Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056

Long-term disruptive and tendentious editing by Mikola22

I'm filing this report because Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing and persistent POV-pushing on Balkan-related articles, more specifically on articles related to Serbs and Serbia, and has previously been blocked several times for POV edit-warring, promoting fringe theories and generally WP:NOTHERE behavior.

As a baseline, it's important to note that Mikola22 has expressed views supportive of the fascist WW2 Ustaše movement on meta.wiki:

• Backing Holocaust denier Roman Leljak : Diff
• Supporting the idea that "probably" 1,654 people died at the Jasenovac concentration camp (the academic consensus is that at least 83,000 were killed ) : Diff
• Saying: "Imagine that Yugoslavian history was based on historical documents about Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia, today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia" Diff
• Calling "'Yugoslav(Serbian) historiography" "a fairy tale based on nothing": Diff
• Supporting far-right hr.wiki admins: Diff
• Opposing the block of a LTA far-right hr.wiki admin, which received near unanimous support from established users: Diff

This matters because it explains Mikola22's editing behavior. The Croatian Wikipedia has unfortunately become notorious for its blatant promotion of fascist ideology, far-right historical revisionism and anti-Serb sentiment. [1] The problem has gotten so bad that the Wikimedia Foundation has recently had to post a job listing for someone to evaluate and identify all the disinformation on Croatian Wikipedia. [2] These far-right sentiments have bled into the Balkan topic area of English Wikipedia. This is the context in which Mikola22's compulsive editing on Serbs and Serbia articles is occurring, as seen by his contributions. I believe that just based on the sentiments expressed by Mikola22, WP:NONAZIS should have been applied to him a long time ago.

Mikola22 has referenced works by Krunoslav Draganović, an Ustaše official who organized the ratlines to smuggle Croatian fascist war criminals out of Europe after WW2, across multiple articles. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

Mikola22 has also attempted to pass off the Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church as a legitimate religious organization, rather than as merely a tool of ethnic assimilation during their genocide against Serbs, which is what scholars agree it was. Diff Context on the Croatian Orthodox Church: [3]

Mikola22 has promoted the "Serbs are Vlachs" hypothesis, Diff 1 Diff 2 which is not only discredited by scholars but is also a common Ustaše trope whose entire point is to justify the erasure of Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia, see here and here. The existence of Serbs in these countries is precisely what Mikola was lamenting in his above-mentioned comment that "today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia". Accordingly, Mikola22 has also, through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

Furthermore, since his last block, Mikola22 has advanced the theory that the word "Serb" is derived from "slaves" or "servants" on multiple articles, despite it being explained by multiple editors that this theory is fringe, Diff 1, Diff 2 and thread. This is clearly a form of ethno-nationalist trolling.

Mikola22 has been reported several times for tendentious behavior. Diff 1Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4.

Several Balkan and non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 Diff 5 The latest example is an editor who was previously never involved but has expressed the same concerns on this talk page here. Mikola22's response is typical; hostile, disregard for other editors' concerns/views and persistent stubbornness. Diff 2 This attitude is also exemplified by his response to an earlier comment from another editor. Diff 3

According to this, a 1RR was indefinitely imposed on him as well. But he's violated it since at least once. Diff 1 Diff 2

In short, I believe Mikola22 is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for POV-pushing on articles related to Serbs and Serbia. He is interested in one topic and only for a single purpose. I'm certain that if some administrative action isn't taken, this tendentious editing will continue and will only create further disruption in an already contentious area sanctioned by WP:ARBCOM.

--Griboski (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply

• Backing Holocaust denier Roman Leljak This is response from 17 December 2019 (edit) when I didn’t know the rules of Wikipedia, meaning of RS, fringe theory etc. In that debate, none of the 100 participants exposed RS which refutes some books etc of Roman Leljak and sources which say that he is "Holocaust denier". How should I know that?
• Supporting the idea that "probably" 1,654 people died at the Jasenovac concentration camp (the academic consensus is that at least 83,000 were killed. In diff I do not support this, see diff. Roman Leljak claims this based on the Communist archival documents from Belgrade.
• Saying: "Imagine that Yugoslavian history was based on historical documents about Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia, today we wouldn't have Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia" The academic Noel Malcolm claim this "To call someone a Serb today is to use a term created in the 19th and 20th centuries based on a common religion, language, history, and personal sense of national belonging. Today's Bosnian Serbs are free to present themselves as Serbs, regardless of their Vlach status origin", (Malcom, Noel (1995). Povijest Bosne : kratki pregled. p. 109; Erasmus Gilda : Novi Liber. ISBN 953-6045-03-6)
• Calling "'Yugoslav(Serbian) historiography" "a fairy tale based on nothing". Considering that I found a lot of forgeries in articles, this is my opinion, and these forgeries are also confirmed by Croatian historians in sources. Mikola22 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• (Supporting far-right hr.wiki admins What should I tell you, whether write on his forehead that he is far-right???
• Opposing the block of a LTA far-right hr.wiki admin, which received near unanimous support from established users Yes and, as if I supported a mass murderer??? Mikola22 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply II

• You repeat( Krunoslav Draganović) source every time you write reports against me. That was in the first days of Wikipedia edits and I never heard that he had something to do with Fascists and Nazis. What I knew was that he was respected today in the Croatian Catholic Church and that his books were in every library and school system where he is exposed as source in various works(thesis etc). His one work was published by Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, his sources use and Yugoslav sources (Зборник радова Етнографског института, (Ethnographic Institute) in Serbian, (1950) [4] Hrvatski baranjski mjestopisi: povijest hrvatskih imena (1996), Francis Dvornik use his source[5], Ernst Christoph Suttner[6] Klaus Buchenau · 2004[7] Historian Zlatko Kudelić Marčanska biskupija, Noel Malcolm etc etc.
• Mikola22 has also attempted to pass off the Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church There are Orthodox Croats in Croatian history and today, and what I should be ashamed for that. Why not know something about them too. My article in the debate for deleting of that article (Orthodox Croats) is proposed by majority of neutral editors for merge with article Croatian Orthodox Church. Which means that my informationn's and sources had no problems with "Ustaše-established Croatian Orthodox Church".
• Mikola22 has promoted the "Serbs are Vlachs" hypothesis. I said I followed an academic Noel Malcolm, Ilona Czamańska and her claim that "Majority of Serbs from the Republika Srpska of modern Bosnia is of Vlach origin", claim of historian Ivo Banac in best North American book for 1984 "Orthodox Slavicized Vlachs gradually acquired Serb national consciousness because most of South Slavic Orthodox Christians belonged to Serbian Patriarchate of Peć with whom these Vlachs assimilated" etc..
• Mikola22 has also, through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible This means to you and to me means that every information must be in NPOV, see my edit summaries where everithing is explaned. If historians state this information in the same context, I see no reason why only one context should remain in the article from the primary source and information that Serbs inhabit the large part of Roman Dalmatia?
• Furthermore, since his last block, Mikola22 has advanced the theory that the word "Serb" is derived from "slaves" or "servants" on multiple articles, despite it being explained by multiple editors that this theory is fringe That has not been determined as fringe information (FTN), I have exposed three quality sources as evidence, Italian, Serbian and British. British source said that half scholars claim this.
• Mikola22 has been reported several times for tendentious behavior Yes.
• Several Balkan and non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing Yes, we editing articles, this was also the case in previous reports. I haven't seen those editors in a long time and there have been problems before.
• According to this, a 1RR was indefinitely imposed on him as well. But he's violated it since at least once. Because I was a good editor this restriction is withdrawn. And so far I have not broken that rule.
• In short, I believe Mikola22 is only here In short this is probably a joint report against me. Every report I read the same accusations(I started dreaming of Krunoslav Draganović). Last time editor Sadko was much more imaginative because I was accused of putting links and edits which I didn’t do. What can I say, finally there is someone here (me) on Wikipedia who checks all the sources, puts countless new information's, reads the literature, edit article in NPOV etc.. although I am alone against them 5 or 6. Again insinuations and false accusations out of context. Mikola22 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Griboski When you mentioned the "latest example" and editor PajaBG, can you please tell him not to return a map that has no sources as evidence and on which is big part of the Balkans where Serbs allegedly coming in 7th century. It's called WP: OR. Explaned here [8] Article edit summaries [9]. Thanks in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What should I tell you, whether write on his forehead that he is far-right??? Um, if there are serious and credible allegations, including press coverage, of administrators peddling a Pro-Fascist worldview on an encyclopedia, then this would be obvious and should be looked at carefully. They shouldn't be given blind and enthusiastic support.

Yes and, as if I supported a mass murderer??? No. Just a far-right/neo-Nazi admin. In any case, these responses are telling. If you can't grasp what constitutes holocaust/historical revisionism and far-right ideology, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

In diff I do not support this, see diff. Roman Leljak claims this In the diff you clearly state: "Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct." And you clearly insinuate in your response that since no one has been able to challenge his "original document" then he must be right.

That has not been determined as fringe information (FTN), I have exposed three quality sources as evidence.. You provided three non-experts on the subject and it's been explained to you that it has been discounted in scholarship. Continuing to push it and deny it here doesn't help you.

What can I say, finally there is someone here (me) on Wikipedia who checks all the sources, puts countless new information's, reads the literature, edit article in NPOV etc.. Wow. Describing yourself as some kind of Great Wikipedian.. I don't even know where to begin with this. But it just demonstrates the arrogance you habitually exhibit and WP:NOTHERE attitude.

I compiled this report myself and only I am responsible for it. I've never reported anyone and I don't like to. But it comes to the point where prolonged tendentious editing shouldn't be tolerated. What others have said about you in past reports is not on me but it is concerning how many times you have been reported, by several different editors and for good reason. You are clearly here only to push a particular POV that is negative across Serbia and Serbs related articles and it's obvious. Aside from the fact that this sort of mentality isn't healthy, it's also not good-faith editing and you're not fooling anyone when you use edit summaries like "NPOV" each time. At some point this disruptive pattern and editing behavior has to be addressed. --Griboski (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply III

• Um, if there are serious and credible allegations, including press coverage I don't know who that administrator is and many others supported him. I had never heard of him before and I suport administrator from Croatian Wikipedia not far-right/neo-Nazi admin.
• No. Just a far-right/neo-Nazi admin If you construct and accuse me out of context then you have to prove that I know at that point that he is far-right/neo-Nazi pro Fascistic etc admin. I now hear for the first time that he is far-right/neo-Nazi admin.
• " Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct... If someone writes a book and presents information about something, RS should tell us weather it is all fringe, propaganda, etc. Also there should be some procedure RSN and FTN and after that we know that his source is fringe or nor reliable. I can't at that moment(2019) when I don't know exactly what fringe theory term means or not reliable source to know that something is wrong. None of the 100 editors did expose this information's(fringe, not reliable etc) from RS. Also at that point I thought that his source passed all the checks on the Croatian Wikipedia. I didn't know how Croatian Wikipedia works.
• And you clearly insinuate in your response that since no one has been able to challenge his "original document" then he must be right. This source(book) is probably on the Croatian Wikipedia at that time, I at the same time do not know the rules of Croatian or the English Wikipedia completely. If that source was on Croatian Wikipedia then I guess they checked it out. The only way to get some source refuted is find some RS which refute this source or on FTN and RSN. After that we know that this source is fringe etc. I told you that none of the 100 participants exposed those sources or clarification from FTN or RSN. I have not read his book nor follow his work, maybe he present other numbers in the book. I don't think it was a problem to put that topic on FTN or RSN and then everything would be known.
• You provided three non-experts on the subject and it's been explained to you that it has been discounted in scholarship. Continuing to push it and deny it here doesn't help you. This information was part of article Serbia for several months, editor Sadko accepted it and he never said it was fringe information. Main source for this information is Colin Wells (historian) (2007, Sailing from Byzantium p. 211; Bantam Dell; ISBN 055338273X) and information that this is theory of half scholars, other half talks about the Iranian theory of the Serbian name. In addition I added two confirmatory sources. None of the editors addressed the issue on FTN to determine whether that theory is fringe. How would I know it was a fringe theory when this is theory of half scholars? That's what the Wikipedia procedure tells us.
• Wow. Describing yourself as some kind of Great Wikipedian... In each report always the same or mostly the same accusation. Next time when some of you again reports me I will know 80% of report without reading. For Krunoslav Draganović I had been report the first time(2019) and no one had told me anything. Now you are trying to go in the direction of editor Sadko and "Nazi" fact. You go for the impression again and out of context only you were more careful than editor Sadko. As we say in the Balkans, this is "hunting in muddy water". I hope the administrators see that as they have seen it before. Mikola22 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

• has previously been blocked several times for POV edit-warring, promoting fringe theories and generally WP:NOTHERE behavior. (First block is for disruptive editing, second for abuse of editing privileges, third for abuse of editing privileges, fourth inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked, fifth you're blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong, and for edit warring ie edit warring is disruptive whether or not you are right regarding the content.) Revert rules are in question, at the same time, the editors in that dispute were also punished. Promoting fringe theories and POV editing are not mentioned as the reason for the blocks nor was this the real reason for blocks. Mikola22 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Also there should be some procedure RSN and FTN and after that we know that his source is fringe or nor reaible.. None of the 100 editors did expose this information's(fringe, not reliable etc) from RS. Obvious holocaust deniers are to be dismissed at hand. You were told here by two different editors. Diff 1 Diff 2 Yet you continued to challenge it and stated that the Croatian Wikipedia did the right thing by keeping him as a source for the concentration camp death toll. Diff 3

The far-right bias and historical denial/negation promulgated by the CW is well presented here in the same thread where you expressed your "strong support". Acting like you're oblivious to all of this just doesn't fly. In that case, you're just saying you will give unwavering support to the admins responsible no matter the evidence proposed. That's even more concerning.

