It's pretty clear that if it's not in Wikipedia's interest, which it doesn't seem to be, it should be removed, per Wikipedia:Ownership of content § User pages. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the banner. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Well it's not something I would find tasteful but it's pretty obviously not intended maliciously. Lugnuts has had it for years and it's never really caused a major problem, he should have the right to display what he wants and should be left alone.† Encyclopædius 20:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)#

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep, as I read above this banner has been there for a while. We need free speech to let us express ourselves. Wikipedia Not Censored. Anonymous Cloak (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC) — Anonymous Cloak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to articles, FWIW. Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) WP:FREESPEECH: The First Amendment forbids government censorship of expression; it does not prevent a public charity such as the Wikimedia Foundation [or its editing community] from deciding for itself what words and images will be presented on its websites, and how.... In the United States you have the legal right to speak your mind (with certain narrow exclusions) on a street corner, at a town council meeting, or in a letter to your elected representatives. But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home, to demand that a private newspaper publish your thoughts, or to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write‍. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC) We Need To Keep Our Rights if this consensus is remove i remove the banner from my talk page but it looks cool Anonymous Cloak (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Anonymous Cloak, the community has reached consensus on a set of policies at WP:UPNOT for what is and what isn't acceptable on user pages. I interpret the overwhelming consensus, in this case, is that the banner (which you have also cloned to your talk page) should be removed. Ed6767 talk! 21:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think this should be removed. We allow some leeway for content on user/user talk pages, particularly for active members of the community, but it's pretty clear that this may come across as aggressive and unpleasant, which I think is where we ought to draw the line. For what it's worth, I also think Beyond My Ken's Warning: Don't post here, you won't like me. message ought to go. While we generally accept that users can ask specific individual editors not to post on their user talk page, asking everyone not to post seems excessive. From WP:NOBAN, If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project. (emphasis mine). GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• GW: I think it's pretty inoffensive, but I'll take it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re: admin talk page protection

• GorillaWarfare, somewhat apropos of this, and I was going to ask at the Village Pump, what do you think of admin talk pages being protected indeffed, which seems to be against policy? I understand both sides of the issue, but an admin needs to be reachable and a new user might not know how to navigate Wikipedia other than commenting on an admin's page and might just give up.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Probably a better conversation to have elsewhere, but generally speaking I'm against indef-protecting any user talk page. Although some admins are unfortunately major targets for vandalism, I feel like all alternatives should be exhausted before protecting those pages, and if they must be protected, it should be a definite period of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  If I have to choose between 1) indef semi-protecting the talk page of a valuable editor who, solely due to their volunteer work in improving the encyclopedia, is subject to long-term abuse and death threats against themselves and their family or 2) losing that editor because the Foundation doesn't provide any protection for those who help build the encyclopedia, I choose the slight inconvenience of the talk page protection.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Amen --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think we disagree, I would just prefer the protection be a definite (if lengthy) period of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, my talk page was unprotected for a little while a few years ago, and the moment it was, someone came by to call me an "anti-Semitic Eurotash fag", besides a host of other things. Also posted at that time were my name, address, office address, etc. So yeah. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  As I said, I understand both sides, but we also need to understand that sometimes a new user or IP editor needs to contact an admin. Perhaps we should create some sort of "noticeboard" if you will, where someone can post a comment for any admin to deal with issues. Not like ANI or AN, but more of the usual "why was I blocked?" type issues that new users often have. Admins whose pages are protected can point people to that page, which can even have a FAQ, and then have a spot to put in a new comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  If a user is currently blocked, they're not going to be able to post at an admin's user talk page anyway. But for other questions, is there any reason they wouldn't be able to ask at the Teahouse? Most welcome templates link to it already, and I know some of the user warning templates do also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  True, I guess, but does the Teahouse get admin visibilty as much as an admin page does? I just think we should be doing as much as possible to retain new editors, but I do understand the other side as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  A quick skim over the current discussions at the Teahouse shows six admins commenting on various discussions, not to mention all the other experienced editors who could presumably get the attention of an admin if one was needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Once exception, not relevant to the case discussed above, when it is confirmed that an editor has died, indef protection of that editor's talk page may be appropriate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Continuing the banner discussion

• Lugnuts has been an "envelope pusher" on userspace content from as early as May 2008 (discussion about that) – it's time that the community clearly defined some limits. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I was more interested in the stuff at the top of the page [158]: "I make the Wikipedia not suck" and "I'm so glad I'm better than you" (a song lyric). I'd say these (from 2008) carry the same attitude as the current banner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright policy violation

The content in the Lugnuts banner is a sequence of song lyrics. (One short phrase in those lyrics is quoted from a PD source, which doesn't affect the essential analysis.) As such, this is nonfree content. "Fair use" of song lyrics is viewed more restrictively than quoting prose, but that's not the main point here. Even assuming the quotes are fair use, the content remains nonfree. Under our copyright policy, Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. "Fair use" content is not allowed in userspace, whether on user pages or user talk pages. This principle has been upheld repeatedly, typically with regard to nonfree images on userpages. But it extends to all nonfree content in userspace, and there's no question that that's what we have here. The banner must be removed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

From someone who primarily deals in copyright on Wikipedia, I don't think it's a copyright violation. They're just one sentence quotes from a few different songs. By that logic, El C committed a copyright violation here. If it was a whole hook/verse, it should be removed, but that's not the case here. (Note that I have no opinions on whether the banner should be removed for other reasons) Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 01:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The relevant policy here is WP:NFCC, which states that Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, {{Quote}}, or a similar method. The mainspace-only requirement applies only to non-text works. The lyrics appear to be attributed because clicking on them takes you to the article of the source, and as far as the quotation marks go, we can simply add them in—ultimately I don't think copyright should be the overriding reason we remove the banner (many editors above seem to have suggested other reasons for removing the banner). Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that copyright is not really the issue here, and that the tone and attitude of the banner's text (no matter where it came from) is the problem, and forms the violation of WP:POLEMIC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Response

Hi all! I genuinely have not seen this thread until this morning. BMK posted this last night on my talkpage, moments after Lepricavark had posted an ANI note about a thread about BMK. Having no interest in that, I reverted the latter, assuming it was linked to the former. In the meantime, I was busy building an encyclopedia, watching cricket, and spending time with the family. Anyhoo, as hard as it is for me to believe that an eldery inhabitant of NYC is offended by the word scum, I've simply changed the songs/albums. Maybe someone could have dropped a polite note on my talkpage and asked that? Now who do I send the bill to get the lyrics changed on my chest tattoo? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an "all's well that ends well" in my book, thanks for the change Lugnuts. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to the banner as now written, and I still do not think there's a copyright issue, so as far as I'm concerned, as the OP, this discussion can be closed. (Except that I do object to being called "elderly" - 65 2/3 is the prime of life!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Shit Beyond My Ken, you're f***in old, man! Haha, I'm old enough to just have gotten shots for shingles and pneumonia... Drmies (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and Beyond My Ken: Please do wear your masks and maintain social distancing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 21 July 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 review User:mr. Storm Eagle

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 someone review this block I’m getting nowhere with {{unblock}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.99.215 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted)

This is being investigated by Arbcom

That is why you will get blocked, and I wonder if it was why you were blocked in the first place (yes it was, your IP was used to make a dodgy edit).Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 20 July 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, edit-warring editor who is acting with an agenda.

I was really hoping to avoid making this post because I wanted to resolve everything on the article talk pages, but unfortunately the editor in question has either ignored attempts to do so or shown he doesn't want to engage properly.

Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk · contribs) has been tendentiously editing on articles relating to FPTP, primarily First-past-the-post voting and 2019 United Kingdom general election with a self-admitted bias against this particular voting system. In short, he has a real WP:AXE to grind and has shown WP:OWN tendencies, is a bit of a SPA, has engaged in personal attacks, and has actively avoided attempts to respond to communication (take a look at his talk page edit history, where he deletes all posts without a response).

He first came to the attention of the FPTP article after a huge number of edits filled with original research over the course of 2 weeks, which included him edit warring against John Maynard Friedman (talk · contribs), who made every attempt to talk things through on his talk page (each post was subsequently deleted).

Later a debate broke out over the use of the phrase "Purported" in the heading "Purported benefits". While a lengthy talk place discussion took place, FotP99 ignored the WP:BRD process in an attempt to keep his version of the heading as it was. Myself and other editors have stopped removing it now to avoid edit warring, but FotP99 has no such issues with this. The consensus is currently that "Purported" has no place in the article, and yet it's still there. It was at this time that 45StanJames (talk · contribs) was created and his only edits so far have been to agree with FotP99 on the talk page debates. I suspect this is a sockpuppet, but that's a separate discussion.

Over on the 2019 GE article, FotP99 has been edit warring to keep in some very PoV-y statements, here. This has been removed by several editors and has been widely disputed on the talk page for being biased language, but again he keeps reverting.

Recently I tried to go through the FPTP article and remove things that were obviously WP:OR or lacked WP:RS. Each time I left an edit summary clearly detailing why. (multiple edits here). FotP99, obviously, chose to undo all of them with a blanket statement of "reverted unjustified deletion" (multiple edits). I encouraged him to go to the talk page as per WP:BRD, but as he didn't I chose to make a big thread so we could discuss each point in turn. I even left him a message on his talk page in case he didn't understand what OR is (which he subsequently deleted without a reply). I hoped we'd make progress, but he instead replied with a bad faith accusation of me being driven by a political agenda, editing my posts, accusing me of censorship, sarcastically replying to my comments by mirroring what I said, sometimes even with misinformation, refusing to engage and instead accusing others of doing so, and so on, and so on, and so on.

In short, this editor does not seem like he is here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, I think this post sums it up when he says, "Why are you so determined to defend the undemocratic FPTP voting system? Is it because you know that's the only way the Tories can get a Commons majority?". He's clearly come here with an WP:AGENDA and is being disruptive towards any attempts to engage with him. — Czello 13:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Being involved in the discussion at Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election, I can only but confirm the issues exposed above. Fotp99 has only commented on the discussion there to throw their opinions without any source backing why such statements were relevant for that specific election. As of lately, they have been seemingly unwilling to keep on discussing the issue (their last edit in the talk page is an apparent complaint that the article's lead section "sounds like it was written by Conservative Party central office"), but have kept on edit warring over the page, even coming down like a ton of bricks to a IP user who disagreed with their edits, with a bad faith-assuming behaviour ([159]). It's also worth noting that this edit is just outside the 24-hour period of three previous edits of theirs ([160] [161] [162] [163]), meaning that WP:3RR has been broken (and it'd be five if we count an additional revert on 17 July, [164]). I won't comment on the FPTP article because by seeing the edit history it's pretty obvious that Fotp99 has broken 3RR repeteadly, but they seem to have an obvious tendency to claim that every reversion of their disputed content is "unjustified". They keep themselves oblivious to any attempt of engaging in reasonable discussion, blanking every comment at their talk page aimed at seeking consensus (they have blanked even the notice of this AN/I discussion, [165]). It looks like a plain case of WP:NOTHERE. Impru20^talk 14:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Adding that Fotp99 seems intent on purposely casting aspersions on 62.255.9.122 (talk · contribs) only because of getting involved on the discussion at Talk:First-past-the-post voting ([166] [167] [168] [169] [170]), requiring them to create an account (something which Wikipedia does not require anyone to do), which also feels ironic considering the aforementioned issue about the 45StanJames (talk · contribs) account. Impru20^talk 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning that Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk · contribs) has now violated the 3RR on another article, on FPTP.[171][172][173][174]. — Czello 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wanted to briefly mention that I have been on the receiving end of Friend-of-the-planet-99's agenda on First-past-the-post voting. I tried to restore a status quo and suggesting edits need consensus, simply to be undone as "unjustified". I also want to associate myself with Impru20 comments on 62.255.9.122. Rklahn (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have just protected 2019 United Kingdom general election for three days and blocked Friend-of-the-planet-99 after seeing their edit warring on First-past-the-post voting. I did not see this thread until after applying the block in part because they have a habit of blanking all messages on their talk page. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Since Czello has mentioned me, I should confirm that I welcomed FotP-99 to the project and spent a lot of time trying to explain to them about the standards expected but they are absolutely sure that they already know and, as Czello noted, just delete without comment any advice left at their talk page. Since WP:BOOMERANG should be considered, I should add that (in my opinion), Czello has been firm but fair throughout, has not tried to counter-argue in favour of FPTP, and has only insisted that the article meet Encyclopaedic standards. FotP-99 has written a good opinion piece but picked the wrong place to do it. WP:NOTHERE, I'm afraid. A real pity. They could be a good contributor if they would learn (as I advised) WP:Writing for the opponent. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits / possible LTA on List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

User, Vnkd have blanked the content (a table) on the List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen article several times during a year- 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. He reported me at the Noticeboards, but in turn was warned by a admin to stop his unconstructive behaviour Here. Despite this he continues to blank the content of the page. 6 Sometimes using a Anon IP. Anon IP.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Where are the sources for that table? 2) Can we have some evidence for the claim of "possible LTA" please? Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the table is made from the events reported in the article body. Regarding the LTA that user have been blocked(See Block log) for disruptive behaviour and edit warring before. However what mostly call my atention is the possible use of other/multiple accounts. Like that Anon IP.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• The table appears to be simple maths - adding up what is cited in the lists above it - as such it isn't speculation as claimed by User:Vknd, who really should be discussing this on the article talk page - the issue seems to be a continuation of this post earlier this month by Vnkd.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think there may be basic competence issues at play here. I got this odd statement on my userpage. Took me a second or two to realize it was a response to this. From an editor who has been here twelve years. Grandpallama (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:B103N48

• B103N48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:B103N48 has had multiple blocks for behavioral issues. Currently, User:Cyphoidbomb has given a warning to the user saying that he has had multiple disruptive edits mainly on these two pages Magarasi and Azhagu (TV series). Now coming to the main point after I have given him a 4im warning he is still going back to the pages and editing the page to his own preference. The user also had said that "As a senior editor You dont even know the difference between new entrant char in the Serial with cast members replacing an existing member.. Pls learn properly before advicing others!!!" Diff: [175]. The user has had a long history of problems that he prefers his content on pages instead of what other editors preferred by using the talk page and he has been warned multiple times but his behavior has not changed. I suggest that we indefinitely block the user. SP013 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well at least this time B103N48 didn't call me an asshole... I first encountered this editor at List of Tamil films of 2020, where he was edit-warring with others, forcing the inclusion of a largely unsourced block of WP:CRYSTAL content. He didn't respond well, and felt he was right despite what other experienced editors were telling him. He challenged my interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL even though I've been here for years and understand very well how and when the community applies it. He called SP013 a dumbass, etc. He was blocked for that, I believe.

Later, as part of the Tamil film dispute, he started canvassing other editors to chime in on his behalf. I let him know that this wasn't a desirable behaviour. He told me to mind my business, but was admonished by NJA.

After his block expired, I found him replacing "and" with slashes here and here. There is a HUGE problem in Indian articles with people dumbing down content by getting rid of anything resembling a sentence and instead mashing content together with slashes and parentheticals. I have it well documented. Just consider all of the things the following could mean, if you saw it in a cast list:

Giaa Manek/Rubina Dilaik as Jeannie/Jenu/Chutki/Gita/Rajjo Ji/Roopa/Mrs.Khanna

I tried educating B103N48 about this on their talk page, pointing out how slashes introduce a world of ambiguities. He called me an asshole and was eventually blocked for that, his talk page access was revoked after he doubled down with more snippiness, expressing basically that his edits are beyond reproach.

Trying to figure out an ad hoc stylistic compromise that would maybe help casual editors figure out that the slashes are idiotic, I started nesting cast like:

• Jane Doe as Mamta Weatherby (2008−2010)
  • Prajakta Smythe replaced Doe as Mamta (2010–2018)
  • Shipa Bloggs replaced Smythe as Mamta (2018–present)

It's not 100% consistent with WP:TVCAST, but at least maintains the history of the cast with new members being added to the bottom, per community preference. Most recently, B103N48 comes by here and here to remove maintenance templates, to convert clear prose into needless parentheticals, and to flip-flop the order so that new cast are on top and older cast are on the bottom, which results in an upside-down chronology, where you have to read from the bottom up to know who replaced who. And since he removed some of those {{when?}} templates, editors won't be inspired to tell us when these changes occurred, but if they did, we'd then have content that looks like:

Akshitha Bopaiah as Nivedhitha (Replaced by Vaishnavi Arulmozhi) (2018–2019)

...with sloppy, needless double-parentheticals. Anyway, it's gotten irritating to have to explain everything to B103N48, who is not only hostile, but lacks the experience to understand what the community's goals are, and lacks the experience to understand why shorthanded content is problematic, and who lacks the experience to understand why we shouldn't be dumbing down content, and who also assumes their way is the only correct, logical way. There are other examples on this sort of battleground mentality like at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Sun TV (India) where, despite other editors thinking the shows should be organised alphabetically, B103 digs in that they should be be organised according to when they were broadcast, which is a bizarre choice, IMO. Why would anybody ever be looking for a TV series based on when it aired? "I remember a delightful romance series that premiered on 18 March 2020 at 9pm after Downton Abbey--what was it called...?" Lol! The user just seems to have some kind of specific set of rules in their head and they're inflexible about mostly everything. I really don't know what the best solution is for this dude. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The user appears to be trying to engage in fruitiful discussion on their talk page, so it's possible they may have gotten the message. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia (moved from WP:AN)

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 am concerned with two sets of recent edits by User:Emir of Wikipedia. Firstly he edited my sandbox which I find totally inappropriate and unhelpful. He then edited Towera Vinkhumbo which I recently updated. He archived a load of links which I don't believe needed archiving. Am I missing something ? Is this some new procedure I'm unaware of ? I have never come across this before in over ten years as an editor. To me it smack or vandalism and spam editing. Djln Djln (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Djln, getting rid of BLP violations is not vandalism or spam editing. Maybe reinstating them is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This has also been brought to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Towera Vinkhumbo too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Exhibit A and Exhibit B of you attacking me. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved from AN to ANI. – Frood (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Frood, thanks for putting this in the right place. I think it is kind of ironic that Djln is trying to bring up the fact that have over 10 years of experience here, and then trying to act like they are an expert on vandalism and spam editing despite doing that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Frood Can you are anybody people explain the actions of Emir of Wikipedia. I don't understand what he is playing at. I'm at a loss. Is he a legitimate editor or some sort of hacker or vandal. None of the edits he made to my sandbox or Towera Vinkhumbo come across as legitimate. I am a long established editor of nearly 15 years and I've never come across anything like. I've had disputes with other editors but nothing like this. WTF is going on. Djln Djln (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I did make these comments on their talkpage which their removed with this edit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am confused. You’re mad he edited your sandbox and an article you also edited? Can you provide specific diffs of the problem? Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Both of you need to grow up. @Djln: Archiving links is literally the entire purpose of InternetArchiveBot. To prevent link rot. (That seems a bit unnecessary on a draft that you're working on, though.) You're reverting Emir of Wikipedia's edits that are removing content that violates the BLP policy for being unreferenced, and then personally attack them.

@Emir of Wikipedia: why did you feel the need to tag Djln's sandbox for deletion four times after he undid your edit? Yes, the BLP policy applies to userspace, but it specifically says 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. I don't think I'd consider this person's birthday to be "contentious", especially when it's a draft. There are certainly some people whose birthdays are controversial, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. – Frood (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Providing some relevant diffs to see if I can summarize the situation. Emir made several helpful edits to Djln's sandbox, some of which remained in place before the sandbox was blanked. This does make it rather hard to buy Djln's line that editing his sandbox was totally inappropriate and unhelpful. That said, it's generally expected that if a user asks you to stop editing a page within their userspace, you should stop. That said, Djln's request was not fucking reasonable in the slightest. This does not excuse Emir continuing to edit after receiving the message. Emir technically has a point about BLP here but over such a trivial matter as a birthdate it comes across as WP:POINTy. That does not excuse Djln following Emir to unrelated articles to disruptively revert him there out of almost admitted revenge.
  TL;DR: @Djln and Emir of Wikipedia: Both of y'all are acting inappropriately, both of y'all are provoking each other, stop it. @Djln: If I was going to take action here, it'd be on you because someone who has been here 15 years should damn well know that this is not how you ask someone to stop editing in your user space, this is how you ask to get blocked. @Emir of Wikipedia: The reason I'm not taking any action against Djln is that you were pretty clearly goading him, too.
  Again, both of you, knock it off. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Frood, Ian.thomson. With the greatest of respect. I was the one the whose contributions were attacked for no justifiable reason. I was minding my own business, bothering nobody when Emir of Wikipedia edited my sandbox. This is just bad manners, invasive and totally annouing. Why is the ArchiveBot archiving original links that are still live. I've never seen this done before, especially in the middle of preparing an article, is this something new. If so it's incredibly annoying. I hope it's not going to be a regular thing because it really spoils editing. After tonight I'm not sure I can be bother anymore. Djln Djln (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Djln: No, adding Internet Archive links wasn't vandalism, it wasn't an attack, you are being overly dramatic and spiteful. Get over it or don't let the door hit you on the way out. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Not a very helpful or useful response. In fact it is totally unhelpful. Djln Djln (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Djln: No, listen, your attitude is the core problem here and every uninvolved editor here will tell you that. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Djln: Could you explain how this clear civility violation and personal attack is a "helpful or useful response"? If not, I suggest you follow the advice of Ian.thomson, drop the stick, and apologise for breaching WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Not doing so may not come off in your favour. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Really ? WTF. Did I edit another editors sandbox, no. Did I go vandalising other editors contributions with pedantic nonsense, again no. Guilty of over–reacting, probably but totally justified given the provocation, goading and hounding. If the Emir of Wikipedia wanted to be helpful he should stop acting like a vandal and a bully. None of this would have happened if he hadn't edited my sandbox to begin with. Djln Djln (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Djln: it might be a good idea to take the dog for a walk, otherwise I suspect you might end up being hit with a boomerang. And yes, archiving links is completely normal. IABot has several million edits alone. If that ruins editing for you, that's your own problem. – Frood (talk) 21:38, 18 July 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.

Discussion re: archive links

• Question: I've noticed Emir several times lately adding a massive amount of text to articles to rescue zero deadlinks. My understanding is that IAbot automatically archives links used as references, but does not automatically add them to the articles because, you know, it can massively increase the size of the page without any actual benefit until those links are dead. And along the same lines, my understanding is that it's not a good use of IABot to manually go in and add those tens of thousands of bytes of text when they don't actually help until the link dies (in which case, IABot has already done its job and it can be added). But looking at Emir's history, nearly all of the instnaces of using IABot are in fact when it's not needed. Happy to take my answer to this question elsewhere, as it doesn't really rise to ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I take it back. It may be relevant to ANI. I looked at Emir's recent contribs not realizing how prolific he's been lately. There are literally hundreds of instances of adding huge amounts of text to articles to rescue zero deadlinks. This should probably be addressed in some form. I also have reservations about Emir's interpretation of BLP, deciding that someone's birthday being unsourced is good enough reason to go full blown edit war over (none of this excuses that beyond the pale diff of Djln's of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  On a sandbox draft in progress, no less. And when the editor objected (uncivilly) to Emir editing in their sandbox. Emir proceeded to do more, basically unnecessary edits. WP:USERSUBPAGE says All of these pages are your user pages or user space. While you do not "own" them, by custom you may manage them as you wish, so long as you do so reasonably and within these guidelines. I sympathize with Djln's annoyance (though not their language). Emir should leave others' sandboxes and userspace drafts alone, except for required actions like deactivating categories. Schazjmd (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

While Emir continuing to edit after being asked (in whatever manner) to stop was completely inappropriate, Djln seems to have only retroactively taken annoyance with the first several edits (since he left some of them in place up until blanking the page). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not saying you're wrong or anything maybe we need a subthread for this to clearly distinguish that trend from the above (though connected) drama. (Ignoring its connection to the above drama), my only complaint about preemptively adding archive links for live sites is that we want to keep pages under a certain size for mobile readers (especially in poorer countries). Otherwise, WP:NOTPAPER applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I broke off this into a subthread and closed the OP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• What am I missing? If we wait until after the link is dead, it will be too late to archive the site? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: As I understand it, IABot maintains a database of links used and their archive urls. If none exists, it creates one. It does this without actually editing the Wikipedia page. It then responds to dead link tags and also scans links to see if they're dead and, in either case, adds an archive url. Additionally, it can be triggered manually like the way Emir is doing so. It intentionally doesn't just add archive urls to the article text in every instance. If that's desired, it should be a bot task, not Emir doing it to hundreds of pages manually. Cyberpower678 can correct me if I'm wrong about how this works, perhaps. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, pretty much got it right. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only real problem with doing it ahead of time is that it can sometimes considerably and perhaps unnecessarily increase the size of pages. Otherwise, archiving while the site's still live just saves someone else the trouble of doing it if the source goes down. I'd even say that if the archive links added nothing to the page size (say, if we moved references to a separate tab to cut down on loading times), then archiving early could only be welcome (though not required). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, Rhododendrites I do a great deal of gnome work on articles by filling in bare urls, and repairing dead links, etc. At some point, years ago, someone explained to me that archiving all the links in a "large" article would increase the "download"? size , so that it would difficult for readers to access. I was advised, then, to archive all the links, and then "undo" my edit. This way the ref archives would still be "out there", archived and available, if the link went dead. However, the archives would not be present on WP, increasing the article size. I am probably not explaining this very well, but I hope you understand my meaning.

I am not a tech savy person and do not understand what you are saying about AIBot. Since you are more knowledgable, can you tell me if my method is (currently) appropriate to use, and helpful? Or has it been superseded, since I learned about it? Sorry if I am not posting correctly here, per indents, etc. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a very interesting approach, probably a good one if page size is a concern. But I'm not convinced that adding archive links increases the page size by an amount worth worrying about. I can't imagine that a 50-100k addition to page size would make a difference to a user in 2020, even on mobile, even on 3G. But maybe I'm being naive. Also, I thought the bot already wouldn't run on a page if it's over a certain size or number of links? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You can request it via a bot job. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Pre-emptively adding the archive URL should be a bot task yes, because it should be done. On each citation using a Cite XXX format it adds |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/YYYYMMDDHHMMSS/$URL%7Carchive-date=YYYY-MM-DD%7Curl-status=live (at least I'm pretty sure it uses that date format). On the read version it adds "Archived from the original on Month/Day YYYY." The purpose is that should the website go down you can click on that Archived link to see the version they have. Otherwise it would be a dead link until the bot gets run on it again. If this wasn't an intended feature then there would be no url-status parameter. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Jerodlycett, I have no objection to doing that. Enabling that is literally a switch on IABot that any sysop here can access. But you would need an RFC, well advertised, and gain consensus to have the bot do such a thing. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Providing archive links to live URLs is absolutely useful — if the source Web site is down/broken/blocked, or for convenience to get to older versions of it quickly. At least for me they're not just useful, but very useful — I nearly always open Web citations through the Internet Archive, and it's easier if there's a link than having to right click and copy. (I only whitelist a few Web sites on my computer, since I like to avoid the commercial mess of the Web, and reading through IA at least slightly reduces other Web sites' access to my computer and network use metadata.) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 04:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  None of these are the purpose of Wikipedia, though. We're not an extension of IA such that our purpose is just to help people get all their web content there. The function here is to address link rot. The question at issue is whether, once we archive the link (whether to do that in all cases isn't controversial), do we leave it in an off-wiki database until it's needed or add them in every instance. If there's consensus for the latter, despite massive increases in page size, it should be done en masse by a bot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  "None of these are the purpose of Wikipedia" — The first purpose I listed — a backup for when the Web site is temporarily down — squarely fits the purpose of WP by supporting verifiability. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 21:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Is the increase in page size "massive", though? How many kb are we talking about, and how do we know it's a problem? Does archiving all the links on a page add more to the page size than, say, adding an image? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Suppose it depends what you call "massive". The edits routinely add more than 10k to articles while rescuing zero sources. I don't think it makes sense to compare to adding a picture (or adding anything to an article that actually improves information on the page). These edits are commonly adding more than 10k and/or increasing the size by 25% or more. For something that, if left alone, would just result in the bot adding the links as they die off rather than actually losing anything, it's a hard position to defend IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  This issue has come up before. Please see this discussion at the VP from last May. Dr. K. 19:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In a recent Teahouse thread WP:TH#Archiving Citations a poster asked about manually adding archive URLs to citations when adding the cites, and I responded with information about what parameters in a citation template would be needed, and saying that i thought this was a good practice, but not required and often not done. It didn't even occur to me that this would add to page size in any way that woulds cause a problem, and now that it has been raised I don't think it would, except perhaps on quite large pages with significantly more than average citation density. Is there reason to think that I am mistaken on that? As to whether this should be done widely by bot, I wouldn't think this the forum to discuss that, but what a bot does is indeed a matter for consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• For the time being I have stopped using this tool to archive links that are not yet dead. It is worth noting that it seems like some editors manually add an archive link as a standard practise when editing an article, so that can result in the larger page size even without the IABot tool. I think any decision needs to consider pre-emptively archived links in their entirety not just via one tool. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's a good point, although I don't see any such discussion happening any time soon. This problem, if it can even be called that, does not seem to get too much sustained attention. Dr. K. 21:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced (but true) content to BLPs

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.

---

AngusMacintosh (talk · contribs) is a relatively new user who repeatedly adds admittedly correct content to BLPs, but without references. I first noticed it in June, and left them a message about sourcing. They have ignored that (and all subsequent messages from myself and others, including @Robby.is.on:, @Mattythewhite: and @Eagleash:) and continued to add unsourced content to BLPs. They have been previously blocked for this, to no avail - straight back at it when the block expired. I left them a final warning this evening - but again that has been ignored, and they continue to add unsourced content to BLPs after that.

I believe this conduct is disruptive (as it means editors such as myself are having to waste time tidying up after them), shows at best a lack of competence (as they know what is expected, but choose not to comply), and also a lack of community spirit (they have never responded to any of the concerns raised on their talk page).

My initial thought is a block, but I doubt anything other than indef would have an effect, and I think that is potentially onerous at this stage. Thoughts & assistance welcome. GiantSnowman 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

They've refused to engage and persisted in the behaviour. I don't see an option that doesn't involve a block. I mean, we could:

1. Please a discretionary sanctions notice for BLPs. However, that would assume they read the notice and don't just keep editing, which would force us into a block or a ban (which would probably quickly turn into a block for violation of the ban).
2. Block the user for a medium-term (weeks) period of time to prevent further disruption.
3. Block the user for a medium-term period of time, but only block them from article space. This should hopefully steer them toward engagement on talk pages—and give them an easy route to being unblocked, if they make sourced suggestions on the talk page.

Of the three, I think the last one is the best approach. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Partial blocked from mainspace. I did not set an expiry because this is not a problem that fixes itself with time. Any admin is free to modify or lift this block without prior discussion with me. Guy (help!) 22:18, 21 July 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.

Apparent COI and promotional 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.

---

Leahritterband.MacDowell (talk · contribs) has ignored warnings and refused to respond at their talk page, instead going on a binge today, adding MacDowell Colony fellowships to dozens of biographies. The activity looks more like spamming than constructive additions. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user from the article mainspace until they provide a conflict of interest disclosure — which they were asked to do a week ago, but apparently just ignored. El_C 19:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, El_C – I would have done that several days ago, but had already reverted a good number of her edits so did not feel that it would be appropriate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:53, 20 July 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 causing problems at the Asexuality 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.