The sentiments expressed on meta.wiki are deeply concerning and they can't be taken in isolation because those views don't exist in a vacuum. Those views are directly correlated to your editing activity on Wikipedia. You are here as a SPA and using the encyclopedia to solely edit Serb and Serbian topics to push your POV. Your tenure here has been marred by tendentious and disruptive editing, in order to right great wrongs in an already sensitive area. Everything has been laid out. It's up to the admins to decide if any action should be taken. --Griboski (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply IIII

• Obvious holocaust deniers are to be dismissed at hand. You were told here by two different editors. I ask then for RS where book is refuted etc, and there was no such evidence, see diff. Editors are not RS in some anti-Croatian Wikipedia discussion. As for the English or Croatian Wikipedia and this source, this is the time of my entry into Wikipedia(2019), at that moment I thought that Croatian Wikipedia uses Croatian sources, English use English, etc. At that moment, I thought that book of Roman Ljeljak had passed Cro Wiki procedure and that everithing is clean.
• The far-right bias and historical denial/negation promulgated by the CW is well presented here in the same thread where you expressed your "strong support I haven't read that precisely since it was the removal of the leading admins and I gave my support to the old admins like many others. What should I get block because I supported someone?
• In that case, you're just saying you will give unwavering support to the admins responsible no matter the evidence proposed. There were a lot of editors who gave support. That he is Nazi and Fascistic administrator I for the first time hear that.
• The sentiments expressed on meta.wiki are deeply concerning and they can't be taken in isolation because those views don't exist in a vacuum Yes, deeply concerning. I'm connected with Nazi-Fascistic administrator, perhaps the Ustasha Nazi underground, Croatian Nazi Wikipedia? Who also conspired against you and 6 "Serbian" oriented editors. Everything is clean.
• Those views are directly correlated to your editing activity on Wikipedia. Yes, my Nazi worldview has invented hundreds of reliable sources which are foundation of many information's entered into articles. Also lot of information's ended up outside the articles because of my Nazi worldview and the ability to detect fringe and original research information's.
• You are here as a SPA and using the encyclopedia to solely edit Serb and Serbian topics to push your POV Yes, we will have to delete everything which I enter in the articles because this information's are all Nazi propaganda. But the sources I put in the articles are too strong(RS) and it will be difficult but I believe you will succeed. Good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Peacemaker67

This report diffs comments on meta from over a year ago, and appears to be another in a series of reports from Serbian POV editors against Croatian POV editors, all while both sides claim they are being NPOV... It is as weak as the others, and adds to a disturbing trend of Serbian POV editors trying to get rid of Croatian POV editors from en WP. With a little digging, I could provide a dozen diffs of the OP being disruptive and POV-pushing, and a boomerang is going to be needed here shortly. All involved editors need to be reminded that discretionary sanctions apply in this space. While Mikola22 appears to have expressed some concerning views regarding some sensitive issues early on, English is obviously not their first language, and their meaning is sometimes not clear. I haven't seen recent evidence of anything of concern regarding Mikola22 on my Balkans watchlist, ie they appear to be getting the message that en WP is very different from hr WP, and far higher standards of sourcing and behaviour are required. Their editing behaviour isn't perfect, but neither is that of the Serbian POV editors. If there is evidence of current problems, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, this should be dismissed out of hand as stale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that while there is no prohibition on posting these sorts of issues here, it is far better to post at WP:AE, which is better structured, word limited, and far better suited to this sort of discussion of editor behaviour in an area subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This report diffs comments on meta from over a year ago, and appears to be another in a series of reports from Serbian POV editors against Croatian POV editors At that point I see atack on Croatian Wikipedia and some editors from English Wikipedia(Sadko, Antidiskriminator) which were against Croatian Wikipedia. Some editor start talk about Roman Ljeljak who is the source of information on that Wikipedia, at that point I think that all sources are RS and that this source went through some sort of procedure but at that time I didn’t know in detail that Cro Wiki doesn’t have the rules which has Eng Wiki(OR, FT, etc). I don’t know at that point and what exactly fringe information or theory and original research is. Today that Roman Ljeljak comes to Eng Wiki as source he go on FTN and RSN and in two days we know everything and we have the end of the story. Based on my not knowing procedures and rules and defending the Croatian Wikipedia, they are creating my Nazi profile which is related to the current editing and all in bad faith and with the intention of removing me because they can't do that in normal editing (because I do everything in good faith and by the rules). Certainly there are mistakes, but even then everything was done in good faith and with the background of quality sources. "Latest example" and editor PajaBG, he as editor saw that some map has no sources as evidence and it is explained to him with links and edit summary that this map is WP:OR but he returns that map to the article. Why? Because he knows that he has support of his editors, and therefore he does not follow the rules of Wikipedia. They can do anything here but I am the problem and they never go against each other. None of them 6 would do revert of editor PajaBG even though they know that this map is OR. A couple of days ago I invited these editors to submit evidence for some information, and no one submitted it, now I'm ask and @Griboski as well [10] Mikola22 (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's good that you finally maybe realize what constitutes a RS, so you won't have to cite fascists anymore. To say you do everything in good faith is simply not true. You've exhibited many of the signs of tendentious editing during your time here (i.e. "being blocked for edit-warring more than once", "repeating the same argument without convincing people", "assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject", "righting great wrongs", "crusading against a specific POV", "seeing editing as being about taking sides" as you infer that you are the good guy and there's a conspiracy of other editors working against you.) Do you go around to check that every Croatian medieval and middle ages map and information in an article is correct down to a tee? No. You have a single area of interest inclined towards one POV. I'm not an expert on the Middle Ages but if the map is inaccurate and not according to RS, then it should probably be removed. By the way, pinging several editors twice as you did here 1 2 after not getting the answer you want here 3 can be seen as compulsive and antagonizing others and is not helpful either. --Griboski (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

While I respect and value Peacemaker67's input, I can't say I completely agree with his assessment. Here he's making a false equivalency between me and other editors in the Balkans area who at some point have engaged in edit-warring and in heated discussions, which is naturally bound to happen if you edit in this area long enough, and an editor who has a narrow area of interest, single purpose and whose time here has been defined by tendentious editing. Anyway, seeing as there isn't much participation or progress in the discussion, I'm OK with an admin closing this. --Griboski (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by WEBDuB

I'm deeply shocked by this comment. There is plenty of evidence here that could raise suspicions of discrediting anti-Serbian racist WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK, and this comment proves that it is not a coincidence or an isolated incident. In the last few months, he contributes practically exclusively to Serbs- and Serbia-related topics, emphasizing the negative sides, and currently, his main focus is on conspiracy theories that Serbs in Croatia and B&H are actually Vlachs or a degenerate nation of slaves.

He also cited the link to the site of the fascist organization Yugoslav National Movement. I have previously pointed out on the AE his obsession with the most sensitive Serb-related topics and personalities, but that extensive comment was ignored. Furthermore, he discusses with excessive posts and disrupts the clarity of the debate. (WP:BLUDGEON) I have to remind everyone that he has already been warned about that after the AE report.

I'm also deeply disappointed with Peacemaker67's comment and the attempt to equalize the participants. Especially because of the rising trend of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian, simultaneous pressure to change many articles, but also long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats... I have personally reported about five times (some example: [11] [12] [13]) for various forms of harassment, but without any response. Sometimes, I don't feel safe here, especially since the admins on Balkan topics show less and less impartiality and timeliness. I really hope that this time the admins will not turn a blind eye to the obvious racial and political prejudices, as well as tendentious editing. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This whole report will remain as a good archive and proof of the existence of a orchestrated smear campaign against the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian. Admins have a great opportunity to show their consistency, impartiality and professionalism. --WEBDuB (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply

You have become boring with your coming to each report. I don't know that I've communicated with you a couple of times. If you want to support your editors (Sadko, Amanuensis Balkanicus) then do it constructively on various talk page by finding evidence(sources) for some information's etc.

• I'm deeply shocked by this comment. There is plenty of evidence here that could raise suspicions of discrediting anti-Serbian racist WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK, I am also shocked with the sources and information's of various Serbian historians(some other to) which exist in many articles which say that Croatian Vlachs are actually Serbs. But I have to respect that although the whole Catholic Dalmatia was called as Vlach in the sources. These are today's Croats, but they are not originally Serbs. I know you would like that, but unfortunately they are not Serbs because the Vlachs are not originally Serbs and that speak Noel Malcolm, Ilona Czamańska, Ivo Banac, Karl Kaser, indirectly and Traian Stoianovich, C. A. Macartney, Ferenc VÉGH, Pál Fodor, Géza Pálffy. However, in the articles we still have the fact that the Vlachs are actually Serbs.
• his main focus is on conspiracy theories that Serbs in Croatia and B&H are actually Vlachs or a degenerate nation of slaves. Yes, Vlachs are actually Serbs. All these historians(cited above) and their information's should be removed from the articles. I urge administrators to do this to make information that Vlachs are actually Serbs be only fact in the articles.
• He also cited the link to the site of the fascist organization Yugoslav National Movement. Yes, this is Serbian source which I find on some link and you told me that the link was from some Serb fascists. Where I could see that the Zbor.rs is Serbian fascist organisation? What matters is the book which is RS. I can't tell from the links if something is a Serbian fascist organisation because I'm not from Serbia and I don't know Serbian fascist organisations which exist there. What does the information from the book have to do with the link?
• I really hope that this time the admins will not turn a blind eye to the obvious racial and political prejudices, as well as tendentious editing. Unfortunately, you, Sadko and the team are not checking for accuracy of Serbian articles or editing this articles in NPOV etc. You actually keep these irregularities together and report(or giving support in that report) anyone who starts fixing this articles, for Nazism etc. Therefore Serbian POV pushing are slowly breaking down and you are not choosing the means to remove everyone from your Wikipedia. Here's what I tell you on every report, so I tell you now, if you have a problem with my editing, write your report because I only see you on reports and occasional edits, so this way it's not in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is so inappropriate. There is no “my” editors or something like that. It’s sad that you made some clusters and groups of editors by ethnicity or something. There is no place for such prejudices on Wikipedia. You really should stop with WP:BLUDGEON and WP:ASPERSIONS.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply II

• And you and your friends stop with false accusation, construct accusation, accusation out of context, giving support in such artificial accusations. Don't hide yours Serbian POV pushing with my alleged anti-Serb POV pushing. In one discussion you said that you are anti-fascist and you used a slogan "Death to fascism, freedom to the people"! While in the article about the author(Stjepan Filipović) of that slogan and who is from Serbia, you did not enter any information ie that he was captured by Serbian Chetniks, that he was killed by Serbian State Guard unit, and that he is ethnic Croat I had to enter this information's instead of you, also you as anti-fascist did not enter any information and in the article about Serbian fascist Milan Nedić and here until I came he was shown as Serbian flowers, also you as big anti-fascist do not want fascist Serbian Chetniks to be in the context of genocide against Bosniaks and Croats [14].Thank you God for such Serbian POV pusher anti-fascist. Mikola22 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example of shameful insults and labels (WP:HARASS, WP:NPA), which has nothing to do with the primary topic and the report. --WEBDuB (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You said you were an anti-fascist but you only edit Croatian articles to present information about Croatian fascists and crimes against Serbs or you are preventing the placing of genocide fact in the context of the Serbian Chetnik fascists? Anti-fascist editor have a lot work and with articles about Serbian fascism. Why are you not on other articles(Serbian) when you are declared as anti-fascist? I guess I didn't offend you because I call you anti-fascist? Mikola22 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Aca

Hello everyone! As a frequent editor on several Wikimedia projects (including sr.wiki, Wikidata, Meta, MediaWiki, and hr.wiki), I came across Mikola22's edits several times. I mostly observed his actions in a couple of Meta discussions, which undoubtedly got my full attention – and not for a good reason.

As you might know, Croatian Wikipedia (CW) has recently started to heal from the damage done by extreme right-wing administrators led by Kubura. It seems like Mikola22 has openly supported them on Meta: "Very good admins, Croatian Wikipedia with them is very high quality and accuracy. I want to give them full support and that they continue to do this quality work."

Mikola22 said that "If there exist any problems then it had to be solved on hr.wiki", and "If one administrator has support there, then we must respect the will of the majority" equating Wikipedia with democracy. While, at the same time, he's turning a blind eye to the long list of wrongdoings on CW. I'm not writing all of this in order to persecute him for his opinion. I think that it can serve the community and involved administrators as a way to show and further understand his thinking and viewpoints.

A few weeks ago, user Koreanovsky started a discussion on CW regarding the introduction of new rules and guidelines. One of the more bizarre suggestions given on that page was made by Mikola22, who took things further and decided to spice it up with "one extra rule". He thinks that every single source which conflicts with any information given in other reliable sources should be examined on the premises if it is "based on original sources". Examples that he presented are mostly from Serbian history. He claims that he wants to remove "forgeries" [from Serbian history]. [15][16][17] [18]

Mikola22 publishes information about controversial figures or notable Serbs from Croatia on Croatian Wikipedia, where he is making claims or pushing forward sources that claim they are only Croatian. [19] [20] This would be just another POV edit if not for the fact that Mikola22 was engaged in disputes and edit-warring on the same pages here. [21][22]

On September 8, 2020, administrator Lasta started a survey on CW on whether articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina should be categorized by historical and modern regions or cantons and entities as of until then. Lasta made a proposal to categorize articles only by cantons and entities, which is also per the state constitution and laws. Mikola22 voted against the proposal, joined by the globally blocked administrator Kubura, and took the opportunity to state that "borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina are made artificially". [23][24]

Mikola22 made many weird edits, like this one. In this particular diff, he added that Ottoman politician of Serb origin Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was related to a village "Croats", based on a source from 1951. I didn't find this information in other sources.

On June 11, 2020, Mikola22 made an edit on CW calling Nazi collaborators from modern-day Serbia led by Dimitrije Ljotić, a small percentage of the total population of Serbia, who had heavy losses fighting with the occupiers, "their Serbian helpers", implying that the whole nation was helping the Nazis. [25]

More epic fringe content was added by Mikola22 about "Orthodox Croats", partially based on information from the 18th and 19th centuries. In several articles, he removed various information claiming that it was added based on WP:PRIMARY, while on CW, he uses sources dating back to 250 or more years. On the page about "Orthodox Croats", he added information about Serbian family "Pupovac", claiming that they were Orthodox Croats. This is very interesting because the Serb minority in Croatia is led by one Milorad Pupovac. I doubt that was done by accident. [26]

A quick look at his talk page suggests that he sees Wikipedia as a battleground. [27] @Theonewithreason:

Also, Mikola22 was warned "to be more concise and to avoid bludgeoning discussions". Comments given here (including Reply I, II, III, etc.) are proof that he still hasn't changed at all. The warning was filed at WP:AEL by administrator @El C:.

If you need help with the translation from Serbo-Croatian (GT should do it), ping me and I'll jump in. I think that a topic ban on Balkan history is needed. – Aca ^💬 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Aca that you are not a WEBDuB her past name is Aca Srbin (in English it means Aca Serb) but he change to WEBDuB to disguise nationalism, [[28]]. You are talking about right-wing administrators in Croatian wikipedia and why don't you say something about the Serbian wikipedia what it says there .So if you are the editor of sr.wikipedia, why don't you write something about Chetnik crimes as it says here [[29]] there is no such thing in [[30]] there is nothing that has been killed: 50,000–68,000 Sandžak: over 5,000 people. It is nowhere in the Serbian wikipedia while in the Croatian wikipedia there is about Ustasha crimes. As for the user WEBDuB, he is also bothered by the pictures of Catholic churches in Croatia, and he tried to erase [[31]] so I have no comment for that editor, and the editor Sadko now put a woman of Croatian origin who went to live in Serbia and got married there, put it as a Serb woman of Serbian origin from Croatia [[32]] and it clearly says that she has Croatian origin on her page [[33]].These are your editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.115.239 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone put a picture of a 19th century church in the chapter about WW2, but they certainly did a good job when they replaced it with a Victory Monument.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What bothers you from Russia is the picture of the cathedral with a landscaped park from the 19th and 20th centuries.It's a 20th century section not just about ww2. If it was a picture of the Orthodox Church, then you wouldn't mind, just as he wouldn't have removed it.93.136.115.239 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you agree. Thanks for your comments.93.136.115.239 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the above IP for 24 hours for hounding WEBDuB and others at Slavonia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: This is likely the long-term abusive IP with a dynamic range that's reported here. --Griboski (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Griboski, noted, if the abuse continues from this address it can be reblocked. I'm not super well-versed in range blocks, but my impression from looking at the listed IP addresses is that the variation in IPs may be too wide to attempt a range block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: @93.136.115.239: I understand your suspicion – I also find it interesting that his account used to be called Aca Srbin. However, the connection between us is practically impossible. You see, WEBDuB (or Aca Srbin) registered on Wikipedia on June 22, 2009, when I was 3 years old. Maybe I'm a prodigy, but to edit Wikipedia at the age of three 😁? Nah. Of course, checkusers are free to conduct investigation if you still doubt. – Aca ^💬 06:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply

• Examples that he presented are mostly from Serbian history. He claims that he wants to remove "forgeries" [from Serbian history] You have to read a little better, not Serbian history while frogeries of Serbian historiography, but this also applies to Croatian etc historiography. And if you want examples of Serbian forgeries, let me know and you will get additional answer, only for you.
• claims or pushing forward sources that claim they are only Croatian. First diff is information from RS, second diff is also information from the source(RS) and this fact(Croat) is also part of Englesh Wiki.
• in disputes and edit-warring on the same pages here. Go to the Croatian Wikipedia and put information wich you want, what is stopping you? What does my edit on Cro Wiki have to do with edit warning from Eng Wiki?
• "borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina are made artificially" I have my own opinion as editor. I don't know what you're interested? Borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina are made artificially in war ie entities, and my opinion is that we cannot do geographical division of Bosnia and Herzegovina and use entities borders because entities are made in war. This is my opinion about artificial borders of entities. You will quote my opinions from every discusion?
• he added that Ottoman politician of Serb origin Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was related to a village "Croats" There is no mention of any village here, information from book of Harold Lamb is that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is captured in Croats (Croatia). What should I write? I have to write what the source say.
• This is very interesting because the Serb minority in Croatia is led by one Milorad Pupovac. I doubt that was done by accident. This is information from RS. Editors are there to decide if that or any other information can be part of the article. Milošević, Jovanović are also Croatian surnames and what that should mean? Because of Slobodan Milosević president of Serbia we doubt that it was done by accident if someone mentions some Milosević?
• A quick look at his talk page suggests that he sees Wikipedia as a battleground. For related editors who edit articles concerning Serbian history, in my opinion it looks more like a playground, so I have to introduce them with to some things because we cannot promote fringe information's confirmed by a neutral editor on FTN.
• I think that a topic ban on Balkan history is needed You have contributed with very high quality evidence that proves nothing. Thanks for the effort. Mikola22 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'm reviewing past discussions involving Mikola22 at ANI, and it appears that they came very close to receiving a TBAN last time they were brought here, a little under a year ago. My impression of them from having moderated a DRN discussion that they were involved in was that their behavior was consistent with POV-pushing, prioritizing coming to a given conclusion on the content over an evaluation of evidence, and that they continued to advocate for their stances even after their arguments were decisively refuted. Their responses in this thread make it pretty clear that they're more interested in POV tit-for-tat than they are in building an encyclopedia. I think that a topic ban from Balkan topics, broadly construed, would be beneficial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: I agree with you, but first we must see the evidence that I do Pov-pushing. You make request to all(with ping) that this evidence be clearly presented and by numbers to see how many of these edits there are. The last time when editor Sadko report me with 40 diff, administrators also started with some T-Ban suggestions until editor Peacemaker came who concluded that there was nothing or very little in the report. Therefore I would ask that impression be put to one side and that the evidence of mine Pov-pushing be clearly presented in diff of each edit. I think that would be fair. Thanks. Otherwise if I got T-ban based on the same argument which you exposed from a year earlier, the editor Sadko must get the same block since I know his edits which sure go under Pov-pushing. If the final decision after presentation of mine Pov-pushing edits be T-ban please allow me a few days to put all that evidence to talk page of editor Peacemaker because here I only trust him. Mikola22 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• As far as the Balkans, Peacemaker67 primarily edits in the area of WWII Yugoslavia, an area in which Mikola22 doesn't edit very often. His preoccupation is Serbian Medieval and Middle Ages history and Vlachs, which PM isn't involved in. So to be fair, I don't think PM in this case has a good grasp of his editing history or behavior, as Mikola22 might only occasionally appear on his radar. I'd also like to point out that throughout this whole thread, Mikola22 has not actually denied being a SPA devoted to a narrow field of interest. He just continues to argue that he's right in his crusade, but there's no self-reflection on his behavior and the tendentious editing concerns raised here. His comment above that "Serbian POV pushing are slowly breaking down" and others shows how he sees and uses the encyclopedia; as a battleground. --Griboski (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Griboski: It was explained to you in the answer for OyMosby. You promote or defend information's out of context which used and Serbian radicals in Serbian Pov-pushing with claim that Serbs are in Croatia from 822. Second, in your report you listed my three specific Pov-pushing examples which are not Pov-pushing. You did not and exposed my Nazi information's which I enter in the articles. Therefore you have nothing for proving your accusations. Same case and with report of editor Sadko. You too make false accusations. And what I said somewhere I don't know how much that has to do with my editing of articles. Mikola22 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: Editor Griboski has no evidence in report obout my Pov-pushing or Nazi edits. Therefore, please ask all editors to submit diff evidence of my edits which are Pov-pushing or Nazi promotion edits. There is nothing here. Mikola22 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by OyMosby

Took a long read of this report. I find canvasing that went on here fascinating as an editor account rarely used just appears here, and like the obvious boomeranging happening ignored. Then N IP appears each time another editors claims an IP appears with buse. There is a bigger thing going on then this small part it seems. Being that reports have been weaponized against Mikola22 and other Balkn editors in the past as admins warned his accuser off, and going by the standards used to potentially ban Mikola22, then a number of other editors easily meet the criteria for TBAN “ pretty clear that they're more interested in POV tit-for-tat than they are in building an encyclopedia.” Dig deeper and you will be in shock of what plagued the Balkan Wikipedia for years.