---

I was asked to take a look at the user AceRebel (talk · contribs · logs), who is causing problems at the article Asexuality. This is someone who has only 65 edits on their record (only a dozen before they launched their attack on that article), but seems so familiar with Wikipedia that everyone who has looked at their work has expressed suspicion that they are a sock. I would have asked for a CU but I don’t know who the master would be.

At the Asexuality article, they began by objecting to a mention of the organization AVEN, claiming that it is not a real organization.[176] After they were twice reverted, instead of taking the issue to the talk page, they filed to get the article delisted as a Good Article based on that one issue. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Asexuality/1 They claimed without evidence that the 100+ references, mostly scholarly, are not “verifiable”; that coverage is not “broad”; that the article is not neutral because it is “affiliated” with AVEN; and that it is not stable. All of those claims are easily dismissed by a glance at the article. Three people pointed out that the claims are invalid; AR responded with walls of text and demands for definitions of words like “affiliated”. A fourth user then closed the discussion. AR deleted the closure comment [177]] but it was restored. They nevertheless are treating the discussion as still open. Today they spammed a dozen people to come discuss it, saying that “If concerns (meaning his concerns) are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.“

I would really like to settle the issue of possible previous accounts, but I would settle for a partial block from articles about asexuality. I would also like someone who regularly assesses good articles to take a look at the GAR request. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

AceRebel has also dubiously accused the other editors involved (including myself; they even accused me of being affiliated with AVEN) of being disruptive: 1 2 Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear MelanieN, I believe you should not participate in reviewing my actions because you not impartial. You have long history of relationships with Adam9007: here, here, here, here and here. Adam9007 is a party to the conflict. Therefore you established strong personal relationships and you not impartial anymore. You will treat other party involved in a conflict more favorably than me. Apparently, you already expressing bias against me describing my actions as: "causing problems", "launched their attack on that article", "they are a sock", "claims are invalid" and "spammed a dozen people". Therefore, I would like to ask you to abstain yourself from this case. Also, you are trying to discredit me right a way to minimize my chances to get fair treatment.

Why you posted this case here and not Adam9007 themselves? Why they avoided following proper procedures on disruptive editors handling and complained to you? I can answer this question right a way. You are looking to help Adam9007 to get more favorable treatment, because of your Administrator status, as your opinion most likely will be recognized as more authoritative than my. I would like to remind you that there are exists procedures to address behavior of sysop too, including and up to Board of Trustees. This way you can loose your sysop privileges and maybe also banned. Therefore, you have to abstinent yourself and stop obstructing me from properly escalation this matter. AceRebel ^talk 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that MelanieN posted this just because of me? We don't do favouritism here. I could have gone to any other admin and they could still have posted this. By your logic, pretty much all of us are biased. I also strongly suggest you stop threatening other editors with potential sanctions (your repeated threats of this nature cast doubt on your good faith). Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'm not sure what feedback you're looking for but that is a disruptive GAR. They might, might have, a reasonable leg to stand on that the article fails criteria 3B in that there's undue focus on AVEN as I lack the subject area knowledge to effectively know. However, the rest of the claims are completely out of line with accepted norms of GA reviews. This editor's spurious claims that the article fails other criteria because of AVEN means that I give little credence to their criteria 3 claims as well. Once this editor is blocked that GAR can be safely shut down. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49 and MelanieN as you both have some meatpuppetry issues, you both should abstain yourself from the case. It is possible to figure that out here. You both have established relationships therefore you side on the question and there is no fair treatment for me. AceRebel ^talk 01:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is overt trolling now. Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. The GAR was probably trolling, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 21 July 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.

Comment after close: Yes, the AVEN mentions in the article are WP:Due. Academic sources that speak on asexuality are clear about the impact that AVEN has had with regard to asexuality discourse and visibility. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SecularIndiangirl

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.

---

SecularIndiangirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account a bit over 24 hours ago and since then has indulged in an exclusively disruptive pattern of editing across various articles many of which are also BLPs. Some of their edits are so ridiculous that they might as well be vandalism or trolling, in general seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Some select examples are as follows:

• Removing reliably cited text and replacing it with the uncited line stating "A speech Khanum delivered at the Aligarh Muslim University over Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 led to violence" on Arfa Khanum Sherwani.
• Changing Einstein to Hitler on Gangadhar Adhikari then arguing at their talk page that "the mention of Einstein was a false claim".
• Adding the line "He is often criticized for propogating conspiracy" on Ravish Kumar while "citing" it to an obscure site and an youtube channel which do not even verify the added line; and then claiming that "i have cited 4 references from a highly credited and oldest publication house of India" when confronted.
• Removing vast quantities of cited text and replacing it with a single line while leaving one of the former citations in place to appear as a citation for their line on Yona and then this talk page discussion.
• Adding the line "He recently revealed his another name Vinay Ratan Singh" to the lead of Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan while "citing" it to a twitter account which explicitly displays a separate person and nothing else to warrant such an addition.
• Adding the uncited text of "Their known works include Nafrat ke ehkamat in which it defines how to hate non believers" to Sufism.
• This response when asked to refrain from adding original research to BLPs.
• ...and there are many more; almost every single edit of theirs is in a similar vein.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Clear WP:NOTHERE, maybe even WP:AIV would've been more appropriate here. Ed6767 talk! 00:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 04:07, 22 July 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 resumed by User:Chrysalix

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:Chrysalix was blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and disruptions at Whigfield. Now that the block has expired, Chrysalix has begun doing the same disruptive edits at the same article.--Harout72 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Last chance block, 2 weeks. El_C 05:34, 22 July 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 page of concern

Could an admin please review this User page and the associated Talk page? Seems threatening, but perhaps not enough to go to the WMF with. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably just a troll but it's worth passing onto the WMF imo. Per the first three lines at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, Treat all claims seriously. Many threats are empty, but don't make that evaluation yourself – leave that to Foundation staff. Combined with Special:Permalink/968753218 I think this is problematic, I've emailed it in. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/Emergency is the way to go. Done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

deleted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged! Jusdafax (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblocking The3Kittens

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.

---

The3Kittens has been indefinitely blocked by RickinBaltimore on 7th July 2020 for making legal threats. The3Kittens was making multiple unblock requests at the time when it was blocked. Several of them were declined by administrators. Before The3Kittens was blocked, it was edit-warring with Davey2010 on the article "Chutti TV". Earlier, an IP address was doing the same with Davey2010. It caused Ymblanter to semi-protect Chutti TV. One last edit The3Kittens made before it was blocked was putting a warning message on the Chutti TV article. Recently, Chestford blocked The3Kittens' access to it's talkpage. Another thing happened. TSMWCfan and TSMWCfan1 have been blocked by CLSStudent and Darkwind as sockpuppets of The3Kittens. The block lived for a long time. The3Kittens made an unblock request on the Unblock Ticket Requesting System. I am sure that The3Kittens will never involve in legal threats, vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit-warring anymore. It will never violate the three-revert rule anymore. It will accept Wikipedia policies. The block of The3Kittens should be changed from "Indefinitely blocked" to "Temporarily blocked" The3Kittens, The3Kittens' underlying IP address, The3Kittens' access to it's talkpage, TSMWCfan and TSMWCfan1 should be unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMWCFan2 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

TSMWCFan2 is likely the same user as TSMWCfan and TSMWCfan1. Dimadick (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The3Kittens, maybe instead of socking like this (which also puts your whole appeal into doubt), try WP:UTRS? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that you imply you're The3Kittens, but still refer to yourself (as The3Kittens) in the third person to retain an ambiguity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack a closed thread, but T3K has been banned per WP:3X and tagged as such on their userpage. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:49, 22 July 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.

Possible not here 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.

---

Please check out this rant. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

, Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:39, 22 July 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.

Kautilya3 filibustering and status quo stonewalling

Tl;dr someone please tell Kautilya3 that they're being disruptive for stonewalling changes purely for maintaining the status quo that he created.

---

Kautilya3 has reverted and PROD-ed my implementation of a proposal by GenQuest given in the close of Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger and discussed at User talk:GenQuest#Suggestion at Demchok? purely on the basis of preserving the status quo.

After a back-and-forth at Talk:Demchok#Undiscussed change of scope where Kautilya3 mistakenly thought that I unilaterally decided to change the article and where I pointed out that his reasoning to reverting the change is disruptive stonewalling purely to preserve the status quo, Kautilya3 admitted that his only reason for reverting and PROD-ing something that multiple editors agree on is to preserve the status quo and a supposed non-consensus for change without giving a reason based on policy, guideline, or common sense. I've told Kautilya3 to stop stonewalling and that he doesn’t own articles before, but he won’t budge until a formal discussion is opened.

This isn’t the first time Kautilya3 has filibustered on issues related to this article either. He previously slapped this disruptive editing warning on my talk page for this implementation of a "undiscussed" merge that I proposed in a discussion with him where he replied 7 times after I reminded him about the proposal which also resulted in an unopposed proposal at Talk:Charding Nullah#Splitting proposal. This resulted in another example of Kautilya3 demanding a formal discussion without ever providing a reason for opposing the changes besides I never said I agreed with those ideas, did I?

This is even more egregious coming from an editor who

1. felt the need to send me two notices about standard discretionary sanctions on India-Pakistan articles in the span of two weeks (including a bad warning about WP:FILIBUSTER);
2. was sanctioned under ARBIPA for gaming the system and casting aspersions (AE enforcement log);
3. largely edits articles relating to India-Pakistan, India-China, and India-Nepal conflicts,
4. gaslighted me while... accusing me of gaslighting?

I don’t care about Kautilya3's slapping warnings and duplicate ARBIPA notices on my talk page, he can do that all he wants. When he actually has a reason to oppose changes, I am always willing to discuss on the talk page. But his continued reverts purely to preserve the status quo and demands for formal RfC/PM/RM discussions without providing a reason for contesting changes is absolutely disruptive to the continued development of articles (particularly these at Demchok, Demchok sector, Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, and Draft:Demchok, Ladakh). I think that editors should open formal centralized discussions for moves that are contested on the basis of policies or guidelines, but editors should not be blocking changes and attempting to force others to open formal discussions if they refuse to give any reason besides status quo. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up: Kautilya3 still doesn’t believe that opposing changes for the sake of status quo is stonewalling, when that’s literally the definition given at WP:SQS. The given SQS examples of

• "Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus"
• "Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds"

march up with Kautilya3's reasonings of "Undiscussed" and "The scope of an article cannot be changed without CONSENSUS." almost perfectly.

Here's another diff to show Kautilya's attitude of do whatever you want to other articles but don't change this one because it started this way (which it didn’t but whatever), even if other editors agree that the changes makes sense. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am afraid this is getting quite ridiculous. WP:SCOPE says, "Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus". This is something everybody implicitly knows and understands. Why I have to spell it out to this user again and again is beyond me.
  • To give some context here, there is village called Demchok in Ladakh and another village with the same name in Tibet (but spelt slightly differently due to transliterations). The two places got split across the two countries 400 years ago. We have had two separate pages on the two villages for several years and they haven't bothered anybody. Why there is this sudden surge of interest on reengineering these pages into something else based on pretty sketchy and weak sources is not comprehensible to me.
  • The OP started messing with the Demchok page in May it seems, which was reverted. After some to-ing and fro-ing, the OP was advised to make a Merge Proposal, which he did and the result was no consensus. The closer clearly recommended having three pages. That would imply keeping the two existing pages as they were, and creating a new page on a supposed historical village that existed despite being split across two countries for 400 years. In any case, the closer did not recommend changing the existing pages.
  • But that is exactly what the OP started doing, making 39 edits to the Demchok page in a span of a few hours and creating a new page on the Ladakhi village by copying content from the original page. WP:MOVE says right in the lead section: Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. Instead, please follow the instructions given below.
  • I believe the OP is clever enough and experienced enough to know these basic things. But for some reason, he is getting blinded by some kind of obsession to see even the basic norms. I have been patiently putting up with his antics for several months now. If this continues any longer, I intend to seek sanctions against him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Consensus is based on arguments. If two editors concur that certain changes would improve the article, while a third opposes purely because the status quo, then there is consensus for the changes. Status quo stonewalling is disruptive regardless if the change is content addition, content removal, a move, a merge, a split, etc.
    • Your attempt to bring your personal interpretation of the content dispute here now doesn’t work. Especially when it’s based on your personal opinion and directly contradicts the fact that every historical description of the village from the 1800s to 1962 described it as one village divided by the stream that now separates the modern villages, contradicts the fact that the the transcription difference was created in 1982, and contradicts the multiple sources describe it being split in the 1962 war:
      • Puri, Luv (2 August 2005). "Ladakhis await re-opening of historic Tibet route". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2020. The village itself was divided into two parts one held by India and the other by China after the 1962 Sino-Indian war, though there is not a single divided family.
      • Arpi, Claude (19 May 2017). "The Case of Demchok". Indian Defence Review. Retrieved 19 July 2020. The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d'Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
      But this isn’t the place for that discussion.
    • I don’t know what you’re talking about, because my first edits to Demchok had nothing to do with any proposed merge and came from a discussion at another page that you participated in. The closer also clearly recommends changing the existing articles:

      treat the historic town in one article (Demchok), and the now split town with articles for each division (Demchok, Ladakh; Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture) each treated as any other separate entity would be. They would each have almost the same history up to a point, and the historic town article would be a "See Also" tag in the history section of both, thus: {{See also|Demchok}} placed under the "History" sub-header, with each having its own unique history following the divergent point explained.

      But GenQuest can tell you themselves that there was no recommendation against changing the two existing articles.
    • It wasn’t a page move. It was a split, which involves copying content with a descriptive edit summary as I did when I created Draft:Demchok, Ladakh: create article for Indian-administered village, see the suggestion from [{Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger]] and User talk:GenQuest#Suggestion at Demchok? (with admittedly a failed link and lacking an explicit link to Demchok).
    • The demonstrated stonewalling, ownership, and immediate assumptions of bad-faith (just peruse the diffs at User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 15#May 2020) have been incredibly clear from Kautilya3, and they still just don’t get it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are dealing with a contested border region which is part of an international dispute with an extremely complicated history. You are expected to proceed cautiously and ensure that you have consensus for the changes you are trying to make. Please don't attempt to trivialise the large-scale tricky changes you are trying to make. And, no newspaper op-eds and the Indian Defence Review are not strong enough sources to decide contentious historical matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You still need to provide a reason for contesting an edit. Protesting on the sole basis of status quo is gaming the system and dangerously tendentious given that it’s an WP:ARBIPA-covered topic.