Mikola22 definitely isn’t neutral and has vested interests. But @Peacemaker: was spot on in their take. Except I would not equate @Griboski: with other problematic editors. As I can personally vouch I have worked with them on articles before. Doespite our own pov and biases. We improved a number of articles together. Mikola22 does not fail to completely address all issue put forth. I disagree with Mikola’s “walls of text” style but to be fair when accusing a person of countless things in big walls of text, you have a lot to answer for. I am not defending their hyperfocus on Serbian articles as of late, and obsession with Vlachs which I don’t get as well as roadblocking or bludgeoning a topic as others have poinyed out. Nor am I familiar with non English Wikipedia activities as I don’t speak or read Serbi-Croatian fully. But there are far greater problems on here if this editor is meeting the criteria of topic ban. If Mikola22 is a pro Ustase pro Nazi Genocide denier pov pushing based on such toxic principles then they definitely should be banned. I can’t stand ultranationalists. But if this narrative is not acctually as claimed, then no. Just my take. Honestly I wish professional outsiders could be hired to comb through this part of Wikipedia as are apparently for other Balkan Wikipedias far worse as Griboski correctly mentions. As this drama is tiring. Just my two sense. @Rosguill: I respect your input but I don’t think a T Ban is warranted. As POV pushing is common in the Balkan articles and again, this sets a precedent. Again WP:BOOMERANG is a potential issue for some of the commentors here. (Not the initial reporter however]] and I’m surpised it isn’t seen more obviously. OyMosby (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No OyMosby, @Rosguill is right, we promised a year ago ie we are forgiven for Balkan edit wars(I and editor Sadko). Let be open a new section with specific diff with numbers of my edit Pov-pushing, and I will not have long answers, I only will list the sources which I used and I exposed my motive for edit in a few words. And I'm interested to see mine Pov-pushing but specific edit, and not fairy tales. Mikola22 (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

OyMosby, I think that setting such a precedent would only be beneficial, as it would allow less combative editors to participate in these topics more easily. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The arguments of the defense, which boil down to WP:BOOMERANG warnings and making a false balance, are all the time misleading. It is natural that everyone has a topic of interest, so there are editors who are pro-Serbian, pro-Croatian, pro-French, etc. The problem arises when someone deals with topics about one ethnic group and country exclusively in a negative context. Maybe pro-Serbian bias can be equated with pro-Croatian, but we must not be equated with anti-Serbian! Especially if the same theories advocated by racial ideologues and fascists are used as arguments. (WP:NONAZIS) From his history of contributions, it can be seen that since the summer, Mikola22 has been constantly editing only Serb-related articles. (WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE) When arguments and messages he wrote on other Wikipedia services are added to that, the matter becomes even more shocking and worrying. Did I, Griboski or anyone else say that someone's entire history is a fabrication, deny the existence of a nation or something like that? Therefore, I ask everyone to stop with the false balance and the story about the existence of some two constantly opposing sides, a possible WP:BOOMERANG, etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: Please let the stories go, list my specific Pov-pushing edits. See below. Thank you in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@WEBuB: please read what I said and not what you think I said. You are ironicly lumping me into a group and equalizing as all the same. I did not ise the boomerang term to defend the accused. I said it in general of the side comments I see. I mention WP BOOMERANG as there are those that preach on a pedestal but only to then expose their own problems. So no I will not shut up about it. I know as a certain someone wrote a horrid attack report against me and it WP:BOOMERANGED right in there face. I won’t go into the toxic details. They know who they are. I wasn’t using it to defend Mikola22. If you read closely I don’t condone his behavior on the article areas and am not defending for Christ sake. I said a T-Ban seemed over the top IF the the Nazi claims are NOT true. I don’t speak the language so I can’t say on other language WP. Editors in this areas keep trying to get the other banned. It’s an ongoing thing. It was general commentary. I’m not equating Mikola22 with everyone. Nor using BOOMERANG as a defense for him or a threat for anyone as I specifically said Griborksi the reporter would not face such issue. I also did not equalize Griboski with anyone. I did the opposite and spoke of their accolades. Please stop going on the offensive and barking and assuming bad faith as usual while telling people to do the opposite. I’ve about had it with all people doing this. It is a fact that PoV pushers of all backgrounds exist in the Balkan area. Sorry but it’s true. Don’t put words in my mouth or twist them. I hope in your section your talk of “smearing of accusing pro-Serbian” editors is not lumping me in. Or Peacemaker67. That just leaves Mikola and the IP so hmm are you smearing Peacemaker and I? That is equalization and smearing itself I will not just sit here and allow. Only if that is what you meant. Perhaps you mean in general but why? The IP and Mikola22 are the only possible explanations you can have. I did not outright defend terrible actions @Rosguill: between your explanation and the replies in example I’m reading under me with people putting words in my mouth and wanting me to be quiet, perhaps you make a very strong case. I’m sure admin @Peacemaker67: would agree. I would also advise Mikola22 to stop writing essays and get to the point. They seem willing now so let’s see them address the issue put forth in clear bullet points. As I had a hard time keeping track. Not sure if you want them to do so here or open a separate case. As this page is a mess. Again to WEBDuB: I AM NOT DEFENDING MIKOLA22’s ACTIONS BUT ABOUT THE FORM OF PUNISHMENT THAT MEETS THE CRIME. Perhaps a temp block for example. Again depends on the what he is accused of as being true and to what extent as there are multiple different events brought up. OyMosby (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I would also advise Mikola22 to stop writing essays and get to the point. What can I say? I edit articles according to the sources, there is not one Pov-pushing edit. And as for the Nazi story, it's a fabrication. For all this claims there is no evidence in Wikipedia articles. Did you and the others understand now? Which Nazi? Show me one information entered in an article which promoting Nazism, there is none. Short and clear. Mikola22 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I don't know if you know what pov-pushing in this case is? This primary information from 822 "and fled over to the Serbs, for which is "said to be as holding the large part of Dalmatia (Roman province)" is Serbian pov-pushing, this is constantly claimed by the Greater Serbian ideologue Vojislav Šešelj that the inhabitants of the Balkan area (Croatia, Bosnia, Croat, Bosniaks) are Catholic and Muslim Serbs and uses this primary source from 822 taken out of context, just as it was in a dozen articles on Wikipedia (out of context). And here editor Griboski claim that my edit for NPOV is pov-pushing. This information from the article without my NPOV edit which defend Griboski is promotion of Greater Serbia ideology and actual Serbian pov-pushing. Mikola22 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby Again WP:BOOMERANG is a potential issue for some of the commentors here. (Not the initial reporter however]] Therefore, with my alleged pov-pushing edits, they are actually protecting their edits and their Serbian pov-pushing and this is actually WP:BOOMERANG issue in report of editor Griboski also. The proof is above. Mikola22 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper of the Serbian Radical Party of Vojislav Seselj, Greater Serbia page 6, and information out of context, as she was in the English Wikipedia supported by Griboski ("the first known historical source(822) which mention Serbs in the territory of Republic of Serbian Krajina"), [34]. This means that Serbs from Croatia are from 822 in Croatia. But history teaches us that they come only 4 or 5 centuries ago. Mikola22 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pov-pushing edit in the articles made by Mikola22

1 through selective cherry-picking of sources, attempted to diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia dubious or implausible [35][36][37][38]

• This information "and fled over to the Serbs, for which is "said to be as holding the large part of (Roman) Dalmatia" is WP:PRIMARY information from 822 which is used out of context. The information's which I entered is for NPOV, and from three RS, one RS is also from Serbian academic. The proof is in diffs.

2 Some scholars based on the claim of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus suggest that name Serb comes from the Latin servus, "servant" or "slave". English word "slave"

• Information from three RS and historian Colin Wells claim in the RS that it is the opinion of half of scholars. This information is confirmed with edit of editor TU-nor evidence [39], also administrator Vanjagenije was on this article and there was no problem with this edit(see history page)

3Vlachs

• There is nothing for comment here, academic Noel Malcolm(Vlach origin of Serbs), best American book for 1984(Vlachs which become Serbs), Austrian historian Karl Kaser expert for Croatian Military Frontier (Vlachs which become Serbs), Polish historian Ilona Czamańska (Vlach origin of Serbs)etc etc. Article Military Frontier and 10 sources(all RS) which speak that with Serbs and Vlachs are coming to Croatia. These three numbers are concrete Pov-pushing edit according to report of editor Griboski.Mikola22 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

All interested editors can continue exposed my Pov-pushing edits from various articles(with numbers). Edits must be after 20 January 2020 and warning which I and editor Sadko received according to @Rosguill statement. Mikola22 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Ahmet Q.

Reports like this one are better discussed at AE. It is chaotic to go through all the arguments. The accusations against Mikola seem to focus on two aspects of his editing: one is that he edits many Serbia-related articles, the other that he does so solely based on POV pushing. Mikola has made mistakes in the past, but has grown since then and in 2020 his sanctions were lifted. WEBDuB claims that with this edit [40] Mikola violated 1RR sanctions, but that is simply not true because by that time they had been lifted. @Rosguill: some diffs used in this report are just wrong and clearly misleading, that's why I would recommend to take this discussion to AE because it'll allow for them to be reviewed by other admins without the disorganized nature of this report. The fact that the sanctions were lifted shows that Mikola is seen as a user who is good enough for his editing rights to be restored to the level of everyone else.

In 2020, Mikola edited a lot of Serbia-related articles, but not only them and for the most part his edits tackled real problems. Most Serbia-related articles suffer from awful sourcing which I assume is what Peacemaker has called in the report the "Serbian POV". Mikola's attempt to remove such "sources" were unsurprisingly met with opposition from Serbian POV editors, who have unsuccessfully tried, on multiple times, to ban him in the past. WEBDuB and Griboski accuse Mikola of trying to "diminish or render the existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia", but the diffs they provided actually show several POV editors who try to prevent dubious sourcing from being removed. In the diffs about Časlav Mikola is not wrong. He is removing WP:FRINGE content about a Serb presence all over the Balkans, in fact that rhetoric belongs to Greater Serbia propaganda and shouldn't be part of Wikipedia. Mikola has done a lot to correct that, despite the fact that he should have a more civil approach in how he interacts with some editors. It also speaks volumes that the people who cite far right politics in this thread in relation to Mikola are the same people who try to relativize or diminish from various articles the war crimes committed by the Chetniks, a Serb entity of Nazi collaborators in WWII. [41] [42] [43] [44] Peacemaker67 and others have done an excellent job in reducing the POV pushing but if it weren't for them war crimes committed by Serbian armed bands against the other nations and ethnic minorities in ex-Yugoslavia would have been removed a long time ago from Wikipedia. Mikola has improved and keeps improving and has done a lot of good by removing awful sourcing which some users are defending here. Topic Banning him will not help the situation, on the contrary it will give the opportunity to the POV editors to restore fringe content on Wikipedia. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to explain my preoccupation with Serbian articles, there are a lot of problems in them, and whenever I read some article I always come across a problem, or there is no source, or page, or it is not according to the source, original research, information's which need additional NPOV information's, articles which need additional NPOV information's, etc. And our job here is to improve the articles and I do that. Mikola22 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and for looking into this more closely. Needless to say, I endorse these observations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I think that moving to close this discussion and referring editors to AE for any further dispute is likely appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

if it weren't for them war crimes committed by Serbian armed bands against the other nations and ethnic minorities in ex-Yugoslavia would have been removed a long time ago from Wikipedia. Please don't make such slanderous accusations. I can't speak for WEBDuB but I believe his intentions are in good-faith. The idea that the Chetniks committed genocide is something that was added less than a year ago and is a source of legitimate debate whether most historians see it that way and whether Wikpedia should reflect the wider historiographical consensus or what a handful of mainly Balkan historians say. In fact, Buidhe, a user who is a valuable contributor to the topic of genocide on the encyclopedia is against it. For myself, if I ever intended to hide Serbian war crimes, I would not be making edits like this, which put Serbian forces or regimes in a bad light. 1 2 3 Furthermore, the way Mikola's editing is depicted here, in my opinion, is actually a whitewash of the reality, as presented in the thread. --Griboski (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t believe Buidhe was “against” acknowledging that it was a genocide but hesitant in the beginning. When removing genocides from the Genocide list he didn’t remove that one. As there are multiple RS cited for it. He is also not a sole historian. @Peacemaker67: is a major contributor and practically an expert of WWI Yugoslavia and supports the notion it was genocide. Calling out editors as examples isn’t really serving a purpose here. I also don’t get this “brought up this year” only as relevant or a counter argument to change or evolution of articles as the Genocide of Serbs page was “The persecution of Serbs” only a couple years ago. (Not comparing the two as the same at all : Disclaimer) Wikipedia is ever evolving. This is about Mikola22. OyMosby (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chetniks topic was brought up, therefore it deserved a reply. Buidhe's stance is clear 1 2 3 If only non-Partisan and non-Balkan editors participated, it would be 1-1 and no consensus. --Griboski (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am saying the topic in general shouldn’t even be brought up in the first place. And weight and number of RS sources matter not votes or number of determined “non-Partisan” editors. I would say Peacemaker is non-Partisan and he is not connected to the Balkans. A number of other uninvolved editors agree with it being labeled genocide. So it really wouldn’t be 1-1. Peacemaker has been accused of being Pro Serb, Pro Croat, you name it he’s been labeled it. Buidhe has been involved in the subject matter of WWII Yugoslavia crimes for the past year now. So he is as involved as well. I see your point that Buidhe has a stance of it being a conflicting topic. But he doesn’t deny it. As a diffs of yours show he says it has conflicting sources. Again as I said, he doesn’t seem necessarily deny it in totality. I didn’t imply or mean to imply he was for it completely either. Again, lets stick with the topic of this thread. This goes for everyone. Including me so I will shut up now about this off topic matter. OyMosby (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion on the Chetniks war crimes page, although on the List of Genocides talk page, there are more editors who have expressed concerns via the "thank" button but didn't participate. The reality is that the number of votes alone are still highly valued in discussions. The issue was on how much weight to put on the sources specifying genocide. My only concern was for NPOV and that the encyclopedia reflects the general academic view on it. This is indeed neither here nor there for this discussion though. --Griboski (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of “thank” button specifically. And this pertains to anyone, Per the Wiki Like page description, “ It should not be taken as a stamp of approval or as public endorsement of the edit. It does not mean your edit is "right" or that it represents consensus. It does not replace the need to discuss on Talk pages.” So the one uninvolved editor that did not partake in the conversation thanking you during that time about listing on the death toll page isn’t a strong metric. And seems they didn’t agree enough to say anything. A number of Serbian and other Balkn editors would always remind on talk pages that this is not a democratic vote. It doesn’t go by majority rule. Same as delete pages. Vote can be 20:1, but the 20 can still lose the discussion. It’s why canvassing has always been a ridiculous tool. I have received thanks from uninvolved editors on the same page but really it means little as it doesn’t help the talk page. I would contact them asking what they are tanking me for exactly or what part. Engagement does. Same thing here. I’ve thanked some of your edits but also engage to express what I agree with you about. Again, I am talking strictly about the thanking and using it as a metric for consensus or a argument. I wish people would partake instead of simply thanking. It doesn’t help much and frustrates me as I wish the person(s) thanking me would participate. I think we would both agree on that. Might as well put up an anonymous poll RfC. Here I am going off a new track. My OCD I guess. Hehe. OyMosby (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Tezwoo