While you're back on the content issue, you still haven’t provided a single reason for how you know that the article from The Hindu is an op-ed when it doesn’t say that anywhere on the page or how Claude Arpi here is somehow less reliable than the dozen or so times you previously cited him yourself or less reliable than your tendentious original research. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s fascinating trying to discuss WP:ARBIPA topics with a sanctioned editor who dismisses a British historian as racist from his personal interpretation of the historian's books, Indian commentators as not knowing facts because he "started investigating [maps] recently", and a French historian for not being a strong enough as a source, but relies on what he "discovered that map after map showed" (cf. the recent NOR/N thread). And this same editor cites these exact sources for countless additions in ARBIPA topics when they support his personal interpretations of old maps! — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Did I have to really have to read this whole thing? User:Kautilya3, it really looks like you are preventing article improvement for the sake of process (or because you just don't like it, or you just don't like Mark) without argument. I appreciate your edits on India articles but this is looks like the warnings from Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. As User:El_C says, "reverting due solely to "no consensus" is generally ill-advised". < Atom (Anomalies) 11:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm honoured to be quoted! The essay is Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". El_C 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Haven't you people heard of dispute resolution? WP:3O (is "no consensus" a suitable reason to revert changes in this particular case?)? WP:DRN (you might find someone willing to help sort out this stuff)? ANI shouldn't be the first stop on your subway ride (hopefully masked!). --RegentsPark (comment) 13:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark, you ask "is 'no consensus' a suitable reason to revert changes in this particular case?'. Yes, I think so. WP:SCOPE says Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus. If we don't stick to this, anybody can change any page to anything they want, and we will have total chaos. This particular page even has Wikidata entry and I discovered this morning that even Google maps links to it. Changing the very definition of what the article talks about should require a solid discussion and a clear understanding of everything that gets affected. Calling it "status quo stonewalling" is nonsense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RegentsPark: DR isn’t for situations where one editor is opposing because the change is not the status quo. That would be a waste of time and energy for other editors (like this example). One shouldn’t be forced to open an RfC or DRN (3O would be inapplicable since two – now three – editors support the change) just because one editor says it’s not the status quo but neglects to give a policy or guideline-based argument. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there are any impediments to take it to WP:DRN except the editors' willingness. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• My point is that no one is going to read all the material in this post here because quite a bit seems content related. DR seems like your best option. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark:This thread was supposed to just be about the clear disruptive editing / gaming the system in the form of status quo stonewalling, evident from just the few comments here. It’s the attitude of "do whatever you want with the other pages but don’t touch this one because it started out this way" regardless of whether multiple editors support the change. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  MarkH21 You're not getting it. This report is excessive in length. If it would have been posted at AE it would be rejected for exceeding the word limit. No admin is going to evaluate a report of this nature. I estimate that you would need to trim well over half of if you're gonna stand a fair chance of someone looking into it in-depth — no, I'm not volunteering. El_C 04:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not associated with these specific incidents: I had a similar exchange with Kautilya3 in the page 2020 China-India skirmishes where he mass reverted my edits based on a single small point of contention; I took it to the talk page, but was unable to achieve a consensus as only two individuals responded [both of whom supported myself; Kautilya removed one of the responses [178].] I had not intended to take it here as frankly I really don't like the administrative complexity of arbitration, but thought I would mention it as an additional data point. Reyne2 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a normal process of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Condensed report

At the request of El C, here is a condensed version of the original report in more readable form. I've collapsed the chronological diffs, so you can just skip to the main point.

Diffs and quotes in chronological order:

Incident 1 (May 28-31)

I proposed (diff) a merge and a split at Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog with two explicit reminders (1, 2) Kautilya3 responds 7 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) without contesting the proposed merger and also made a suggestion for the proposal I began implementing the first half of the proposal with edit summaries linking the proposal (1, 2) Kautilya3 reverts the changes as undiscussed (diff) and disruption (diff) Kautilya3 warns Please stop, or you will be facing sanctions on my talk page with a level 3 disruptive editing template for the "undiscussed" changes (diff) Kautilya3 responds to requests for why he thinks the changes are not an improvement with I never said I agreed with those ideas, did I? [...] please file a request for merge (diff) + One hardly keep up with everything you say and You would be best advised to file a request for merge for doing such a merge. (diff) After three further comments with Kautilya3 no longer responding, I open formal proposals (1, 2) (the latter of which was unopposed) to just get it over with.

Incident 2 (July 18-19)

GenQuest closes a proposed merge with I would suggest that further development of articles along the Berlin-model (East Berlin, West Berlin) may be the way through here. In other words, three total articles. (diff) GenQuest and I further discuss his proposal to treat the historic town in one article (Demchok), and the now split town with articles for each division (Demchok, Ladakh; Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture) each treated as any other separate entity would be. (diff) I implement GenQuest's proposal with edit summaries linking the proposal (1, 2) Kautilya3 reverts half of the implementation as undiscussed (diff), PRODs the other half as Duplicates an existing page (diff), and tells me that I was unilaterally change it to something else. So, please make a proposal and discuss it properly. (diff) I ask why he thinks the changes are not an improvement (diff) and It sounds like your only reason against GenQuest's proposal is to preserve the status quo of this article being about the Indian-administered village. That frankly isn’t a reason on its own. (diff) Kautilya3 responds with this-is-how-it's-always-been: This page clearly started out as the Indian village with government and census data presented (diff) and That is exactly right. (diff)

The main points:

It's absolutely fine for an editor to revert WP:BOLD edits and to use dispute resolution or formal processes when a guideline/policy-based discussion is no longer fruitful. But that's not what's happening here.

1. It is not fine for an editor to repeatedly mislabel previously proposed/discussed changes as "undiscussed" with warnings and threats of WP:ARBIPA sanctions.
   1. Kautilya3: Reverting undiscussed merge (diff)
   2. Kautilya3: Please stop this disruption (diff)
   3. Kautilya3: If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Demchok, you may be blocked from editing [...] Please stop, or you will be facing sanctions (diff)
   4. Kautilya3: Undiscussed change of scope (diff)
   5. Kautilya3: You cannot unilaterally change it to something else. So, please make a proposal and discuss it properly. (diff)
2. It is not fine for an editor to only justify reverts with "this is how it's always been" or "I never said I approved", especially after previous discussions and proposals have been pointed out.
   1. Kautilya3: I never said I agreed with those ideas, did I? (diff)
   2. Kautilya3: One hardly keep up with everything you say (diff)
   3. Kautilya3: This page clearly started out as the Indian village with government and census data presented (diff)
   4. MarkH21: It sounds like your only reason against GenQuest's proposal is to preserve the status quo of this article being about the Indian-administered village. (diff)
      Kautilya3: That is exactly right. (diff)
3. It is not fine for an editor to use this-is-how-it's-always-been alone to force the other editor into opening formal dispute resolution/processes + force the community to waste its time in those formal processes for any edit that changes the status quo (i.e. every single edit on Wikipedia).
   1. Kautilya3: please file a request for merge (diff)
   2. Kautilya3: You would be best advised to file a request for merge for doing such a merge. (diff)
   3. Kautilya3: please make a proposal and discuss it properly. (diff)
   4. Kautilya3: I don't think there are any impediments to take it to WP:DRN except the editors' willingness (diff)

That's literally status quo stonewalling as defined in WP:SQS and perfectly matches the given examples of Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds and Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus.
Note: Kautilya3 has already been WP:ARBIPA-sanctioned for gaming the system and casting aspersions (diff) and there is an open ARE request against him (link) with which I am not involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see that MarkH21 has some grounds for grievance here. But I believe these tensions have developed because MarkH21 doesn't seem to accept the principle that he has to seek CONSENSUS to reorganise pages in contentious areas. He still seems to think he is "improving" the pages whereas the other people (mainly me) are blocking him.

• The first incident where he maintains that he had discussed a page merge and I said that he hadn't, has now been discussed. It was unsuccessful. I would have thought that this would give MarkH21 a clear idea of how such reorganisations should be proposed and discussed, but I am not confident that he has it.
• The second incident occurred when he essentially repeated similar reorganisation by making 39 edits within hours of the closing of the merge request, before any one else even had a chance to look at the close. Assuming that we go with the configuration the closer recommended, the reorganisation MarkH21 attempted to do wasn't the right one because it destroyed the page history.

The steps to do such reorganisations are clearly spelt out in WP:Move, WP:Merging and WP:Splitting.

I do not believe any of these reorganisations are "improvements". They are just implementing specific POV that MarkH21 favours, despite being contradicted by several reliable sources, and I have said this on the talk pages several times [179] [180] [181] [182]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Ignoring the May stuff to keep things simple, the way I see it is as follows. You proposed a merger which was closed by GenQuest as "no consensus". GenQuest had some ideas on how to deal with this and you and GenQuest discussed this and you implemented the changes that came out of that discussion. Kautilya then reverted those changes as "undiscussed" and that, lacking consensus, the various articles should stay at the status quo. None of this seems problematic to me. You made changes, albeit with some discussion with GenQuest. Kautilya wants you to get broader consensus, which is not unreasonable given that the merge proposal attracted at least four other editors who should have a say in this. Seems to me that this does need more discussion and wider input. Either a new proposal or DRN is still the way to go. Make a proposal, people will comment, someone will close it, and we'll all know where we are. Unclear to me why you are loathe to do this. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I am not loathe to do that, in fact it is the opposite. For opposition, I encourage a discussion about the content. But when I asked Kautilya3 three times for an actual reason that the new version was not an improvement, Kautilya3 responded three times with go-edit-the-other-articles and this-is-how-it's-always-been rather than discussion about the content.

Kautilya3's labeling of the implementation as undiscussed and unilateral from me is also clearly wrong. This isn't the first time that he has mislabeled changes that had edit summaries linking to the prior discussions/proposals.

The current content dispute isn’t the point of this report. Kautilya3 has now actually voiced non-SQS opposition to the implementation of GenQuest's proposal, so if we have to use usual DR/formal processes then sure. But Kautilya3 needs to understand that they cannot continue to aggressively mislabel changes and contest changes on the basis of status quo alone. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats, possible COI

Ajlewis90 (talk · contribs) appears to have a conflict of interest on Jay Smith (Christian apologist) (in support of the subject) and recently, has threatened legal action here, attempting to remove well-sourced content without producing a reliable source to the contrary, attempting to use an edit summary despite the fact that edit summaries do not replace sources. Note that the account is only a few days old as well. . Please handle this.

2001:56A:F821:5500:E9B6:62D2:9A5:388D (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't dug in yet but this says Smith is 59, our article indicates he's 66/67. Are you sure it's the same person? And the photo doesn't even look like him. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite the fact he shouldn't have made a legal threat, he's absolutely right to remove this. These are clearly two different people. — Czello 15:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the content. It's very clearly not the same person. Praxidicae (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's far more problematic that IPs within a limited range were trying to edit-war in inclusion of this material despite the difference in names, ages, and activities, seemingly for no other reason than that this was one of the ten Jay Smiths we have articles on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, this IP has been repeatedly inserting poorly sourced negative BLP material and telling Ajlewis90 to provide a source to the contrary, the exact opposite of BLP practice.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

El C I think you blocked the user in error. The IP is the one adding the unsourced violations, not the account. The account was removing it. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the alert. I have unblocked with apologies. El_C 16:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 15:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 30 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. in case the wolf at the door has pups. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Revdel'd what I saw. Blocked OP and related IP's. May need rangeblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have range blocked. El_C 16:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

confirmation that SP was needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, they get the hint. But I wouldn't count on it. El_C 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits

121.179.131.132 keeps adding nonsense to various articles for the past few days: [183], [184], [185], [186], [187]. Their editing consists in inserting the phrase "∅ in Primary Encyclopedic Published Academic Source" in accurately sourced articles. They also insert poorly-written text violating WP:SYNTH: [188], [189]. When reverted per WP:CYCLE they start edit-warring: [190] (an edit also violating WP:COPYVIO as it contains text copypasted from [191]), [192], [193], [194], [195]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Omnipaedista, I looked at a few of these and it heavily reminds me of Diametakomisi, who turned out to be a sock. I see similarity both in interests (philosophy) and in style (lots of extraneous sources, rambling, synthesis, and all-around weirdness). Especially at Hypostasis (philosophy and religion). Here is the ANI thread I had opened on Diametakomisi: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#Diametakomisi and incessant incomprehensibility. Pinging Deacon Vorbis and NinjaRobotPirate from back then. What do you all think? I think it's enough for CU. And for a WP:CIR block in any case. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Also Dekimasu who was familiar with them. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You rang? I hate to say it, but this particular brand of weirdness doesn't quite strike me as Whalestate's (the master's) style. It's certainly not impossible and might be worth checking, but this one just feels a bit different. On the other hand, it's certainly disruptive in any case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Another instance of COPYVIO: [196] (cf. [197]). Other editors have dealt with the IP editor as well: [198], [199], [200]. I would like to ask a block against this IP editor. They refuse to engage in any kind of conversation and instead keep edit-warring. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:دنيا and use of edit summaries

This user began editing in earnest at the start of this month and seems to be focused on adding images to articles that currently do not have them. However, some of these images are of poor quality and I have reverted some of these edits when they have appeared on my watchlist. However, my main concern is their use of edit summaries; instead of writing a proper description of what they have changed in an article, they simply write "#WPWP", which doesn't mean anything to me. Based on their username, minimalist edit summaries and lack of contributions to any talk pages, I'm not confident of being able to get through to them via their talk page, but if other editors think that would be a good idea as a first step, I'm happy to give it a try. Otherwise, I'm at a bit of a loss. – PeeJay 14:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#Image competition?, where this edit summary is explained. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit rude, PeeJay2K3, to assume that someone is not capable of understanding English based largely on their username being in a foreign script. Did you take the time to actually look at their userpage, which is written in perfect English and also has a userbox saying they have advanced knowledge of the language? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't, and that was a mistake on my part, but the pattern of the edits gave me no reason to expect any particular level of competence. Many people claim they have an advanced understanding of a language, but the claim and the reality are often at odds. – PeeJay 15:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not perfect English at all; I think I can understand Peejay2k3's misunderstanding here, especially if they're not being communicative. — Czello 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Beyond a capitalisation error, what is wrong with I am from Egypt. I am a medical student. I have contributed in Arabic Wikipedia since february 2019.?

I guess that sentence could do with a "the", but still hardly problematic English by any means. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I don't really want to bash on another Wikipedian's language, but phrases like "in Arabic wikipedia" technically aren't right. Nothing wrong with that, of course -- but as I say, I can understand why OP misinterpreted the situation. I don't think he was intentionally being rude, is what I'm trying to say. — Czello 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Czello. Possibly a little accidental racism on my part, but nothing to cancel me over. I've come across users with usernames in non-Latin scripts before and they've often been less than communicative, so while I jumped the gun in this case, I don't think it was entirely unjustified. – PeeJay 16:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have got sidetracked a little. I don't think that anyone was being intentionally rude, but there is just the usual anglophone failure to understand that others may be able to communicate in more than one language. The problem here boils down to the same as identified in my link above, that a competition is being run on Meta whose rules may lead to minor disruption on other projects. PeeJay, now you know where the edit summary comes from, how about pointing out to this editor that the rules of the competition require that Wikipedia articles are improved by the addition of images, not just that images are added, and that the edit summary should include "#WPWP", but it should also describe what has been done? If that brings no joy then you can always come back here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Phil. – PeeJay 18:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for this misunderstanding. Actually, I did not think that hashtag would lead to that. But I promise I will explain what I am doing in edits summaries “+image #WPWP” next times. I know that some of the images are not in good quality but there are in wikidata and also in other languages; however, I will take care of the quality. And concerning with my English, I may not be perfect on it as my mother language is Arabic but I can understand it well. Thank you all for your efforts. دنيا (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

IP range block needed for 2605:A601:AD87:300

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.

---

• 2605:A601:AD87:300:D469:75E3:B5C4:B610 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:28AB:FDDD:B790:73AA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:8011:8E90:6B35:9AEB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:5969:2564:CDBC:7F07 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:4D70:8246:3657:7DE3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:159C:A24B:E828:93BC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This editor has been adding unsourced information, often blatantly false, for over a week now and well past the 4th warning. The IP was tagged in a recent SPI, but that case is somewhat complex involving other usernames and IP ranges, and it's been pending admin review for a while. In the meantime, thought I would bring up this specific IP range here to at least put a temporary halt to the disruption. Evidence/diffs below:

• 21:50, July 12, 2020 – blatantly false
• 00:16, July 13, 2020 – blatantly false, no way to mistaken the two types (warn1)
• 17:07, July 14, 2020 – blatantly false (warn2)
• 06:02, July 19, 2020 – blatantly false (ClueBot warn)
• 01:07, July 20, 2020 – disruptive (warn3)
• 22:33, July 21, 2020 – blatantly false (warn4)
• 09:49, July 22, 2020 – disruptive
• 13:15, July 22, 2020 – blatantly false, the worse violation of it so far, padding with fabricated measurements

Would appreciate any assistance with this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock, 2 weeks. El_C 23:59, 22 July 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.

Uncivil edits by TheNewResearcher

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 editor has made multiple uncivil comments about MrOllie. These include the edit summary for this edit saying he is a corrupt person, this edit where he said he was a coward, and the one that I find most offensive since it is disparaging a whole nationality with this edit. It is clear this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 14:16, 23 July 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.

Article Damage & Persistent Vandalism After 8 Warnings

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.

---

Snagemit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has vandalized hundreds of pages over last few days, inaccurately removing any negative reference or description of the UK and replacing them with historically false information to make UK appear more positive. User has also been inserting historically false negative information on the USA. User has been warned 8 times in last week, has not stopped. User has made thousands of vandalizing edits, many have been reverted. Every change by this user must be undone, not good faith edit. 021120x (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Taken the duty to find a couple of diffs:

• [201]
• unexplained removal of "and UK"
• removal of mentions of UK and replacements with "Australia"
• [202]
• Also lots of edits in which casualty numbers are changed, but the references are not, so there's no - was warned on 11 July
• Continued failure to use edit summaries, even after a UW and comments by 2 editors [203]
• not very civil
• again civility issues
• See also arbcom case RE american politics which Snagemit was notified of, and their talk page archive
• Also pinging Keith-264, who may have some comments Ed6767 talk! 14:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  (it should also be noted that these are only a few recent edits that I could find) Ed6767 talk! 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Earlier today I undid this series of edits at California Genocide which removed the involvement of Spanish and Mexican governments from the lede, leaving just the US. I had previously undone some of his edits elsewhere, some for WP:NOTBROKEN problems, but others for the blurring of history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• This editor's contributions are insane and prolific and they are going to need to be cleaned up. I haven't checked in a while but their contributions are a litany of unexplained changes and changes back, and the changes are nearly always wrong.--Jorm (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  I thought that too - will get to work reverting :p Ed6767 talk! 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  actually, over 6000 edits is quite the task Ed6767 talk! 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 15:43, 23 July 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.

Multiple issues with an unresponsive editor

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.

---

• Sarah Catherine J (talk · contribs) Adding promotional and unsourced content to multiple Taiwan-based articles, as well as swaths of foreign language content. Has also been reverted for copyright violations in the past, so that may be a recurring issue. More eyes appreciated. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I see copyright violations, obvious COI editing and a complete lack of communication. Indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 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.

Request a review of Bromographi (talk · contribs) for article vandalism and openly wanting to engage in an edit war in regards to The Pogues 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.

---

The Pogues have recently been brought up in an Irish newspaper that they have incorrectly been described as just an 'English' or 'British' band, provoking outrage. I subsequently edited the page to show as 'English and Irish' to factually represent them and highlight that while the majority of the band was English, three of it's members were Irish. Fair enough I thought because to say they are only 'Irish' or only 'English' would be wrong. But an edit war has begun and I have a message from Bromographi that reads 'Stop making changes to pogues, They are whatever we want them to be and i won't stop this until banned diched'. This seems immature to me and the user is also totalitarian in the message that no amount of talking will ever lead to some kind of agreement. For this reason, please can someone more senior perhaps warn him? I see he has previous bans for disrupting the Pogues page too. Many thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Glaaaastonbury88, he has already been indef blocked. See.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks yeah I noticed after posting and was working my way back here to update haha! Best regards.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 06:14, 23 July 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.

Meatpuppets at Richard Desmond

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.

---

• NewsEditor1959 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ARambo8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard Desmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These SPAs are slow edit warring to replace "former pornographer" with "philanthropist" [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] and won't engage in discussion. They are the latest Desmond-SPAs after Pocketshepherd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and OKiddell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CU came back inconclusive but the disruption has continued. They are obviously WP:NOTHERE and only interested in sanitising the article on Desmond's behalf - as detailed on the talk page he is not keen on the description, despite making his fortune in porn as detailed by numerous RS. SmartSE (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Put me down as supporting the SPAs. It's ridiculous to have a significant biography starting with "Richard Clive Desmond (born 8 December 1951) is a British publisher, businessman and former pornographer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs) 09:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It dominates his public image. Dirty Des. Guy (help!) 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why is it ridiculous? It's used for Paul Raymond (publisher). It's more usual for biographies to start with how the subject makes their money (pornographer) than how they spend it (philanthropist). Cabayi (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Philanthropist isn't really a career, pornographer is. There's no denying that was his majority career so why would we leave it out? Would you remove software developer from Bill Gates? If it were up to me it would stay, that's what he's known for so why wouldn't we say that? Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Those descriptions are the various stepping stones of his career and should be mentioned. The meatpuppets can, I assume, be blocked if the behaviour continues doktorb _words^deeds 12:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look @Canute:. Now we have another: Wengagodtoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we get some semi-protection too? SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed Wengagodtoh and semi-protected for a month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:40, 23 July 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.

Threat message on userpage

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 Remesht2020 posted a message on my userpage, that reads as "One must not take anonymity for granted.". A fellow editor suggested me to report the message here as a potential threat. I also asked for a reply from the concerned user, but no response. I do not have any edit interaction with the user, the user account was created on 19 June, 2020. So it is probably sockpuppet of some old user. Hope some admin can look into the matter. Thanks. Zoodino (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has been outed and doxxed on Wikidemocracy, I'm am incredibly angry at such a threat. @Remesht2020: I'm inclined to indef you right now --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the time stamp reads, " 2020-07-06T11:20:58 ," so seventeen days? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, user has not edited in six hours. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Intriguingly, the only interaction I see is at User:Zoodino --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's because it's a sockpuppet :P Investigating ... ST47 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, in any case. El_C 17:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In the filers defence I have sometimes had my user page vandalised and have not noticed it for a while.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, that sort of threat is unacceptable. The only thing stopping me is that I don't block when angry-- or furious. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It's all good, Deepfriedokra, I got your back. El_C 17:46, 23 July 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 repeatedly violating WP:NPA

• 86.142.79.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.188.36.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.146.209.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Edit summary
• Purposeful misgendering
• Talk page 1
• Talk page 2

This editor has under those three IPs repeatedly made personal attacks against me as shown. We have a disagreement over whether something has to simply exist or if it has to meaningfully exist to be covered in present tense under MOS:TENSE. They do not like my interpretation of that word. I feel that their actions are not in line. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

First let's address the issue of 'purposeful misgendering'. That is a false allegation and Jerod's link shows that he is well aware of that (yes, I am avoiding pronouns now). I shall repeat the response to save everyone the trouble.

[In response to Darkwind's statement at WP:ANEW that I should pick a pronoun (he or she) and stick with it - and I am assuming that Jerod read it as he doesn't appear to read responses anywhere else.] "There was no deliberate intent to mis gender Jerod in my posts. I had not looked at, nor did I have any reason to look at, Jerod's user page. Per your own suggestion in your first paragraph, I very deliberately 'picked' pronouns through an educated analysis of Jerod's name. 'Jerod', an alternate spelling of 'Gerald', is generally considered a male name in English and therefore a fairly safe bet. I have not knowingly used any other gender (and certainly not above [at ANEW where the allegation applied]."

Second, Jerod has repeatedly provided claims of what MOS:TENSE requires when the link says no such thing. He has repeatedly and deliberately misrepresented examples and policies to support his argument.

He has claimed that MOS:TENSE requires that a brand has to no longer meaningfully exist. The word 'brand' does not appear at MOS:TENSE anywhere. But he goes on to state that the brand can be considered to meaningfully exist if it is still supported. I responded by pointing out that the brand is both still supported and products are still manufactured under the brand name. My response includes a link to a Google search showing that parts are still being produced under the Philishave brand. That makes the brand unquestionably a current brand.

Jerod has nevertheless continued to insist that the brand does not exist raising suspicions that he does not read or cannot comprehend (or more likely) does not want to comprehend what is being said to him.

Jerod then claimed that user:Steelbeard1 had agreed with him. In reality Steelbeard1 has never responded to nor agreed with Jerod. So even more deception.

Jerod then confirmed that Philishave is both a brand and the subject of the article, but it is otherwise unclear what point was being made.

Jerod then claimed that MOS:TENSE requires the brand name to feature in popular culture for it to be considered 'meaningfully exists'. MOS:TENSE does not mention popular culture anywhere so this was yet another blatant and unambiguous attempt to misrepresent the MOS to support his argument.

Jerod then points to Ford Model A (1927–31) as an example of past tense use. The article says "The Ford Model A ... was the Ford Motor Company's second market success". But this is obviously incorrect tense because the Ford Model A still is the Ford motor company's second market success, Ford being unable to go back in time and slip another success in. In any case the brand (Ford) is still current.

Jerod then drags up five further examples to support his preferred past tense. Again, all five examples are deliberate attempts at misrepresentation as three of the articles (Saab Automobile; Mercury (automobile) and Compaq) are about companies that really longer exist and thus (correctly) use the past tense. The remaing two (Compaq Presario and Windows phone) are brands, but the misrepresentation comes about because both use the present tense and not the past as claimed (and neither has recently been changed).

In spite of the fact that Jerod should be aware of the misrepresentation, once again he has not read it or not comprehended it or decided not to comprehend it because he repeats the examples when he states he has already linked to half a dozen examples that support his claim that Philishave should be past tense when, in reality, none of the examples do so.

This is persistent deliberate and blatant misrepresentation. Jerod's word cannot be accepted for anything (which is the dictionary definition of a liar). 86.142.79.147 (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Jerod has now deliberately misrepresented articles yet again.

Jerod has once again claimed that the articles Saab Automobile, Mercury (automobile) and Compaq are about the brands and not the companies. Marque is just another word for brand and I suspect a deliberate attempt to confuse. From the opening lines of the articles respectively (my emphasis in each case):

Saab Automobile: "Saab Automobile was a manufacturer … "

Mercury (automobile): "Mercury is a defunct division of the American automobile manufacturer Ford Motor Company …"

Compaq: "Compaq … was a company …"

All three articles really are about the company so Jerod is quite wrong to continually claim that the is's or was's in the opening sentence are referring to a brand. 86.130.28.51 (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll find that what @Darkwind: stated was: Starting with your behavior on this page, you are deliberately misgendering Jerodlycett, as is clear from your attempt at subtle (but actually quite blatant) emphasis on pronouns in your last paragraph. That is rude at best, and it really colors the rest of your behavior in context. If one doesn't know the pronouns one should use to refer to a fellow editor, one can use standard generic gender-neutral language such as they/them, refer to the editor by username only, or, for heaven's sake, look at their userpage where zie makes it pretty clear what pronouns to use. Failing all that, in a worst case, you could have even picked a set of pronouns like he or she and stuck with it (personally, I try to avoid using "he" as a default, but I slip up sometimes), but don't express your uncertainty with either questioning punctuation or italics/bold, much less both, as it really looks like you're just trying to ridicule. At least a default assumption isn't deliberately insulting. Further, at that point you were told what my pronouns are, what you have done here is absolutely, and without question, misgender me. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As specifically instructed by Darkwind, I selected a default pronoun (he, on the grounds that you have a boy's name) and stuck with it and done so consistently. Unless you really are a 'she', the only other alternative would be to call you 'it', but that would be insulting. 86.190.142.215 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"They" is perfectly acceptable grammar for someone whose gender identity you do not know. Refusing to adhere to another individuals preferred pronouns after being informed of them is disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is why IPs can't have nice things.
:::::Uninvolved editor here. There is no such thing as "gender identity." The Hand That Feeds You is obviously a highly-partisan Marxist editor with an agenda to destroy the English language. Since he does not even comprehend fundamental English grammar, I suggest he be banned per WP:CIR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.99.99.222 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hounding (MOS:TENSE)

Since this is ANI, the OP's behaviour should also be under scrutiny, Jerod is guilty of WP:HOUNDING. Our first encounter was at 5.56×45mm NATO where a bulleted list caused most browsers to render the page incorrectly. Jerrod was determined that he was right as he made three reverts to a version of the page that rendered incorrectly refusing to accept that it rendered incorrectly. Another user changed back to an unbulleted list and confirmed on the talk page that there was indeed a problem (and helpfully included a screen grab) though Jerod persisted for a further two posts that this was not the case.

It was from here that Jerod followed me to Philishave and started reverting me against MOS:TENSE. Jerod's history shows that he had never previously edited Philishave.

He then followed me to Pontiac and started reverting me there. Again an article that he had never previously edited. 86.188.36.189 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in an attempt to fight disruptive editing I did the normal thing and checked out a disruptive editor's other contributions. From there I saw the editor's other disruptive behavior, which at first I had assumed was due to a good faith misinterpretation of the MOS. I saw that, even though it was on the anonymous editor's part to do, the user that had reverted in the WP:BRD cycle started the discussion and supported said user's interpretation. The anonymous user keeps trying to throw a different argument at me every time I show that they are wrong about one of them, and I am finding myself unable to continue to assume good faith on their part. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The only person who has deliberately misinterpreted TENSE is yourself, which according to my count, as of this post, no less than 3 (three) other people have attempted to make you aware. 86.190.142.215 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Torm65 edit warring and legal threat

• Torm65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Francis Gurry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For the past month, Torm65 has been edit warring to restore poorly-sourced negative claims at Francis Gurry. Multiple editors have removed these claims—see the article history—and left messages at the editor's Talk page. There's also a breakdown of the sourcing issues at the article Talk page and it's been reported at BLPN twice (archived, current) without any lasting resolution.

Earlier this week, Torm65 reverted/restored these claims again and said my "false statement about unreliable sources constitutes defamation" in an edit summary. I asked Torm65 to clarify and/or retract their legal threat and asked them to join the Talk page discussion. They haven't edited for several days and I figured they gave up, until they return today to revert again. They still haven't joined any Talk page discussions—their only communications have been in edit summaries—or addressed their legal threat. Woodroar (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Woodroar, WP:NLT would contribute an indef, but I wouldn't say this is one - defo a WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:ENGAGE issue Ed6767 talk! 15:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I went ahead and partial blocked for 24 hours on Francis Gurry. Any admin can modify or undo if they think I exceeded myself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• I find them throwing out the word "defamation" after restoring allegations to a WP:BLP ironic. Maybe I'll give them a BLP DS alert. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• He already has one. To be clear, this is just an ordinary block and not a DS block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Being Targeted by an Editor

I am reaching out to ask for assistance regarding an editor who has taken a particular interest in me, and who, since we disagreed on BLP rules for the Susan Collins page, has decided to imply on my page that I have violated wikipedia's rules regarding multiple accounts. I did make it clear to Snooganssnoogans that if they had concerns they should follow a legitimate process. Snooganssnoogans then opened up a case for sockpuppetry, here:sockpuppet investigation open but I believe they did so 1) without ever having assumed good faith given past interactions and 2) without any substantive evidence. It is my concern that this be resolved in a timely fashion because it is my contention that Snooganssnoogans is doing this out of personal animus over our disagreement and, therefore, the purpose on their part is not to investigate but to discredit me as a person and volunteer editor. Obviously, anyone can submit a request but I ask that this investigation be carried out in a timely fashion that respects my right to be able to have my name cleared. I am confident that a CU would confirm that this is my only account. I am even willing to correspond privately with an admin or clerk to confirm the state of the US I am in.

My reason for asking for an admin to become involved are threefold,... 1) Snooganssnoogans did not assume good faith. Snoogansnoogans did not discuss the issue with me when I politely answered their question about whether I have used any other accounts. When I answered "No" and said I had one account. I politely asked Snooganssnoogans to explain why they were asking. They did not. Instead, they asked again about specific accounts. When I said no and asked again why, Snooganssnoogans, instead of assuming good faith, implied very strongly that I am a sockpuppet of those accounts or vice versa.

2) Snooganssnoogans makes a specific claim that is easily disproven in the records. Snoogansnoogans claims that I have used the account SusanDinner. Specifically, Snoogansnoogans claims that I was involved in a dispute in 2018 and then shortly after used SusanDinner to back myself up. That is untrue and demonstrably so. In 2018, I, and several editors, cleaned up and corrected vandalism occurring on Susan Collins' page relating to the contentious Supreme Court hearings. I reviewed my edits and I was not involved in a dispute with any particular editor and neither was I involved in a conversation with an editor at that time. In fact, the only dispute I had was with Snooganssnoogans in 2020 over a legitimate disagreement about how often and how much space should be given to Brett Kavanaugh on Collins' page. Neither of us disagreed that he should be mentioned, but I disagreed with giving more space or mention to him since the BLP is not about him.