This is yet another attempt to remove an editor that the users in question (who have been a subject of reports regarding nationalistic pro-Serbian POV pushing recently, both Griboski and WEBDuB [45]) have disputes with and gain an advantage in this topic area, with cherrypicked and misinterpreted diffs. I'll just take one example as a lot has already been written. Taking advantage of the fact that Mikola's English is not the best in the world, Griboski in point number 3 cut Mikola's sentence in half and gave it a completely different meaning, as Mikola also wrote that the same thing would apply to Croats if we followed historical documents to the word: "also it would not be and and small part of Croats. We would have Vlachs." This patern is evident across this report. And this attempt to paint Mikola as a fascist is ridiculous as he is the editor that in the last year probably wrote most about the anti-fascist struggle during WW2 in Yugoslavia of all of Balkan editors. Anyway, I agree with what Peacemaker, Ahmet Q, and OyMosby wrote. Tezwoo (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The information he's added regarding the anti-fascist struggle have all been about Croatia's contribution. Meanwhile, his edits to the Yugoslav Partisans article regarding Serbia's contribution has been about diminishing its contribution. 1 2 Even though he was told that brigades and detachments aren't a good metric for measuring contributions to the movement. 3

My point regarding the fascism aspect here is not that Mikola22 is a fascist but that far-right sentiments and poor sourcing on CW have clearly had an impact on him as that's where he first edited, even by his own admission. That has bled into the English Wikipedia and his POV is clearly demonstrated here. Denying the CW's historical revisionism and negation and far-right slant is ridiculous since it has been well covered.

The report you linked to shows Tuvixer with one problematic diff of mine, which for all intents and purpose was a misunderstanding and a mistake on my part when there wasn't a citation to the text. Regarding nationalistic POV-pushing, you yourself have removed negative information in the past from Croatian right-wing and far right individuals but let's not go there. --Griboski (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

his edits to the Yugoslav Partisans article regarding Serbia's contribution has been about diminishing its contribution. What would you like, that I invent a larger number of anti-fascists in Serbia or more Partisan units ie write something which is not true? I found this information and sources and there are no others. You find those sources and edit the article. It is not my fault that there was less anti-fascist resistance in Serbia. I will stick to the source and you increase the contribution of the anti-fascist struggle in Serbia. Mikola22 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic composition of Partisans during the entire course of the war: 53% Serb, 18.6% Croat. Shame you can't distort that. I'm sure you'll do your best. --Griboski (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Griborski: I think he is talking about Serbia. There isn’t much of a Croat population in Serbia. Also per capita, it’s all relative as there were more than twice as many Serbs than Croats if we look at all of Yugoslavia’s population. As for the number of Yugoslav Serbs outside Serbia vs in Serbia I have no clue and this can be taken by Mikola22 to the relevant page. Admins don’t care about this here. However @Mikola22: is not understating the non-Partisan Anti Fascist movement in Serbia through the Chetniks of which many Serbs joined. So to say the anti fascist movement by Serbs in Serbia was anything short of massive is ridiculous. Germans were massacring Serbs en mass. Commen sense alone can tell him there was a huge Serb anti fascist movement as they were one of the biggest targets and number of victims killed. I don’t get his logic or what he is trying to say. Mikola22 the hell are you talking about? OyMosby (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:Commen sense alone can tell him there was a huge Serb anti fascist movement as they were one of the biggest targets and number of victims killed What does that have to do with my edit about the Anti-Fascist movement in Serbia? Find sources and put information to the article. Who is stopping you? I found nothing except what writes in Yugoslav sources. I don't know what you're interested in? As for @Griboski, "According to Tito, by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croats"...shame you for distort that, and shame of editor Sadko and his Pov-pushing(support in edit)which make a minority out of the great contribution and sacrifice of the Croatian anti-fascists. Do not diminish the Croatian anti-fascist contribution and portray us as Nazis and Fascists. And in that sense, I entered a lot of new information's, which obviously bothers you because the image that Croats are exclusively Nazis is collapsing. Mikola22 (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Theonewithreason additional diffs

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 After very quick search it is easy to find that Mikola22 shoved multiple times a behaviour that already blocked him 5 times. About Serbs are Slaves theory. First additional diff shows that Mikola22 just recently tried to edit this on main article about Serbia. Imagine to go and search on Wikipedia basic information about some country and one of the first information you read is that its inhabitants are slaves. This was followed by numerous interventions of Croatian and Serbian editors on different pages and TP who tried to explain that this theory is false but Mikola22 still does not give up which can been seen even in this report. Griboski pointed out that perfectly in his report. Second diff shows that Mikola22 removes any mention of Serbs in Croatia even if they are reliable. He still tries to prove that Serbs are Vlachs even though this theory was frequently used against Serbs in WW2 by Ustasa and Nazi regime. Third diff is particularly troublesome. Mikola22 posted information that does not exists in sources about population of one Serbian province during Ottoman rule. Source only speaks about 15% Vlach inhabitants, additional info about 85% Turcoman population is made up and only proves that Mikola22 supports idea that Serbs do not exists as a nation but are combination of Turcs and Vlachs. This theory is widespread among Balkan far right extremists. Editor Nicoljaus noticed it and removed it. Red flags are everywhere Mikola22 is WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopaedia but to use it as a battlefield which can been seen even in this report. Not to mention WP:Bludgeon behaviour he shows on every TP and even here I support administrator @Rosguill: that topic ban regarding related Balkan topics, broadly constructed, would be beneficial. This WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour needs to be stopped.Theonewithreason (talk) 12 January 2021 (UTC)

He still tries to prove that Serbs are Vlachs even though this theory was frequently used against Serbs in WW2 by Ustasa and Nazi regime. Unfortunately, this is what academics and various historians say, and we must respect and that information for NPOV. You must also know that the Croats in the sources(primary and secondary) are Vlachs, in the area of central Croatia, the whole Dalmatia, Herzegovina etc. Therefore, by promoting the thesis that the Vlachs are Serbs we denied part of Croats and Bosniaks as a nation. Even Serbian radical and anti Croat, anti Ustaša, Vojislav Šešelj says himself that we must "respect the Vlachs as our ancestors, because, as he said, we are "all a bit Vlachs". [46] Mikola22 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Maleschreiber

Methodology: Reports which aren't filed at AE often spiral out of control because they face no admin oversight about comment size limit, diff relevance, WP:NOTFORUM and use of examples. The main characteristic of Balkan reports is the instrumentalization of the report, sources, diffs and arguments.

Examples: Mikola22 - who has since changed course - once put forward the idea that most Serbs of Bosnia are of Vlach origin and Serbian editors claimed that most are of Serb origin. What bibliography discusses is somewhere in the middle. To take a part of Mikola's comments - as Tezwoo highlighted - and claim that he was putting forward an "anti-Serbian" theory is misleading. The other example cited by all Serbian editors is that Mikola22 used as a reference the 10th century document De Administrando Imperio (DAI) and claimed that the ethnonym "Serbs" means "serfs". I strongly opposed the use of DAI without secondary bibliography. But what's interesting is that now the editors who hold a Serbian POV are using the same DAI to put forward fringe theories which suit their POV. Theonewithreason has a recent editing history of almost only reverts of DAI after Mikola22 removed them [47]. This is the instrumentalization of bibliography. Mikola22's past mistakes in the use of bibliography which don't justify a topic ban in themselves are used as arguments against him in the present, but bad use of the same WP:PRIMARY document is spreading via edit-warring in support of a particular POV. The difference is that Mikola22 now knows that he shouldn't use it and is trying to improve the project by removing it.

Ahmet Q. highlighted that editors who accuse Mikola22 and try to link him to a particular political line are the same people who try to relativize or diminish from various articles the war crimes committed by the Chetniks, a Serb entity of Nazi collaborators in WWII. Griboski argued that just based on the sentiments expressed by Mikola22, WP:NONAZIS should have been applied to him a long time ago. but now that Ahmet Q. challenged him, Griboski claims that The information he's added regarding the anti-fascist struggle have all been about Croatia's contribution. and My point regarding the fascism aspect here is not that Mikola22 is a fascist but that far-right sentiments and poor sourcing on CW have clearly had an impact on him. I don't think that in the context of an AE report, these accusations and their later refactoring would ever emerge because editors who file reports at AE are aware of the potential consequences of the arguments they put forward. ANI is rather unrestricted in what is and what isn't allowed - the reason why all Balkan editors use ANI to ask for other Balkan editors to get topic banned, but nobody uses WP:AE (except for Peacemaker67!). The discussion should be closed as "no action". A report with diffs and an organized discussion under strict admin oversight for all those involved may be filed at AE, if any editor decides to do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Aca, Griboski and I showed more than enough diffs and evidence that Mikola22 behaviour has not changed. Almost all of them happened in 2020. It is easy to find even more. This behaviour is much different than usual and should not be supported Theonewithreason (talk) 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber The part about Mikola22 adding content about the anti-fascist struggle in Yugoslavia was mentioned by Tezwoo and my response was to him; it has nothing to do with Ahmet's comment. So that's misleading to frame it the way you did. The point was that even that is done through a POV (to demonstrate somehow that Croats were bigger anti-fascist than Serbs) as shown above and doesn't make him look any better. Most of the stuff on meta.wiki is old and stale yes, but the equivalent of the Draganović and Jasenovac diffs for a non-Balkan person would be citing someone like Hans-Ulrich Rudel and then agreeing that about 10,000 people died at Auschwitz based on the writings of a far-right wacko because no one has disproven his stats. --Griboski (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Vlachs Article Statuta Valachorum which concerns Croatian history is in the English Wikipedia until I came in fact introduced as "Serbian Statutes" although in reality majority of the population under that law is the non-Serb population(Croatian local population also under Vlach name). The question is whether Serbs as Serbs or Racs were mentioned there(in larger numbers) at that time at all (lack of primary sources in historiography). And guess who's talking about Statuta Valachorum as "Serbian Statutes", Serbian radical and war criminal Vojislav Šešelj. It is a one-sided history which is also being promoted on the English Wikipedia. Newspaper of the Serbian Radical Party, Greater Serbia (2009) page 4, (Serbian laws ie in Latin Statuta Valachorum) [48] Mikola22 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Griboski: You called for a tban linked to WP:NONAZIS and refactored it after it became clear that it's a very shaky narrative. A report at AE wouldn't accept such arguments or refactoring. You have to bring diffs that justify a particular topic ban or not file the report at all. You can't refactor your arguments as it progresses. And you still haven't removed from your report the false narrative that Mikola22 is under 1RR sanctions.

Some Serbs in Bosnia are of Vlach origin, some aren't. It isn't "anti-Serbian" or "pro-Serbian" propaganda and reports can't be filed based on how some editors perceive some theories which challenge their own national narratives. I know that it's hard to accept some things - the Balkans produce more history than they can consume - but try to see things from the other side. Many edits which you are putting forward about Mikola22 are either edits you too have made or edits which Mikola22 hasn't put forward in a long time or edits about which Mikola22 is right and you are wrong like when you put forward the fringe theory about Serbs becoming Catholics in Croatia in the 1990s[49][50]. These are avoidable mistakes - there was no need for Peacemaker67 to intervene and remind everyone that there have to be WP:RS[51].