3) Snoogansnoogans is accusing me of abusing multiple accounts. a) I do not have multiple accounts and I know a CU would show that. b) The account they accuse me of using has not edited anything since 2018. The user SusanDinner appears to have been a very sparse editor and gone for years at a time. The user has not edited anything since 2018. What is the accusation then? Am I being accused of NOT using two accounts in 2019 nor in 2020? The fact that the accusation does not make sense leads me to feel very strongly that this is personal and vindictive for a disagreement.SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The sequence of events: (1) I busted a sockpuppet the other day[210]. (2) During the course of looking through that sock's contributions on pages of obscure congressional representatives, I noticed a bunch of edits by accounts adding content emphasizing how "bipartisan" and "centrist" various politicians were, including two editors whose edits I found to be similar to SeminarianJohn's editing. When I looked close at those editors, one of them had inexplicable edited SeminarianJohn's userpage[211]). (3) I went to SJ's talk page and asked if he had used any other Wikipedia accounts, and specifically mentioned those two accounts[212]. (4) SJ threw a fit, went to various boards[213][214] to accuse me of targeting or harassing him, claimed I had said things about him which I had not, and said "If you have concerns, follow a legitimate process." (5) Per his request, I then started a sockpuppet investigation. The sockpuppet investigation is here[215], and it's certainly not baseless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear user, I did not throw a fit. In fact, I calmly asked twice if you could explain your question. You did not even while I politely answered your questions. You have been verbally aggressive multiple times to me in our disagreement over BLP and I asked the TeaHouse for a general question two or three weeks ago before again asking because you continue to target me. That there are sockpuppets out there =\= that I am one, and it is certainly odd timing that you had a disagreement with me and then imply on my TalkPage that I am one. That is a huge issue. You implied it very strongly without ever assuming good faith. You also include multiple mistruths. 1) SusanDinner, as I said, has not edited since 2018. There is no recent activity from that user. 2) You don't have any evidence other than SusanDinner did something odd by correcting a date on my page (I said Happy 2017 and did not change it for 2018 and looks like SusanDinner corrected it but I did not give permission for that to be done). There are bunch of reasons for why they could have done that. a) thought they were being nice is a big one. 3) You frequently use abrasive language with me or other editors. You accused me of promoting anti-abortion bias. That is untrue. You accused me of white-washing Brett Kavanaugh. untrue. And now you went to my page and implied that I am violating a rule and I strongly believe you did so out of retaliation. 5) The issue is not the investigation but that you know there is no evidence. You know that there are many many editors who edit US politics, and you and I have edited more pages in common than I have with the user you accuse me of being another account. If I was maliciously using another account, why would I never be disruptive? You are forgetting the standard for sockpuppet investigations. Per WP rules, you have to see disruption. Yet you make the false claim that I was in a dispute in 2018 and SusanDinner backed me up. That is not true. I reviewed my edits in June and July 2018 and I did not have a dispute with any particular editor on Susan Collins' page. It is not a coincidence that you are presenting unsubstantiated claims after a disagreement over BLP. I also edit in Spanish and Romanian. Those users do not and neither do they have knowledge of, interest in, or skills with editing the other areas I contribute to. You know that because you can look at my contributions. We could not be more different. 6) My main concern is that this is resolved in a timely fashion. I don't think it would be right for something that is easily investigated to remain open so I ask for admin attention and assistance.SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the Talk Page where snoogansnoogans accused me of pushing anti-abortion bias and also "giving space to ludicrous" statements and snoogansnoogans clearly uses other aggressive language to accuse me of white-washing simply because I don't agree with how much space they want to give to Brett Kavanaugh. Here:SusanCollinsTalkPage SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Update, I thank the admins and clerks for reviewing my case in a timely manner. The outcome was, as I said, a finding that I am not connected to SarahDinner. My need has therefore been addressed and I hope the other editor will now withdraw that accusation from my Talkpage.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban 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.

---

User:Horse Eye Jack and User:CaradhrasAiguo do NOT get along. They've been feuding on and off for a while (that's my take; to be fair, I think they would both disagree with the characterization of feuding). ANI denizens will likely recall several previous threads, and if I have time later today I'll go diff hunting (or, I'll be in the debt of someone who does that before I get back). I blocked both for two weeks in late June, and then unblocked both with a i-ban as a condition for unblock that expired at the end of the 2 week period. It is my understanding I'm not allowed to impose an indef i-ban by myself (the stupidity of that rule would be a good topic for discussion elsewhere); otherwise I'd have done that long ago. So there is no i-ban in effect now. HEJ just complained at my talk page that CA mostly reverted an edit of theirs.

I do not have time to research who is more at fault in this case, whether this is a case of hounding or a case of baiting or a case of being too sensitive or a case of being not sensitive enough, so I'm reluctantly dropping this in ANI's lap.

Can the community please at the very least impose an i-ban? Also, since they overlap in editing interests a lot, it's going to be hard for them to avoid violating it. Both have already edited many of the articles in their topic of interest, so it isn't a matter of "avoid articles the other has edited". I imagine at some point we'll be back here deciding which one to topic or site ban. A neutral editor in the subject area has told me that both are productive and useful when not actually interacting with each other, so that would be a shame. So if anyone has any suggestions for how to make this more likely to work, that would be great. I was sort of toying with the idea that, starting now, they can't edit an article where the other person was the last to edit it. Not sure if that's genius or stupid.

If anyone has questions for me, I'll try to circle back to this tonight. I'm sorry, there aren't a lot of diffs to back this up, but I've little time for this stuff right now. Hopefully since I'm not trying to take sides, and their feuding seems fairly self-evident, I can be forgiven for the lack of backup info now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t mind CA coming along and changing some language I wrote a long time ago (there is little chance they would even know its mine). Thats not what my issue is, the problem is the semi-reversion [216] *two minutes later* with no edit summary save “ce” (seems slightly inadequate) which erased the subject’s Taiwanese nationality from the intro (this is a recurring issue, CA thinks Taiwan is a part of China and regularly denigrates those who disagree, see Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan, [217], [218], [219], [220], and [221]). That feels targeted, I just want to be left alone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Since you have mentioned me by my initials, I feel no compunction, on a point of order, against responding to the above. I edited the latest article in question in Jun 2018 via AWB, and, if my understanding of the "first-mover advantage" is correct, I hold said advantage in this case. My Jun 2018 added around 50 bytes, whereas HEJ's edits were each around 30 bytes each. As to the edit contents, 1) I honored HEJ's change from dissident to political commentator 2) On a strictly stylistic point, writing Taiwanese __ born in China, followed by Born in Beijing in the next sentence is redundant. It is revealing that the less contentious solutions Taiwanese __ born in mainland China or Taiwanese __ born in Beijing were not considered. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Since you have mentioned me by my initials, I feel no compunction, on a point of order, against responding to the above. What bullshit WP:POINTy nonsense. No, I think you don't want to respond to the above because you don't feel like it. Just say that instead of trying to wikilawyer. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: No, I was refuting the basis for the report, which was that my edit at Wu'erkaixi was somehow disruptive enough to warrant a full-fledged thread here. So, yes I did respond to the above, and no, no one on this thread is wiki-lawyering. If this were any other venue (e.g. WP:RSN or Talk:Falun Gong) and/or the topic were anything other than the proposed interaction ban, then I would not want to respond to HEJ in discussion at all. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that such a first mover advantage exists but if it does you would unquestionable have it in this case. Those small edits were on June 10 2018 and I didn't create my account until June 26 2018. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Several WP:UNINVOLVED admins noted the "first mover" principle. 2) If you agreed that I held this "advantage", why raise a "tempest in a teacup", given the fact you, myself, Floq, et al. view this noticeboard as a time sink? 2B) Interestingly enough, I edited Karakax County thrice in Jun 2018, before your account registration, though, admittedly, your Feb 2020 edit actually added content (+382 bytes), and wasn't mere copy-editing.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Re-read that first sentence, I don’t agree that it exists (at least not in a form that would apply here). There is an argument to be made in cases where someone has made major edits to a page or are the page’s creator but that doesn't appear to be the case here, both of our edits were small. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam: It's probably a little late for this now, but WP:CONDUNBLOCK does allow for unblock conditions of up to a year in duration for blocks that were less than a year. – bradv🍁 18:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to codify a "first mover advantage" in the interaction ban between SashiRolls and Tryptofish as a discretionary sanction. But that was soundly rejected at AE as too arcane of a restriction. That leads me to think that if an IBAN is imposed, that facet should probably remain informal. By being limited to the extent of guiding the two editors to be respectful, to be wary about modifying the other's contributions, even if accidents may happen. That is probably the way to go about this at this time. El_C 19:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Having been the one to suggest the initial I-Ban, though sad to see this at ANI, I agree that an I-Ban is probably the best solution. The parties have long fueded and been unable to get along, and a variety of escalating measures have not worked. I hesitate to make it an indefinite I ban, perhaps 1 or 2 years would be appropriate? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry to see it here too. I’ve avoided them entirely since the block (even when tempted by their edits appearing on my watchlist), if there is going to be an I-Ban it should be indefinite... CA has shown no willingness to stop before, I don’t see why they would feel differently in the future. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just under a month ago, I commented on Floquenbeam's block of both Horse Eye Jack and CaradhrasAiguo that an IBAN may be unproductive and difficult to enforce because Both editors work on a wide breadth of China & Taiwan related articles, including the heavily-edited articles with disputes [...] and they independently contribute productively to this body of articles. They've both had bitter disagreements that has resulted in following each other's edits, edit-warring, etc. and they both agreed to an unblock conditional on an IBAN through July 8/9 (of HEJ , Unblock of CA).
  Considering their previous heated arguments, it's honestly a bit surprising to see that this ANI report is over this barely partial-revert of these edits (on the face of it, CA's edits actually do look like copy-editing for removing redundancy). It's also post-expiry of their formal IBAN, so it's like a pseudo-IBAN is currently in effect.
  Would the reinstatement of a formal IBAN benefit Wikipedia? It may encourage them to stay further away from each other. It may also lead to more reporting on small (potentially-unintentional) reverts across the rather large intersection of articles in which they are interested and 50% loss of their productive work. I'm inclined to believe that an IBAN would benefit them, allowing them to better focus their efforts on productive article editing. Right now, it looks like a situation where both of them focus part of their energies on worrying about the grey area of this pseudo-IBAN between them. Formalizing it might be better for everyone; they will have to walk a tight-rope, but right now they're walking a tight-rope and nobody even knows where it is. — MarkH₂₁^talk
• Thanks for replies. Unless someone objects, I plan to enact an interaction ban in a day or so.

@Bradv:, thanks for info, wish I'd known that. Useful for the future, though.

@MarkH21:, thanks for the input, you were the person I mentioned above, but I didn't have a chance to look at archives to find where that discussion was and remind myself who you were. To be clear, it isn't my intent to paint CA's latest revert as a violation of a secret i-ban. But it looks like, after all this, they're actively following HEJ around. That's unhealthy. If the change was minor, and HEJ's complaint had a hair-trigger, that's also unhealthy. So instead, I mean this as evidence an i-ban is needed, not that an informal one has been broken. I admit that logic is a little fuzzy, hope you understand my point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing the “born in China” part could definitely be described as copy editing. The removal of nationality from the opening sentence of the lead (where it is in 99% of wikipedia articles) is not. Especially when nationality isn't mentioned elsewhere in the lead, its implied by "Wu'erkaixi eventually settled in Taiwan, where he works as a political commentator. He ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Legislative Yuan twice, in 2014 and 2016.” which is the last sentence in the lead but only if you know the requirements to run for the Legislative Yuan which is not common knowledge. I cant think of another lead that doesn't mention the person’s nationality, if I’m mistaken about how we normally construct biography leads let me know. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Yes, most biographies will include the nationality or country where the person became notable per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. In this case, leaving "Taiwanese" would’ve been fine since that’s his current nationality. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thats why I inserted Taiwanese into the lead (there had been no accurate description of nationality before). We are here because CA reverted that insertion *two minutes* later with no explanation given in their edit summary save CE. Perhaps instead of an i-ban we should be talking about CA's long running disruptive editing related to China and Taiwan as thats the core issue here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Oh sorry I didn’t mean to imply that you were imposing a secret IBAN. I meant that without a formal one, in practice the editors might act as if there was a pseudo-IBAN in place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:48, 23 July 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.

Incivility - John from Idegon

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 overly keen to bring this, but I don't see a particular way to address this outside of ANI.

John from Idegon reverted an edit by Hsvbypass, relating to a future construction project. John was correct to revert this edit - per WP:CRYSTALBALL. He then welcomed the user, and asked them if they had a conflict of interest. They replied back on his talk page, saying they had no COI and expressing confusion as to why they had been asked. John replied Wikipedia is not purposed with bringing a new recreational mode of transport to light. That's not what an encyclopedia is. Perhaps if you spent 15 minutes researching what Wikipedia is prior to using it, you wouldn't feel offended. I really don't care. You are CLEARLY promoting this as yet non existent thing, and you are doing it on multiple articles with no sources. Stop. . They replied with confusion saying that similar articles existed, and that they would attempt to address what they thought was the issue (the lack of reliable sources). John finished the discussion with So are you illiterate or just too lazy to read? That isn't the only problem. Anything you add about this trail system you are reporting will be removed until such time as it ACTUALLY EXISTS. I'm not in any way interested in helping you use Wikipedia to promote your pet project, so kindly go away.

I attempted to engage with John on his talk page, which he reverted, with an edit summary of Unneeded shit stirring. if i wanted your advice, I'd ask for it. got a problem with my behavior? take it to ANI. you have no further need to post here, so don't.. This is, again, needlessly inflammatory and a wholly disproportinate response to what was intended as, and hopefully comes across to other editors as, an attempt at de-escalation and as friendly advice. (Note: all bolding mine, to draw out key statements).

It is clearly deeply unsatisfactory for an editor, particularly an experienced editor, to act this way. We should be welcoming and educating new editors, not telling them to 'go away' and asking them if they are 'illiterate or just too lazy to read'. We should be engaging civilly with other editors, not using language like 'shitstirring'. We cannot in good faith say that we welcome new contributions and treat incivility seriously if we allow this sort of conduct.

Of relevance is that John has only recently had a block applied by GeneralNotability for incivility at ANI, which itself followed on from an ANI discussion that led to a formal warning regarding incivility. While reluctant to suggest sanctions, given what appears to be the intractability of this conduct I think this requires intervention resulting in a block. Best, Darren-M talk 23:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have also just seen this edit, where John states Ping me, or message me, again and I'll bring WP:Harrassment charges against you. Darren-M talk 00:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Nothing to add beyond what I said here. Seemed a little BITE-y. Leijurv (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, I think we ought to do something about this. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be not in the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. The Internet has gained sentience and I am its chosen representative (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• If the user doesn't agree to stop this behavior, they should have action taken against them in my opinion. However, I do not think the user should be blocked at this time. I don't think this would be what is best for the wiki and should be an absolute last resort if the user refuses to stop. A block at this time seems harsh to me. IWI (chat) 01:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I second this. I believe John should be given time to respond here, and, depending upon the response, the decision for (possible) action be taken then. 0qd (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I have no qualms with allowing (and indeed would encourage) John to respond. Darren-M talk 10:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I must say, the new crop of new wikiteurs is just so remarkably precocious. A month or two in, and they handle ANI like old hands. Qwirkle (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Who are you referring to here? IWI (chat) 02:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "The internet has gained...", whom I have just blocked from editing this page for their decidedly unhelpful ANI comments. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ah indeed. The names they come up with... IWI (chat) 02:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• For reference, I don't see the actual disputed edits posted, so here they are.[222][223] There's nothing promotional in those edits. One was unsourced, so I can let that removal slide, but the other one is sourced and there's nothing objectively wrong with it to warrant any sort of suspicion of COI-editing or any other harsh response. The incivility is bad enough, but what's worse is that John's underlying message is false. John asserted that "Anything you add about this trail system you are reporting will be removed until such time as it ACTUALLY EXISTS." This is not in line with policy. CRYSTALBALL only prohibits unverifiable speculation, and states that reporting on future products must be verifiable with reliable sources. The user made an effort to include a reliable source, yet John stonewalled the edit per his false interpretation of CRYSTAL, and accused the user of "[promoting their] pet project", even though there was no evidence of promotional activity. Furthermore, the user made a good faith effort to discuss why similar topics are often uncontentiously considered notable on Wikipedia. John responded with personal attacks, aspersions, and a promise that the user's additions would be blanket-reverted under a false interpretation of CRYSTAL. John then closed the discussion without allowing the user to respond, saying only, "Bye." Likewise when the user (perhaps unintentionally) pinged John, John said Ping me, or message me, again and I'll bring WP:Harrassment charges against you. Bye. As John was involved in a content dispute with the user, claiming that messages would be met with "harassment charges" is ridiculous. Communication is required. Refusing to communicate is disruptive editing. This is a very poor display of behavior on John's part here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually explained on his talk page why I thought the second edit could have been seen as violating WP:CRYSTAL, apologies if this was wrong / a misinterpretation; I'll take it back if so. Leijurv (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

They wrote "prime", which, per dictionary definitions, can mean "first in importance", "first in order"; "of the first importance", "of the greatest relevance or significance"[224]; "most important"[225]; "most likely to be chosen or to be appropriate for something"[226]; "most important"[227]; "of the first importance", "of the greatest relevance or significance". The source uses the term "key", which means "extremely or crucially important"[228]; "chief; major; important; essential; fundamental; pivotal"[229]; "very important"[230]. It's clear the use of the word "prime" fairly reflects the source's use of the word "key". The subject would be a "key", "prime", or "important" aspect of the other subject. This should not actually be controversial, because it is what the source says. You offered some good advice, and the new user's addition was not flawless, but the aggressive stance John took was more disruptive than productive, it was uncivil, it engaged in personal attacks and aspersions, it engaged in prohibiting good faith communication, and the CRYSTAL policy objection was nothing short of falsified. From an uninvolved admin's perspective, the most appropriate measure would seem to be blocking John for disruptive editing, though I am still waiting for a response. I will not wait forever. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the discussion immediately following John's earlier block, they consistently showed absolutely no willingness to WP:DROPTHESTICK, much less to apologise for their incivility and personal attacks. Since then, John from Idegon has also RPP'd a page with a single IP editing it over a content dispute that they didn't actually bring up with the IP in any meaningful way; they've helped along the battleground atmosphere at AfD with a don't bother arguing with me. You're not going to change my mind, and then the events in the original ANI report here have unfolded on top of it all.
  It is undeniably the case that John from Idegon also has a lot of productive contributions to the encyclopedia. However, whilst it may be possible to have productive contributions without paying heed to WP:ENGAGE and WP:CIVIL, it is not possible to be a productive contributor without those two, as part of the broader Wikipedia community of editors. I do not pretend that the solution to this problem is easy; however, there clearly does need to be something done, and I think administrative intervention will be required unless John has a damascene conversion when responding to this thread (which I don't wish to preclude - it would be very welcome!). Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• I understand the position the admins are in here, they can only do what the community consensus allows regarding civility. However, I sincerely wish the community would reconsider the level of civility expected from editors. Everyone has bad days when they're not at their best, but when behavior such as what JFI displays becomes routine it is destructive, makes editing very unpleasant and drives away other editors. Interacting in this way is unacceptable in any other environment where people are expected to work together (home, work, school, church, civic orgs, etc) and I believe it should be unacceptable here. The only response I'm seeing from JFI towards editors that request they communicate in a way most people consider civil is basically "that's the way I am, I not going to change, and if you don't like it you can go to hell" (my words), which makes this behavior even more unacceptable. Some have commented that JFI is an experienced and productive editor which to me only means the community should expect a higher standard of civility, just as experienced editors are expected to have a higher standard of editing. Respectfully,   // Timothy :: talk  18:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• John's been editing for nearly a day since being advised of this discussion, and then warned by Ritchie333 that they should pay attention to it. Their most recent edit was less than 20 minutes ago. Clearly they're not intending to respond. I have blocked indefinitely, until there's some indication they are finally going to knock off the harsh incivility. I find it especially alarming that John has a banner for WikiProject Editor Retention on their user page, yet behaves like this towards new users. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• We just can't talk to each other this way, no matter what other good contributions we make. Good block. It should be lifted when John agrees to stop talking to other editors this way. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Levivich, I'm sure you mean well, but we seem to be seeing far too many of these these "good block" messages lately. Once an editor has been blocked there's no need to comment further unless you want to dispute the block. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Strongly disagree. In my opinion, admin should receive both positive and negative feedback on their use of tools. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Then thank the admin personally, rather than make it public so as to promote yourself. We don't need gravedancing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
        • "Promote yourself?" I get accused of different things every day here, but that one is just weird. I don't know what gives you the impression that I commented publicly so as to promote myself. ^{LEVIVICH IS AWESOME!} Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC) _{BUY LEVIVICH TODAY!!!}

          LEVIVICH IS AWESOME! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

    • Phil Bridger, I see what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree ((edit conflict) - not strongly either way). Especially when it comes to sole-admin blocks for incivility, it benefits admins and the community to see more editors saying "yes, we want even very productive contributors to face consequences for very uncivil actions". Levivich, I do intend to lift the block if John from Idegon can make a convincing commitment, but if there's a strong desire indicated here that this should be a community sanction (with appeal to the community) instead, I'm not going to step on that. I think that's probably a reasonable approach, actually. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

      Ivanvector, Thank you. I think this is the right move. I would be comfortable for this block to be rescinded if John can convincingly commit to civility going forward - but I think it's right that he shouldn't be unblocked without that commitment. I'm fairly neutral on whether this ultimately becomes a community sanction or not. Darren-M talk 20:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• John from Idegon recently posted on the top of his page that he's experiencing health troubles. In the interests of civility it might be worth taking this into consideration and extending some kind sentiments. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  All the more reason to stay off Wikipedia and recuperate IRL. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  John added that note on 8 January 2020, just before a short self-requested block. See also WP:NOTTHERAPY, especially the "playing well with others" section. We might tolerate someone "lashing out" because Wikipedia can be stressful or they're having a bad day and we're most of us human, but a sustained pattern of aggressively uncivil behaviour is not something that we should accept being blamed on "health issues". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  It may well be caused by mental health issues. Unfortunately, if John cannot help his behavior at this time due to health issues, he cannot be unblocked. Blocks are to protect Wikipedia and, in this case, to protect users from personal attacks. Blocks are not punsishments: John is not being punished for incivility; other users are being protected from personal attacks. Mental health issues would not be a reason to unblock, as this would not indicate the behavior will stop. I would also cite WP:NOTTHERAPY. What I would say, however, is the fact John has chosen a template that specifically states that he may take a while to respond to messages probably should have been considered, as the main rationale for the indef seems to be the assumption that he wasn't going to respond (which, of course, may still have been the case). It's also worth noting that no incivility occurred after this AN/I post. IWI (chat) 01:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Can some administrator please close this thread? John has been blocked and he’s been around long enough to understand what his options are now. The thread had spun off into discussing John’s state of mind or whether his health played a role, neither of which is productive and isn’t going to change the block. You can’t really upgrade the block of someone’s who’s been indefinitely blocked; so, there’s no point in further discussing this unless people are advocating for a ban. John hasn’t chosen to respond yet, and he may have decided to never do so. However, if and when he does and if he claims it was his health, etc. that lead to his block, people will be more than capable of responding to such a thing at that time. This ANI should’ve probably been closed by the blocking admin as soon as the account was blocked, at least in my opinion. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 24 July 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.

Porus D'Canara

Recent edits by this user show that he meets the definition of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NONAZI. He inappropriately attributes all the problems on wikipedia to those who are "liberals", "Hindus", Mahrattas, "Anti-Papal" and others:

• Source Anti-Papal ultra-liberal bias or ignorance Luther was not a regular Augustinian part of the Catholic Church[231]
• Off late Wiki seems to have been overrun by "Sanatanis" or ultra-conservative Hindus/ Hindu fascists/.... fringe have whitewashed and repainted Mahrattas as sorts of "Hindu liberators", which they were not, Mahrattas destroyed and a number of churches....Wikipedian rollbackers and admins seem to be harbour bureaucracy favouritism and ultra-liberal biases...[232]
• Removed unsourced xenophobia and saffronisation and flattery of Mahrattas[233]
• Edit summary for a trivial wikilink: Link repaired Eastern wear to be deleted as charlatan double dealing Wikipedians will watch and relax when Christophobic Hindu fascists claim of "forced conversion" at the Goan Inquisition article when in fact Inquisitions can prosecute only baptised Christians and have no authority over non Christians[234]
• Saffronisation and Hindu victimisation by Hindu fascists or Antichristian POV ultra-liberal biased pseudointellectuals Inquisitions by definition cannot prosecute non Christians The source do not make any mention of Hindus or Muslims[235]
• Hindu fascistic claim is that caste and jati are different[236]
• He loves to use the word "Anti-Papal", "Hindu fascist", for which he created redirects.[237][238] He also prefers adding unsourced POV.[239][240]

All above diffs are recent and came after he has been already alerted of DS,[241] warned for "vandalism" multiple times,[242][243] and other problems.[244][245]

He already predicts on his userpage that "I will be blocked and permanently booted soon because i do not like the political correctness and partiality"[246] and confirms that he already understands what can be the consequences of his actions. Wareon (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Clear WP:NOTHERE, support an indefblock. JavaHurricane 04:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where this user has been informed of the ANI discussion, so I'm leaving them a note on their talk page. Reyk _YO! 11:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I didn't see the notification was bundled in with a deletion notice. Reyk _YO! 11:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Porus D'Canara is still editing even after this report. He is probably not interested in this thread. Wareon (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering why no admins have looked into this open and shut case. Wareon (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Enough's enough with this. Pretty openly WP:NOTHERE and basically admits so on their talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Wareon (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Escape the Night

Can I get a few more admin eyes looking at this? A couple of days ago, somebody filed a report at WP:AN3 for lots of edit-warring on this article, to which end I protected it for 24 hours. That didn't work as well as I had hoped, so I have now blocked M622 and Leahmerone from editing it and turned the discussion into an RfC.

The dispute is basically centred around mentioning whether the series has been cancelled, which appears to be cited to a single Variety source, but nothing else. Consensus appears to be tending towards mentioning it per that source; I say "appears", because I am trying to stay out of this debate and as an uninvolved admin, I am not particularly interested who is right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe a RfC is necessary because community consensus is that Variety is a reliable source to report this type of content, a cancellation of a TV show is not an exceptional claim. I do believe sanctions are necessary against Leahmerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has continually argued that they don't trust this particular article, so it's not reliable. Five other editor's say it is a reliable source. It's clear from User:Leahmerones user page and WP:SPA contribution history, they are a fan of the show, and choose not to believe the reliably sourced information, and will continue to edit-war (7 reverts against multiple editors) to ignore the consensus developed on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop tagging me. I don't appreciate you slinging barbs at me and making me out to be the bad guy when I'm the only one who offered compromise edits and ways to satisfy all parties in the dispute. The RfC is fine and necessary. Also, you're biased, as am I, so we should let the unbiased parties work this out. Leahmerone (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But here's the thing, no one agreed with your compromises, suggestions and arguments, but yet you continued to edit-war against multiple editor's and the consensus on the talk page, knowing you didn't have support or consensus for your edits. That's a behavioral issue. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused. We have a reliable source confirming that a show has been canceled, and an editor rejecting that based on their personal opinion, not any reliable sources. That is not a legitimate content dispute, that is disruptive editing. I get that you're trying to remain uninvolved, but being uninvolved means recognizing that one side is adding sourced content and the other side is disruptively removing it without any legitimate justification, which anyone can do without needing to get "involved" in the dispute. Instead of simply taking preventative measures and moving on, like we normally do, you've taken it upon yourself to grant undue credibility to the disruptive editor, and subject their OR claims, that they have given no source-based or policy-based reasoning for, to a community-wide, month-long examination. Nothing wrong with starting an RfC when there is a stalled content dispute, but like I said, this isn't a legitimate content dispute, and giving a disruptive editor a platform to continue pushing their personal opinions for the duration of a month is hardly a wise move to resolve this kind of situation. I think I would have warned the editor that any attempts to refute sourced content need to be source-based, and one cannot simply opine that a reliable source's objective claims are "unconfirmed rumor", and that if they continued their current approach, they will be blocked, at least from the article and article talk page. Starting an RfC seems like a waste of time and a drain on the community's time and resources. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, and would note that if you look at the user page for User:Leahmerone it is pretty clear she has a strong financial interest in the continuation of the series (or the appearance thereof), thus a WP:COI in regards to the article. She has two Youtube channels and 15k subscribers for the main one and all she posts on is Escape the Night. If anything, a topic ban might be considered if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a topic ban is necessary, given she's now indefinitely blocked from editing Escape the Night, with the possibility of also being blocked on the talk page, she'll have to find another article to edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Honestly didn't even look at her user page. Thought maybe she was misguided or at worst a fan, had no idea that she was actually a fairly large Youtuber who focuses on the series, which means she's either a particularly diehard fan or it's literally her livelyhood. Either way, the disruptive editing was strong enough for me but now that I see the fairly extreme COI involved I'm glad I warned her that she will be (partially) blocked indefinitely if it continues. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Swarm has closed the RfC as invalid, and I agree with that decision. One editor edit warring against reliably sourced information because they just in their gut think it's wrong is not a legitimate content dispute that we need to spend a month of discussion on; it's cause to block the disruptive editor doing that. I also believe that the partial block placed on M622 should be lifted, and absent substantial objection plan to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have unblocked M622 as the rationale for the block is now no longer applicable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: - A brand new SPA non-autoconfirmed user BirdOfScarlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has suddenly appeared at this particular article and is rapidly reverting edits (nine) and after I restored the edits, now wants to edit-war over it. Sure hope you guys are still watching this article for suspicious activity. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Indef blocked from the article. Can somebody (quick wave to TonyBallioni) do a checkuser and if the magic 8 ball says "confirmed", indef the pair of them. I'm afraid my good faith with Leah Merone has run out :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Leahmerone has already admitted to creating the User:Lcmr2 account, saying it is a WP:CLEANSTART, but continuing to argue on the talk page of the article you were blocked from is not what a clean start supposed to be for.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, BirdOfScarlet is  Unrelated. Christinelc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) also appears to be Leahmerone for what it’s worth ( Likely/ Confirmed depending on how liberal you want to be reading the data.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Lcmr2 as an illegit cleanstart (though I'm still unclear why I was pinged to the talk page) and will be leaving Leahmerone a note on their talk page about this. I am not blocking at this point since they were at least forthcoming on their identity. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I had this page on my watchlist for a while, and missed a lot of the blocking here. Very much a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. It should be noted that the user has over 700 mainspace edits, all to this one article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Could we also check user:MarshmelloLover1234 as this user created the user page for Leah - I am very worried about a massive amount of undiscussed socks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, my math says that MarshmelloLover is probably  Stale, so CUs wouldn't have seen it in a sleeper check and won't be able to tell you anything about it now. I can't do a full-up behavioral analysis at the moment, but you can file an SPI if you want. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: - Another sleeper account WP:SPA has suddenly appeared at the article and is now edit-warring the same content that has been reverted by multiple editors. The are at 4 reverts, I don't know, but this certainly can't just be another coincidence. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the user links, Gwelliano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Isaidnoway (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Gwelliano is now blocked from editing the article for 48 hours, thanks User:Ponyo- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing albums from Jess Glynne articles

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 we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:E047:B200:0:0:0:0/64? Somebody there is busy removing albums from a bunch of Jess Glynne articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

El C got 'em. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 23 July 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:HAL333 PA at Frank Sinatra

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.