And don't take my comment as meaning that Mikola22 is generally right and you are generally wrong. It's not about the "right narrative", but about how to use bibliography. If you want to discuss it at AE, file a report and admins will discuss it without the background noise of ANI. Side comment: By replying to every comment, you're making the report TL;DR and inaccessible. There's no need for that. Good day to you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm and Polish historian Ilona Czamańska claim that Serbs are of Vlachs origin but also they claim that ( Czamańska.."majority of the population from Bosnia and Herzegovina in general are Vlachs origin") (Malcolm.. "Vlachs mostly in Croatia converted to the Catholic faith, and many of them in Bosnia converted to Islam".) The historical fact is that part of the Croats are also originally of Vlach origin but Vlachs are not Serbs and promotion of one-sided information(Vlachs are Serbs) in articles must be in the NPOV. For this we have 10 quality sources from strong historians which must be presented and this NPOV bothers someone and for that reason they invents some "Nazi" motives. Mikola22 (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Santasa

I have experienced quite a few problematic encounters with Mikola when he first appeared in early fall of 2019. However, Mikola today is much different editor from Mikola back then, in a sense that he significantly improved his knowledge and understanding about dynamics and inner workings of the project, and changed his attitude both in editing and communication in positive direction. If he sometimes still show signs which could be interpreted either as passionate engagement, or stubbornness, or disruption, it depends on who looks at it and how, but ultimately evidence(s) should be presented, nevertheless, that still is not a reason for unilateral TBAN (regardless of duration). This editing and behavioral progression line clearly shows in the very diffs posted by reporting party - good portion of diff's are taken from Mikola's beginnings in a fall of 2019 to early 2020, while more recent ones don't show much evidence of some transgression. So, it took relatively long time and few ANI's like this for him to straighten himself, and learn and understand that all those hundreds of pages of guidelines and policies are not there for decoration, and that other editors and admins really read them and rely on them for work on the project, and not using them to scare editors with whom they may disagree. As he was realizing that fact along the way, it was obvious that he was also starting to read policies and guidelines and apply them. His knowledge of English is also a limiting factor for him, and he probably (I actually witnessed first hand that he does) writes, from time to time, something that gets misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, while he misinterpret and misunderstand some things. Important thing should be that after this ANI is over, and if Mikola does not get banned, that he does not gets away from here with a sense of victory, instead to understand this as a reason to discipline himself even further. And those old diff's may have already been used in ANI's at the time, so it would be highly inappropriate to reuse them again and again, and base any new discussion on already discussed diff's every time someone experiencing inconvenience encountering Mikola on article and TP. I experienced some hard time in trying to resolve issues with him for months back in 2019, however that gradually, slowly and steadily, discontinued.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from editor with COI

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

---

In July last year I cleaned up all kinds of unreferenced puffery from the article at The Nouvelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Today significant problematic content was restored in this edit by Wikigeek2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I removed the problematic changes, and explained in detail why at Talk:The Nouvelles#Many unreferenced additions removed. 2.29.220.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just made this post confirming they have a COI, and stating it must stop or we will haul them into a London or Manchester court to answer why they are trolling our and deleting our work. FDW777 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Clear legal threat from the IP. Based on what Wikigeek2011 has now posted in response to the ANI notice, it would seem that Wikigeek2011 is being used as a group account, and is the same group behind the legal threat from the IP above. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the IP has opened a DRN case doubling down on the legal threat. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Doubled down, as well as saying all the work we were paid to do today. FDW777 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the person or people here are not in compliance with WP:PAID. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for 1 month (it's a static IP) for NLT, and I've pointed them at other relevant policy pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And User:Wikigeek2011 is blocked indef for advertising/promotion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And implied shared use of an account and undisclosed paid editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Displayname 99

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.

---

• Display name 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Display name 99 in this diff posts their support for the Proud Boys, proclaiming: The Proud Boys defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace., and BLM and antifa, in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed, kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property, including both private and federal property, which makes the slight damage inflicted on the Capitol building look miniscule. They repeat a similar argument here, once again claiming that BLM protests resulted in killing civilians and burning down cities because a few criminals got killed.

More to the point, this quote: Welcome to globalist fantasy land and double standards. Note the use of the racist talking point "globalist." This user is WP:NOTHERE to edit collaboratively from a neutral point of view, but to support a known white supremacist group, while protestors against police violence are supposedly "killing civilians and burning down cities." (As a point of order: no cities have been "burned down" during BLM protests, and Breonna Taylor was no criminal.)

I propose this editor be indefinitely blocked. There's a vast difference between arguing based on sources, and arguing in support of the Proud Boys committing violence to "keep the peace" while using racist & anti-Semitic language. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - They're not here to contribute; they're here to wage an ideological war of edits. Not something we need here on top of the other rubbish that gets dumped into Wikipedia on a regular basis.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I struck my support because I'm surprised to discover that this user has some FAs to their name. What on earth happened here?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Turns out, people can make good articles, but still support awful things. I don't think the former excuses the latter, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• It...does, actually. The fact it does is quite fundamental to the project. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• If it's "fundamental" that people be able to endorse violent racist groups openly just because they can write a good article, then this project cares more about cranking out content than actual human lives. That cannot be the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose So Display name 99 should be blocked because of their opinion or perspective? Seriously? I recommend this discussion be closed before emotions run high. Jerm (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Their talk page comments have been unconstructive, but not in violation of any policy for which an indef ban would be appropriate and their contributions log shows that they can contribute constructively. If anything, a topic ban for post-1932 American politics might be suitable. Caius G. (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, close, and trout OP. (Trout Displayname 99, too.) May approve of a topic ban, depending on if the issue persists. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose. People shouldn't be blocked solely on their opinions (I still remember the report opened on Lauren Southern a few weeks back), and I don't see anything like tendentious editing for now in the diffs provided. Talk page comments could be better, and given how charged they are, I'm not surprised that there was such a reaction from other users. I agree with editors above that a topic ban could be more appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter has not burned down any cities entirely, but it has caused enormous property damage across multiple cities, most especially this summer but also many times in previous years. While Breonna Taylor does not have a documented criminal history like the rest of the people who have been involved in these incidents, her ex-boyfriend, a drug dealer, said that she was holding onto his money for him. [52] So there is some evidence for criminal activity on her part.

As for the sanctions that are being proposed against me, it is utterly absurd to sanction someone for expressing paleoconservative viewpoints on talk pages while editors who adhere to socialism or globalism are allowed to advocate these principles with impunity not only on talk pages but in articles in total violation of Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Display name 99 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• The idea of indef blocking you is an embarrassment; your conduct in those diffs is also an embarrassment. This is just a fundamentally bad AN/I and ideologically driven behaviour for all parties. Be better -- don't go around making inflammatory diffs and complaining when people disapprove of them. HandThatFeeds, don't go around recommending productive editors be indef blocked for doing dumb things if there's any meaningful chance of them stopping doing those dumb things. The corollary of this, DN, is you should stop doing dumb things. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps an indef block is a little harsh - however, the "opinions" expressed in that diff "The Proud Boys ... keep peace. The Proud Boys helped storm the Capitol in response to an allegedly stolen election. BLM and antifa ... kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property. BLM is a thousand times more violent than the Proud Boys" are laughably false and the user is simply embarrassing themselves by posting it on that talk page, and then doubling down again on this page when they are called out on those falsehoods. This, together with worrying disconnects with reality like this are concerning. I would suggest that if User:display name 99 cannot stop themselves posting stuff like this, then they should consider voluntarily staying away from such charged subjects, as I suspect it can only end in either a topic ban or a block if they continue down this road. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have tried to stay away from such American disputes, not least because it seems that current issues may be resolved by the many rats who have supported the unsupportable for the last four years trying to leave the sinking ship now, but I must point out that the English Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy does not mean that we have a balance between truth and lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Trout Hand a trout to Displayname99 for making WP:NOTFORUM comments. Trying to hash out modern political debates on-wiki like that is a fools errand (and if it continues may very well end in a ban from modern American Politics). But otherwise, Displayname99 shows they are an able and adroit contributor, with 4 incredible FA's to their name. I remind everyone here that we should not be having discussions on the merits of our articles, only how to cover them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • • I would support an AP2 topic ban. I still think an indef is a step too far at this point. An indef, for one comment, for a long established user? I question the wisdom of that. Would we block a new user for saying that? Yes, because without a track record it would indicate they are NOTHERE and only looking to push a POV. Display name has shown they are here to build an encyclopedia. Now I agree their comments were bad, dumb, racist, and not well thought out. But this could easily be solved by not having them comment on the very divisive AP2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, But otherwise, Displayname99 shows they are an able and adroit contributor, with 4 incredible FA's to their name. - without me making any judgement on this individual circumstance, the content somebody contributes should have absolutely no bearing on how we judge their conduct. This comment risks us suggesting that we hold established contributors to a lower standard of conduct than we do others, and risks further embedding the issue we have with the idea of 'unblockables'. I think it is misjudged. Best, Darren-M talk 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• • I would argue that if Wikipedia cannot draw a bright-line against endorsing violent racist groups, we have failed as a community. This is not something we can bury our head in the sand & hope for the best. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • What's the issue? Talk page comments can be removed if they contravene policy (possibly WP:NOTFORUM in this case) and npov violating edits reverted. Wikipedia itself does not endorse anything and users can endorse whatever they like, as long as it does not affect their editing. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • users can endorse whatever they like, as long as it does not affect their editing. Er, (a) No they can't, and (b) If they're endorsing (whatever), they're implicitly doing it whilst editing. There isn't a free pass for non-article pages. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
        • they're implicitly doing it whilst editing Doing what while editing? Editors are generally trusted to separate their biases from their editing (cf. anyone who has any political statement on their user page yet edits political articles) and while I believe that the user's behaviour might warrant a topic ban, we don't go around pre-emptively blocking anyone whose endorsement of extremist groups suggests an altered perception of reality. Caius G. (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
          • we don't go around pre-emptively blocking anyone whose endorsement of extremist groups... Try sticking a swastika on your userpage and see what happens (I'm not saying this is equivalent, incidentally, but the point is that we do block for that). But yes, that'll be why I suggested above that a topic ban would be the preferred solution here. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and trouts all round. No, he shouldn't be banned based on the above, though he perhaps needs to read WP:NOTAFORUM. — Czello 20:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• The not-so-coded language here being used by Display name99 is nothing short of disgusting, hateful and unwelcoming. Using globalist isn't even a dog-whistle, it's a fucking vuvuzela. And attacking Breonna Taylor and her family in an ANI thread really demonstrates the point being made by op. I don't know why anyone is trouting op for daring to speak up about someone proclaiming their admiration of a known hate group but it's really concerning. We don't have to welcome people who hold views that are fundamentally incompatible with the project. And yes, this is one of them. CUPIDICAE💕 21:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I strongly support an indefinite block and/or ban. CUPIDICAE💕 21:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, an AP2 ban simply isn't enough. This is threatening to our editors and readers. Imagine if you were a person of color coming here to read that it's okay to be an out and proud racist white supremacist who supports violence against black people as long as they aren't editing AP2 topics. There is no room for this on an inclusive project. CUPIDICAE💕 00:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hold up, I don't see diffs that say this editor is an out and proud racist white supremacist who supports violence against black people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Was I unclear? How is this different than someone saying "The Nazis defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace."? Do you object to that? Or are people more offended at calling out overt racism than actual hateful racist rhetoric? CUPIDICAE💕 01:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Are we really having a debate over whether or not an editor making racist dog whistles and openly endorsing white supremacist terrorist groups should be allowed here? I'm struggling to see anything other than an indeff. Everyone suggesting a trout should be applied to the op and Display name in lieu of any sort of sanctions should be smacked with a whale. And no, "They have 4 FAs" doesn't have excuse this behavior.Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Indef. As long as this kind of speech stands unchallenged in project space, what we communicate is that enwiki is not a space for ethnic minorities. That is absolutely unacceptable to me. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Praxidicae and moneytrees. This isn't about opinions. The "globalism" nonsense is pure antisemitism, and the suggestion that it's somehow okay to shoot a black woman because something something drugs is just as as unacceptable. The cutesy "trout everyone" doesn't cut it here. This isn't about someone accidentally breaking a template, this is about the dignity and survival of actual, living, breathing people. Support indef. Blablubbs|talk 21:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obvious Oppose I am not seeing anything remotely worthy of an indef. Trout for both sounds about right. Time to move along. PackMecEng (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, now that the hounds of hell have been unleashed and have pissed and shat all over the Capitol, let's please have unity and come together as a community and not do anything to upset or anger them any more than they are already.
  Per the spirits of WP:NONAZIS, WP:POLEMIC, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTAFORUM and other policies and essays which teach us that a collegial community is vitally important to the continuing existence of Wikipedia, I support an indefinite block for this <redacted> editor. Failing that, an AP2 topic ban would seem the absolute minimum required here,but, really, we don;t need or want people who think like that here. Boot 'em. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, and AP2 ban can be placed by any uninvolved administrator without a formal discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Point of order: An indef block proposal here is a siteban proposal. See WP:CBAN. Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• We are not blocking based on one's opinions and perspectives, we block based on on-wiki activity and behaviour. I can see that DN99 is inappropriately using our talk pages to rant about his ideologies and beliefs, which is not what talk pages are for. I think Black Kite, Praxidicae, and Moneytrees have summed it up accurately, so I don't think I need to repeat it like a broken record here (and if I do need to repeat it, for some reason, then my God). A simple "trout and move on" is essentially a slap in the wrist for spreading inappropriate, unencyclopedic material that is lacking in factual accuracy, biased, and racist. If a brand new account started doing that, even if it is entirely confined within the talk space, they'd be indeffed immediately. Simply being a "good contributor" does not excuse inappropriate behaviour: hell, if that were the case, then we shouldn't be desysopping or decratting anybody because "they're a good contributor". If that's not a double standard, then I don't know what is. We are Wikipedia—the free encyclopedia—not Wikiopinions. Get it off this site or get out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  We take peoples participation and past contributions to the project into account all the time. This is no different. So yes, we treat long term established editors with a history of strong content creation differently than a newbie, as we should. PackMecEng (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  In which case an AP2 topicban should suffice in removing them from the area without impacting on any good work they do elsewhere. And from looking at their contribs, apart from the last week most of that work does appear to be done elsewhere. (Their FAs and most GAs are about US politicians, but they're all pre-1932.) Win-win, no?Changed to "block". Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah maybe, I think I'm going to bow out of this one. It's rather depressing on both sides at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban – per Beyond My Ken. Changed to "block". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't even see an articulation of a blockable offense--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block would be an over-reaction. Black Kite is right that they are likely to get an AP2 topic-ban if these comments (which seem low on facts and suggestions to improve articles, and high on a desire to inflame controversy) continue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• 'Oppose indef, support something AP2 topic ban might be needed, and I would strongly suggest that the user in question removes the material from their user page and avoids anything even remotely related to politics, but they haven't actually broken any policies or anything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban per BMK, and will impose it if no one else beats me to it. Miniapolis 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Passions are a wee bit hot right now so its not surprising we would see some of that heat from editors we are not accustomed to seeing it from. Proud Boys aren't really a group I would waste time defending and I think a careful review of their activities would benefit Display name 99. But I checked out a few other comments and I don't see any personal attacks...only a divergence of opinion and that certainty is not grounds for an indef(!) much less even a topic ban. I do recommend Display name 99 not waste time arguing with people until passions cool all around. It would be a disgrace to lose an FA capable editor over opining in a nondisruptive manner.--MONGO (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would definitely support an AP2 topic ban based on the diffs above. I am hesitant to support an indef for someone who clearly is here to build an encyclopedia, and I feel this topic ban would still let them do that while keeping out of trouble. P-K3 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• My own inclination (which makes my soul ache to know is, even in 20-fucking-21 still in the minority), is that racists and anti-Semites (yes, anti-Semitic too; please look up what far-right conservatives mean by "globalist" before objecting), no matter how well they write, shouldn't be welcome here. If for some reason people think they're only a "borderline" racist and anti-Semite, and that this is too aggressive for FA-writing borderline racists and anti-Semites, then consider: if they are this disconnected from fact-based reality, can their non-political edits be trusted to be fact-based? If for some reason people think that they're only delusional regarding racial issues, and not delusional regarding whatever it is they like to write FAs about, and that borderline racism and anti-Semitism is OK, then I suppose an AP ban - so at the very fucking least they aren't allowed to insult people of other races, religious minorities, and cultures to their faces - is marginally better than nothing. But I sure wish we were less tolerant of these people when they've gone to the trouble of identifying themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: You make a particularly good point, especially since 3/4 of their FAs are about slave owners. CUPIDICAE💕 01:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic. I subconsciously knew going to the trouble of finding out what their FA's were about would cause me even more soul aching. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I *hate* to be that guy, especially in this case where I'm wavering between a TBan and a block , but I'm going to say that's misleading. Their four FAs aren't about people notable for their slave-owning, they're two US presidents and two US VPs. Precisely one of their dozen or so GAs is about someone who owned slaves, and even they were us US Secretary of War at around the same time. Black Kite (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block for whitewashing a far-right club and spreading lies about BLM. An AP2 topic ban is the very least we should consider here. MONGO, I don't think Display name 99 is just unaware of what the Proud Boys are, or what BLM is. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block I can’t believe I have to log in again just to support banning a wildly racist editor. Last time, the arguments against banning Southern were that she never said anything blatantly racist on WP. Okay, fine. Here we have someone being blatantly racist on WP. They are literally saying every unarmed black person who has been killed by police are deserving of it because they are “criminals,” while the rioters at the Capitol just did some minor property damage and a white supremacy group is just trying to protect people. These aren’t factual stances. These are racist stances, and if you look at their FAs they spend a lot of effort trying to downplay slavery. You expect POC to contribute here when someone says Taylor, shot dead in her bed, deserved it due to some “criminal” connection but they have some FAs under their belt so we’ll ignore that? Their recent TP edits aren’t even dog whistling. It’s just straight-up, baseless, white supremacist bullshit.Capeo (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block, support topic ban So long as this editor can keep their opinions to themselves, and return to productive contribution, I see no reason they should be booted off. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The comments that I made regarding the Proud Boys and other topics were made in response to other editors advancing progressive talking points. I cannot be accused of violating NOTAFORUM while those who instigate discussions based on their own political views are not simply because their views happen to be seen as correct. I don't know of anyone in an ethnic minority who has been harmed because of what I said, so the suggestion that a block is necessary to "protect" these people is sheer lunacy. I also never said that Taylor deserved to be killed. Whoever is saying that either isn't reading what I wrote or is deliberately misinterpreting it.

That me expressing these beliefs should result in any kind of disciplinary action, whether it be a topic ban or an indefinite block, is repulsive and based entirely on the personal feelings of editors rather than on any kind of Wikipedia policy. Usually, if a person on Wikipedia has done something that is unwelcome, he is first warned about what sort of behavior is acceptable and what is not. He only faces discipline, such as a topic ban or a block, if he refuses to listen. Nearly every editor in this thread has shown a willingness to disregard precedent in the case of a culturally conservative editor. I will not be apologizing for anything; I've done nothing wrong. And seeing as I've done nothing wrong, I have no intention of abiding by a topic ban. My contributions have lessened within the last year (hence the semi-retired template on my userpage), but I have been a productive editor on Wikipedia since 2015. I have created 13 articles, brought four articles to FA status, 10 to GA status, and made important contributions elsewhere. When I had time to be more active on Wikipedia again, there were two other articles that I had worked extensively on-one of which I already brought to GA status-that I had hoped to bring to FA status. My contributions to these article can and should be judged on their own merits. I believe that they have enhanced Wikipedia greatly and have helped spread more knowledge and understanding. This can be where it ends. Display name 99 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm forcibly reminded of the saying "political opinions are like one's genitals. It's ok to have them, it's ok even to be proud of them. But for the love of god, don't show them to anyone unless they asked to see it in the first place!". I'm glad you recognize wp:notaforum, and are presumably endeavouring to not repeat this regrettable lapse in judgement. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think you read my comment correctly. I said that I did nothing wrong and that if I was let go with only a topic ban I wouldn't abide by it and basically invited an administrator to give me an indefinite block. Display name 99 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of anything better to say if you wanted to get yourself indefed. Making one's politics a personality trait is embarrassing at best and dangerous at worst. We are very lucky that here on Wikipedia, it is only embarrassing. Doing 'cringe shit', to use the vernacular, doesn't deserve indef blocks; that level of taking such disputes to heart is what leads to the unreachable political polarization that we see now in things like the utterly abominable, monstrous attack a few days ago. What it does deserve is round mockery -- I was even thinking about the genitals metaphor earlier. The conduct of every party here is the equivalent of a random dick pic. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet:Doing 'cringe shit', to use the vernacular, doesn't deserve indef blocks; taking such disputes to heart is what leads to the unreachable political polarization that we see now in things like the utterly abominable, monstrous attack a few days ago (emphasis mine) Want to reword that? or are you pretty happy with it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me the occasional horrible wording even after repeated attempted softening; I have some substantial speech-error/communication/'thought' disorders (partially touched on by my user page, but not to the full extent and involving more concrete examples than the whole range) and not everything will work out to neurotypical conversation norms, especially in a high-stress conversation as this one. I am unsure of a better way to express "Hyper-polarization is a Very Bad Idea" in the context of that conversation at my current level of thought-to-language translation. But yeah -- I don't like that wording either. I was mostly afraid of being assumed to agree with the user under issue politically when I very much do not. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, your current wording is blaming the targets of racism and anti-Semitism for "taking such disputes to heart", and saying that their outrage at being the targets is the cause of the current level of polarization. So if you can't figure out a better way to express your dislike of hyper-polarization, perhaps you could strike thru the deeply offensive part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. My comment on what the attacks are, which I was clumsily attempting to glue with the overall point, stands. (But that's only relevant inasmuch as the subject of this AN/I is making some very dumb comments.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block and oppose topic ban. A topic ban is appropriate if there are problems editing articles, and there has been no evidence supplied of this at all. People repeating the comments they find offensive is causing even more controversy. So a few people above repeating the comment should also be trouted. People with all sorts of opinions should be allowed to edit here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support a clear warning (first choice) or Tban (second choice). Oppose indef. A WP:NOTHERE block when the person in question has written high-quality articles is a non-starter. If someone is capable of being productive in one part of the project but not another, we have steps in between no action and an indef.
  The issue here isn't just "having opinions" about Proud Boys or BLM. The primary problem is the way some of these opinions seek to influence content while betraying a problematic interpretation/application of our RS and NPOV policies. The secondary problem is WP:NOTAFORUM (which I see is continuing in this very thread as I type this, making me wonder if I've got this wrong after all...). I wasn't going to comment here initially, but the username rang a bell and I just remembered where from: pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory and hand-waving "leftists who are afraid of facts". Granted, this was some time ago, but it makes clear this isn't just a "having opinions on talk pages" issue.
  Despite all that, with the primary issue being on talk pages right now I have a hard time seeing it necessary to escalate to a sanction (let alone an indef) without a clear warning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this right - we need to warn an editor with 4 FAs and almost 25k edits, who is openly espousing racist rhetoric and [53] applauding insurrection and the cold blooded murder of an officer, and a group of people that intended to kidnap the Vice President and Speaker of the United States], that he shouldn't do this on Wikipedia? This says to every single person coming here "As long as you're a good writer, it's okay to say whatever you want, even spew hate!" CUPIDICAE💕 04:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd summarize my position as closer to "If it's clear you can produce good work in some parts of the project but you're a problem in others, we should generally warn first, topic ban second, and indef last." Particularly egregious incidents may skip a step or two, of course, and it's because egregiousness is a factor here that I support a topic ban as a second choice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking again at this, which happened while I was writing the above, I'm having trouble sticking with my original opinion. Not only has DN99 not gotten the point, but seems to be doubling down on the [inflammatory, if nothing else] forum posts even here in this very thread. Thinking better of it and removing it is good, but we need to avoid this stuff in the future. As such, a tban is probably the minimum at this point. sigh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I told you so Capeo (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That was unwise to write, which is why I got rid of it, but I'm ready to be indeffed. Display name 99 (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, had I the tools at this point I would make your wish come true.--MONGO (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm gonna be honest, this is smelling increasingly like a deliberate attempt to get blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta second that WP:PRAM vibe. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, I might say what's being demonstrated here by Displayname is WP:DICKERY... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Indefblocked per this diff. I'll write a detailed explanation on DN99's talk and here in a few minutes; this is expressly "indefinite meaning undefined" not "indefinite meaning forever", and I expressly consent to any admin lifting the block without consulting me once they're satisfied that tempers have cooled down. ‑ Iridescent 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  👍. Not my original position, but definitely the position I ended up with after his conduct in the AN/I. Something something "this is embarrassing." Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• What happened to no heavy-handed enforcement during these tense times? Oppose everything, except a trout for engaging in forum-y American politics discussions — that never ends well. Especially oppose an indef. An admin may determine a preventative block, or an AP2 DS ban, may be necessary for up to a month till hopefully a less tense time, but that shouldn’t be a community ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Displayname 99 said he is a paleoconservative. This is fine, but in the diffs above he is trying to whitewash an attack on the most important institution of US democracy. This is not at all a conservative political position. Just the opposite. The support of the insurrection by many US "conservatives" is an example of doublethink. As a justification of such position, Displayname 99 blamed BLM, a movement that was completely unrelated to the subject of discussion on article talk page. So yes, this is all concerning. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Block explanation

I've just posted this full explanation on Display name 99's talk page, but I'll cross-post it here for the record. To reiterate the point I made there, I do not consider DN99 some kind of systemically flawed individual, but rather an otherwise-good editor who's snapped out of frustration (this comment of mine from a year ago is even truer today), and I genuinely do hope that within a few days they'll agree to put all this behind them and not to repeat it.