---

Sinatra is a controversial article for its collapsed infobox. A thread finished a month ago on this very subject. Today, HAL333, prodded the embers with this comment. It was neither relevant nor helpful and was purely designed to frustrate, harass, belittle and cause trouble. It was nothing more than a personal attack. How is this constructive? Idiotic comments like this are why infobox discussions become so toxic. Cassianto^Talk 22:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant no ill will; it was more of a humorous prod. Additionally, cabal doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. A previous editor's comment "I wonder if Bishonen smells anything sus here..." didn't necessarily contribute to the conversation either. I apologize if my comment was taken as hostile. ~ HAL333 22:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The comment was only about contributors and not on content which is a blatant personal attack. The editor has been around long enough to know that. The absurd claim that it was a humorous prod would be, well, humorous if it wasn't so patently false. This is exacerbated by the edit warring to restore the comment. MarnetteD|Talk 22:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note Does a single revert constitute an edit war? ~ HAL333 01:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize. I also wanted to note that I created a discussion on possibly changing Sinatra's lede image, but Schrocat archived it. There seems to be a little bit of a dispute over it now. Also, SchroCat just made a not too constructive comment on my talk page. ~ HAL333 23:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The frequency in which consensus can change should be governed by local consensus. Innuendo about a "cabal" is not on. I'm not seeing how that comment can be read as humorous. This can probably be closed with a warning to HAL333 to maintain proper decorum. El_C 01:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks: I'll genuinely think about what I'm typing before I publish it. I will stay far away from anything close to a PA from now on. Sorry again for any trouble caused. ~ HAL333 01:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

---

That's enough, folks Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The PA that Cass reports to ANI: Looks like we have the whole cabal here. Sigh. Cass, to another editor, less than 25 edits earlier: Your edits are mediocre ... You seem to have a habit of taking a great article ... and turning it into utter rat shit. Now that HAL has apologized for comment #1 and committed to avoiding a repeat, I'm sure Cass will apologize for #2 and commit to avoiding a repeat. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC) It's "Cassianto" to the likes people like you. CassiantoTalk 04:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Was that a PA? Similiar to "cabal", "likes of you" normally has a negative connotation. To quote MarnetteD, the "comment was only about [a] contributor... and not on content which is a blatant personal attack". Seems somewhat hypocritical Cassianto. ~ HAL333 04:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Cassianto, in my opinion, it would be a good idea for you to apologize for that particular comment, and then to move on to other things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC) How is this thread suddenly about me? Here I am, doing the decent thing in reporting someone who is blatantly stirring trouble on a controversial article, and because a known troublemaker with an agenda has decided to go diff hunting, suddenly it's me who has to apologise? Don't hold your breath is all I can say. Don't be complicit in bear baiting, Cullen328, you're better than that. CassiantoTalk 05:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, Cassianto. I hope after you apologize for saying one of our colleagues turns articles into utter rat shit, you'll join me in asking SchroCat to apologize for calling HAL a troll in an edit summary just now. I think you'll agree both comments were neither relevant nor helpful and were purely designed to frustrate, harass, belittle and cause trouble. They were nothing more than a personal attack. How are they constructive? Comments like these are why discussions become so toxic. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Don't ping me please. I'm not interested in the disruption that some people seem to revel in. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I won't ping you again. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC) There's a 2015 discussion that ended about here with would it be acceptable to try to gain a temporary compromise using a collapsible info box as done on the Peter Sellers article in the meantime?, a compromise to which Cassianto, SchroCat, and other editors agreed. The lead image was also briefly discussed. I think reviewing the subsequent discussions in 2016, January 2017, March 2017, July 2018, September 2018, February 2019, December 2019, June 2020, June 2020 again, and now July 2020 (and note this sequence: [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252]), plus this ANI thread... reveal a troubling pattern of WP:OWNership, and that's what was meant by "the whole cabal here". That doesn't excuse it, and HAL's apologized above, but it does explain it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Levivich, Fuck off with your silly little accusations. Read WP:STEWARDSHIP and don't accuse editors acting in good faith of ownership unless you actually know what you're talking about. Add: The archiving of the thread about the image was because it's been discussed before - fairly recently too. Hal333 has a habit of being disruptive around the topic of IBs and lead images; before Sinatra he was warned several times about his behaviour at Kubrick. As I've said above, some people seem to revel in disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Unfortunately I will not be complying with your first request, but I read WP:STEWARDSHIP and it begins with Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership .... Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC) And? You want congratulations for cutting and pasting part of a line? Read, learn and inwardly digest. Then run away: for the third time this morning, I'm not interested in your petty point scoring. You want to stand up for a disruptive editor who keeps pushing on two articles and has been warned about it several times before? I think that speaks volumes. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC) No, I don't want congratulations, but I would like to make a deal: let's see what our colleagues think; if they think the matters I'm raising are trivial and weren't worth raising, I'll apologize for it; if they think you've done something you should apologize for, you apologize for it. Deal? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC) No, fuck off, I'm still not interested. Unwatching now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Well, I'll still apologize if people think I'm wasting their time, but I think we've made my point now. Happy editing, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Note to passer-by's: there is no need for heads to roll -- "fuck off" is merely a concise way of saying "I hear what you say and you have made a very brave proposal that is, with the greatest respect, very interesting and I’ll bear it in mind, however, could we consider some other options?" All is well and we are all very cordial around here, and there is no cannibalism in the Royal Navy. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) No need for heads to roll, but the heated rhetoric has to go, or it's likely that eventually it might lead to sanctions. Which would be a shame. Anyway, I'm seeing an underlying element here about long-term consensus being challenged — one side thinking in a timely enough way, the other viewing it as too soon. Again, the frequency of which ought to be determined by local consensus. Please do so on the article talk page in the respectful manner that befits colleagues who are editors in good standing of an encyclopedia. There's no reason the discussion should devolve beyond the salient arguing points. Maybe start by making a good faith effort to forgive. Being matter of fact when discussing content is best. Please. El_C 12:02, 24 July 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.

Sugar Bear at it again from Oregon IPs

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.

---

Our old friend User:Sugar Bear who was recently indeffed as User:Oregon Joe and blocked for a year as Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26 is once again using Oregon IPs. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/166.181.255.0/21? This guy has a low boiling point and resorts to violent language, threatening my life in the past (those edits have been revdeled) which, to be sure, hasn't happened yet, but I would rather not wait around for it. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 24 July 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.

Hounding multiple editors to place his images in articles

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.

---

Benjamincookart (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added poor quality images that don't enhance the articles, and is WP:wikilawyering to restore them. Appears self-promotional and disruptive. I first reverted the edits as a 2601 IP, and we haven't seen any rest since. Has posted to my talk page after I asked them to stop. This tidily summarizes things [253]. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

the quality of the images is high resolution. The user's argument that they do not enhance the article is not valid due to the fact that some of the articles did not contain images prior to my addition. The user has used personal opinion as a reason to remove the images even after I have provided links to Wikipedia policy/guideline pages that allow my content to be added.

As stated on Wikipedia's guidelines for posting images. It explicitly states that the use of paintings are okay.

"Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are probably authentic. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated."

Additionally, the creation and use of my own content for an article is permitted:

"Making images yourself [edit]

I also question the assertion that my motives are "self-promotion." Nowhere am I attempting to promote myself other than including factual information about the person who created the image. I am simply using my skillset to enhance wikipedia, and add to the landscape of the articles, many of which do not contain images at all.

--Benjamincookart (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For further information, see: Commons:How to take pictures and Graphics tutorials

You may upload photographs, drawings, or other graphics created with a camera, scanner, graphics software, and so on. When photographing or scanning potentially copyrighted works, or creating depictions of persons other than yourself, be sure to respect copyright and privacy restrictions.[further explanation needed]

In order to maximize images' usefulness in all languages, avoid including text within them. :Instead, add text, links, references, etc., to images using Template:Annotated image or Template:Annotated image 4, which can also be used to expand the area around an image or crop and enlarge part of an image—all without the need for uploading a new, modified image."

--Benjamincookart (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Four users including myself have tried to explain why these contributions aren't useful. Some examples:

• replacing a good-quality photo with a painting of the same photo
• adding an impressionist painting of a phone for an article about phone calls where the caller doesn't speak.
• Adding a painting of a baseball card to an article about an MLB team's season; none of these "season" articles have photos, nor do they need them. I'd already given this user a final warning, but they continue to hound myself and the other three editors involved, per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"image of an image already there"... yes, I made a mistake and learned. I am new and trying to help. please forgive my mistake.

"impressionist painting of a phone" fist, this is not impressionism but rather abstraction. This is not non-representative abstraction however. The image depicts an event that I personally experienced that could very well have been a ghost call.

"baseball card for an mlb season" No, the other season do no contain images. Does that mean they shouldn't? I do not believe so. Many people are visual learners and the ability to associate a visual image with information is beneficial. This article is enhanced by adding an image. MLB is extremely tight with their restrictions on reuse of their material. by creating this image of my own, I am adding to a page that would most likely otherwise be left blank or face copyright issues.

--Benjamincookart (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I do take issue with the use of the term "hound." This implies a specific relationship where I am the "annoying" party. I do not believe there is anything wrong with expressing my thoughts about the problematic behavior of other editors within a talk page. The user simply wanted me to agree and disappear but became agitated when I was steadfast in my assertion of validity. This sort of behavior and reckless disregard for the stated guidelines of Wikipedia is not acceptable.--Benjamincookart (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For future reference, it’s OK (and probably preferable) to provide links to relevant policy and guideline pages instead of copying and pasting large blocks of text from some pages into a discussion like this. As for the images you’re adding, images are like text in the sense that whenever there’s a dispute over them that’s not copyright related, the thing to do is to try and resolve things per WP:DR. There’s no automatic right to add images to articles and while doing so often can be an improvement, a WP:CONSENSUS may be needed when there a disagreement between editors over image use. If you’re WP:BOLD in adding images to articles, and another editor removes them, then WP:ONUS falls on you to establish a consensus in favor of inclusion, unless the removal was an obvious case of WP:VAN or some other serious policy or guideline violation. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take that in to account in the future. I provided a link but the article is very long so I added the specific sections.

I won't do that in the future.

As for consensus, that's why I am here. I am hoping others will see that I followed all guidelines and was in some cases, adding relevant images to articles that had no image. I am okay with the removal of my images from articles that already had them. I am new and learning. I am trying to help by creating works that are able to grow Wikipedia's content. That is all. --Benjamincookart (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Wiki policy, I ask what is to be done next and what is to be learned from this? As stated above, the inclusion of artistic images and images made specifically for a page are encouraged. Are we to prohibit this active engagement in the future based on aesthetic opinion on the work of art in question? Should the future of Wikipedia be determined by a few opinions on art or should we be open to relevant images being added to pages without images, in the hopes that eventually someone will come along with an even better image?--Benjamincookart (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please try to WP:INDENT your posts. It helps preserve the flow of the discussion. As for consensus, it refers to even this articles which might not have had any images in them until you added them. If you make an edit that is subsequently undone by another editor, it’s generally to follow WP:BRD instead of reverting back. There are, of course exceptions like the ones listed at WP:3RRNO, but general practice prefers discussion no matter how right you believe you might be. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering how to indent properly. Like I said, I am new so I was unaware of the protocol when it comes to a disagreement of undoing an edit. This is very helpful for the future. Please do not take my lack of knowledge of proper editing etiquette as being confrontational. I am here to try to help. Thanks.--Benjamincookart (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(Formatting edited above to remove what I assume was unintended small font) Having examined the image here, I believe it is fair to report that not only is a painting of a baseball card unusual and unnecessary for the topic, this particular painting of a baseball card is most unusual and unnecessary. I encourage Benjamincookart to please follow the good faith suggestions of Ohnoitsjamie, 73.186.215.222, Marchjuly, et alia, and to also stop casting aspersions such as The user(s) simply wanted me to agree and disappear but became agitated ... This sort of behavior and reckless disregard for the stated guidelines of Wikipedia is not acceptable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I take unusual as a compliment. Thank you. Within my style of work, how would you suggest I make works in the future that will not be flagged as a problem? I want to be able to add to Wikipedia with my work.--Benjamincookart (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Benjamincookart, this is my opinion which is based on 11 years as a Wikipedia editor including three years now as an administrator. You are a random anonymous contributor trying to add your own digital "paintings" to articles in a non-standard and inappropriate way, and that raises questions of self promotion. Personally, I have contributed hundreds of my photos to this project, including a few taken over 40 years ago. I sometimes add my photos to articles based on my long time understanding of how we illustrate encyclopedia articles. But I never, ever argue with another editor in an attempt to keep one of my photos in an article. I defer. You have a strong conflict of interest in any discussion about the use of one of your artistic efforts. I urge you to defer to uninvolved editors in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  This account has been indeffed by Orangemike for promotional username/promotional edits. Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• An interesting thing is that we have other editors who think it is funny to add images, especially with imaginative captions, to Talk page discussions. In my opinion a Talk page is verbal unless images serve a constructive purpose. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 24 July 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.

Yeeuwns Gaming AFC

User:Yeeuwns appears to be trying to game the system in order to get an individual article on Jang Yeeun, aka Jang Ye-eun, who is currently described in CLC (group).

• Yeeuwns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Jang Yeeun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Jang Ye-eun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Jang Yeeun was submitted to Articles for Creation. It was declined requesting an explanation of how the subject was individually notable, with instructions to resubmit indicating what special notability guideline was satisfied. The submitter then removed the record of the decline, as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Jang_Yeeun&type=revision&diff=969215762&oldid=969065657&diffmode=source which appears to be deceptive. The submitter then instead submitted the draft with the other spelling, Draft:Jang Ye-eun, as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Jang_Ye-eun&type=revision&diff=969216785&oldid=969215092&diffmode=source The subject may be individually notable. However, resubmitting the draft by changing the romanization of her name is an attempt to game the system, in particular to game the naming of articles. An undisclosed conflict of interest is likely, but the conduct is disruptive regardless of whether there is a conflict of interest, and regardless of whether the singer is individually notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have extended confirmed the mainspace article (currently a redirect). I agree a COI seems likely but the right first step there is to ask the user about it rather than coming here looking for some sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Rude behaviour

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.

---

IP user 166.181.255.20 has placed some very rude comments on the talk page of Binksternet. Pyrite Pro (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC). There was another complaint on this page for this IP, some hours ago. Pyrite Pro (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: the IP user also added rude comments on my own talking page. Pyrite Pro (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) Why don't you do anything about Binksternet being abusive towards constructive editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.255.20 (talk) 10:03, 24 July 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.

• It might be an idea to redact this comment by 166.181.255.20 on this page rather than just deleting it. Narky Blert (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yikes! There's some pretty raunchy language and no ambiguity about them being PAs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Pitbull Wiki page apparantly showing bias

Pit bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk page on Pitbull wiki is accusing the page of being biased. Could an admin put a header on the article or address it.

Thanks,

Bourney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:5385:A200:DD3:8585:6F7B:E62 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Admins don't settle content disputes. If people consider that there is something wrong with the article, they should discuss it on the talk page - after taking into account relevant Wikipedia policy, and while citing sources as necessary. If that doesn't reach a satisfactory conclusion, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 109.159.88.21 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

First step is to discuss on the talk page. It's unclear that's been exhausted thus far. Next step might be the neutral point of view noticeboard. This board is only for dealing with editors' ongoing behavioral issues, not problems with bias in articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)