As you've presumably noticed, I've indefinitely blocked you for this comment, which I assume you realize was beyond the pale by any standard. As I've said at ANI, and made clear in the block log as well, this is explicitly indefinite in the sense of "for an indefinite period" not "for ever", and as soon as you can convince anyone that tempers have cooled down I give leave to anyone to lift this block.

To be clear, I am not blocking you for your political views. Wikipedia is a broad church, and support for Donald Trump is certainly not a fringe view (as 70-ish million voters testify). Indeed, even if it were a fringe view it would still not be block-worthy; we have numerous editors who are open supporters of terrorist groups, violent nationalist/separatist movements, groups which are widely considered racist, left- and right-wing extremism, and so on. What differs here is that these editors appreciate that they're sharing the site with people who don't share their opinions.

In my view, the comment linked above, and the other comments mentioned at the ANI thread, cross over a line. In my view they're potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and what's more important you were aware that they were potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and as such are unacceptable.

These are heated times, and given your history I have no reason to doubt that you're here in good faith and that recent events have been a one-off episode stemming from frustration rather than malice on your part. While I can't speak for the other participants in that thread, I certainly don't want to lose you provided you're willing to tone it down and respect other people's views even when you disagree with them.

 ‑ Iridescent 05:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow. That’s wildly equivocating. This is someone who in last couple days has repeatedly excused the killing of black people:

“in response to criminals being killed”

“in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed”

“because a few criminals got killed”

Just in the diffs above. Fucking bravo. Capeo (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You said it yourself with "in the last couple days". There's clearly a problem here for which I've indefinitely blocked (which, to state the obvious, is literally the strongest sanction it's possible for an admin to impose short of applying for a global lock), but I'm seeing no evidence in any of the discussion above that this is a systemic problem with this editor rather than someone having a bad couple of days and lashing out. I consider the views expressed morally repugnant, but we don't block just because an editor holds views other editors consider morally repugnant—we have plenty of Stalinists, supporters of various armed ethno-religious factions, and so on, who edit Wikipedia without difficulty because they stay away from their problem area. Display name 99 should probably be given a broad topic ban from recent American politics should they return, but that's a matter for if and when they ask to return and if and when the community agrees to let them return. I've assessed DN99's recent comments and concluded that they justify an indefinite block; judging whether someone with 25000+ contributions most of which appear non-controversial and constructive is a net negative isn't something I can do alone, and certainly not in fast time. ‑ Iridescent 06:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Displayname 99 ended up self-reverting that comment with the edit summary OK, this was stupid. Not here. Not sure if that counts as an apology, but it seems to show self-awareness. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Iridescent: That comment made by Display name 99 was unconstructive and unnecessary and most likely posted in frustration, however, it did not warrant a block. Could you please unblock and let consensus in this discussion decide the appropriate action. It would be much appreciated. Jerm (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. I was equivocating between an AP2 TBan and a block last night, but Display name 99's own responses, as well as other issues pointed out, have convinced me that a block is indeed correct. There are lines that can't be crossed. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• The block was made an hour after the comment, by which time it was self-reverted multiple times [54] [55] and acknowledged as "unwise to write", and another comment was self-reverted a minute later (10 minutes before the block). I'm not sure a block is necessary to prevent comments that are self-reverted. But other than not addressing the self-reverts, I think Iri's explanation is sound. D99 should be unblocked if they agree to stop WP:FORUMing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That deep in the conversation about that very same sort of thing, it beggars belief to see those comments as anything but deliberate, knowing actions and the 'self-reverts' fig leaves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd be more convinced of that if the sample size was larger than two. Although I read this whole situation as an attempt at "suicide by admin", and in those situations, just giving them the indef block they're asking for might well be the least-disruptive way forward (the one that requires the least amount of time from others). I think I agree with Boing's comment below about leaving things as they are. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: the user in question has stated here and at his talk page that they wouldn't abide by a topic ban were it to be put in place. His closing statement at his talk page ended with: I have no intention of ever editing Wikipedia again. I would rather leave on my own terms, as I feel I have done, than be indignified with a restriction which I did nothing to deserve. It seems that an indef block would have followed the topic ban anyway. —El Millo (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Which strengthens my opinion that this whole thing was intended by DN99 as goading into a block so they could 'leave on their terms'. (That's not saying it wasn't a good block - it was. Being painted into a corner where either we accept with that sort of behavior or give them what they want, WP:DENY unfortuantely can't be applied.)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. After all the comments from Display Name 99 since this started. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. I find it harder to excuse an editor with 4 FAs and almost ten years of tenure for explicitly saying they were not going to abide by a topic ban (diff). I appreciate that they self-reverted their problematic ANI comment, but insisting that they were not going to abide by a consensus to topic ban them is worrisome—and would have ended with them getting blocked anyway. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Iridescent's take on all this. Whatever Display name 99 has said in the past days, whatever they say on their talk page now (regarding a topic ban or whatever), let's not make long-term judgments on that. People do snap and lash out when under stress, and these are extremely stressful times for a number of obvious reasons. I say just leave it as it is now, no topic bans, nothing else, and wait and see if Display name 99 does make a request to be unblocked. If they do, then hopefully it will be the real long-term Displayname 99 talking, and we can take it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, and as an aside, I took the thing about refusing to abide by a topic ban as meaning Display name 99 would not edit here under such a restriction, not that they would actively break it. I know there are different ways to interpret it, but I prefer to err on the less negative and more forgiving side, as I think we all should at this time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor Unrelated Aside

Hi, I noticed an edit from this thread got RevDel'd for whatever reason and unfortunately one of the edits in this conversation is unlinkable because of that RevDel. Is there a way to make that edit linkable again or is not possible because of the RevDel? Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31 on January 15, 2021 (UTC) Note: I only noticed because the edit in question (from the above linked conversation) is directly above the RevDel'd one in the history and one I tried to link by diff. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

• You'll have to link to the next visible edit after the one that got revdelled. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Understood. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:09 on January 16, 2021 (UTC)

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

Ocean827 persistently adding non-free images to list 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.

---

Ocean827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding non-free images to list articles, despite two requests to stop. They added several in this edit at 17:48, which I left a template message for at 17:57. Despite this, they made this edit at 18:10 and this edit at 20:46, both adding numerous non-free images, prompting another message at 20:51 asking them to stop adding non-free images to list articles. Despite this, they made this edit at 21:49 adding non-free image File:Derek Foster MP.jpg to a list article. FDW777 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Havequick99

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.

---

• Havequick99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Over at Parler there have been some pretty not here comments made by this user. [[56]] [[57]]. Their response to being asked to use talk pages for discussing improvements and not to soapbox was [[58]] a cleat statement of battleground mentality and that they are here to right great wrongs.

I think that this is just going to continue as they see this as a fight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And here is their response to this ani [[59]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

They appear to be here solely for fighting and to hear the sound of their own voice. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And after this ANI was launched "retired". I think this is an old friend who returned in a new guise. As there was a fair bit of general IP and SPA POV pushing over at both Parler and Gab I suspect they will be back.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

WatanWatan2020

• WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I just closed this SPI report, where WatanWatan2020 made bad-faith and baseless accusations of sock puppetry and meat puppetry against Ahunt and The Bushranger (as well as some IP addresses). Looking at WatanWatan2020's user talk page, this user has a history of edit warring and other problems involving articles about airlines and similar article subjects. WatanWatan2020 has been talked to on more than one occasion regarding the addition of unreferenced or poorly referenced content, disruptive editing, and was recently blocked for making legal threats (although, after a discussion, he was unblocked after the presumption of good faith with what the user was trying to say). After declining the SPI report that WatanWatan2020 filed, and after looking through this user's talk page, I feel like a discussion should be started regarding the issues relating to WatanWatan2020's edits to these articles, as well as this user's overall conduct. Are this user's edits to these articles substandard as pointed out many times on his/her user talk page? Is this user becoming disruptive to the point where actions or sanctions are necessary? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It has become clear that this user is just here to spam certain organizations on Wikipedia, as is evidenced by his edit history. As you can see, when his spamming is thwarted he resorts to accusing the long-term editors who revert him as "sockpuppets". I was accused of being the "puppet master" of an admin, User:The Bushranger who had previously blocked him for "outing" and making legal threats??? Even a cursory read through User talk:WatanWatan2020, show that is clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be quickly indef blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Although this user may have been spamming, he’s not here for only that purpose. I came across him in two articles in recent months (Lebanon and Saudi Arabia). He wasn’t spamming on either - but he was heavy-duty POV pushing with some edit-warring. Not great, but I got the feeling it’s mostly new user naivety - there’s plenty of new users that are as bad/worse. Not a great defence (!) but I think that the main issue is not yet getting policy rather than NOTHERE. I suspects (in time) some blocks plus reprimand in this thread will put him straight. I could be wrong though... DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just note that baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are considered to be personal attacks, and move on with my editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised by that baseless SPI report, because I specifically explained to WatanWatan2020 that making sockpuppetry accusations without evidence violates multiple guidelines [60]. I have no idea what's going on with the airline stuff, but WatanWatan2020 came to my attention when I noticed some very disturbing edits: [61], [62], and several similar ones around that date. I left a discretionary sanctions alert regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict. Since then I haven't seen anything else like that... but still. --IamNotU (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that this editor has started editing again today and is once again back to adding the same old promotional text to airline articles example. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

To Oshwah, What kind of statement is that? i approached this matter and provided the sequence, along with evidence in it, of events which took place that would indicate some sort of puppetry taking place. in fact, it seems that other people launch SPI investigations with absolutely much less evidence and description, yet those SPIs are taken seriously and looked into. But with this one, you seem you "will not entertain it" and immediately close it. If you dont want to entertain this, why not allow another clerk to look into this matter then? you then turn the entire matter on to me and say look at "my disruptive history of editing" and that it should be discussed to see if i need further santions etc. Why dont you look at Ahunt's history, just even recently? There are plenty of users accusing this user of edit warring with others. In fact, another user just recently left a message accusing Ahunt of edit warring with him, and you actually deleted his comment. So why turn this on me? this is not fair even in the slightest.

To Ahunt, regarding your new accusation that i am back adding the same "promotional text" to airline articles, i am not. I simply added the information to only one airline which was the founding member of such. Also, no other editor who happens to be airplane enthusiasts take issue with my edits. You are the only one to approach this matter the way you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Making intentionally misleading claims here, which are easily verified to be untrue, is not going to help your case here. I would suggest you withdraw your continued personal attacks, rather than doubling down on them. - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@WatanWatan2020, You do realize that user @Ahunt, @The Bushranger, and @Oshwah have special user access levels right? You doubling down on your statements will only worsen your stance rather than help relieve the situation. You were blocked multiple times for edit warring and I don't see how disruptive editing helps either. PyroFloe (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWB #3 pretty much sums up where we are on this situation. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the time this report about WatanWatan2020 was filed, there has been a new discussion (on 13th January) at User talk:PyroFloe#Falsely accusing others which makes me think the editor won't be able to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. They will just get into edit wars wherever they go. The fact that their edits are frequently reverted will persuade them that others are in league against them, as suggested by the frivolous SPI that they filed on 7 January. I'd recomment an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that this discussion was archived without being closed or resolved. Can an admin please take appropriate action and then close it? - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ahunt:. Has any action been taken? WatanWatan2020 continues to add unreferenced content (and to remove referenced content), for instance in Levantine Arabic. I've never been involved in such a situation in the past so I don't know what to do... A455bcd9 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No I don't think anything was done. If nothing else is working you could try a new ANI complaint and also link to this one as background for it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt, here's the new ANI complaint. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ownership problem at articles about TV stations

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.

---

First off, I have ZERO dog in this fight. I have seen it sorta unfold in the talk pages of a couple of the admins I follow.

BlueboyLINY (edits) and Mvcg66b3r (edits) have a very "revert, OWN, WARN, prefered version, revert with an insult in the edit summary, rinse, repeat" kind of editing style. Their current battlefield is the WRNN-TV article, as you can see here. Breaking 3RR or coming damn near close. I brought this to the attention of an admin, MelanieN, who seems to be "dealing" with these two (plus another). Unfortunately, 6 days since my initial note and 5 days since I "[lit] it up again" (a reference to the old orange talk page "new message" bar), there has been no response. The behavior has most certainly continued and now Mvcg66b3r is asking for the WRNN page to be "lock[ed] before BlueboyLINY reverts it again...He's a picky editor." Clearly, we do not "lock" pages for content disputes and for editwars.

As I suggested to MelanieN, "I think a content block [edit: or even a page block] and a interaction block is needed, at least temporarily, maybe 3 months. Then, after 3, let them edit and if they can get along, cool. If they can't, make it 6 or just permanent. Cause clearly they are not editing constructively now and short of complete site-wide blocks, which I don't think are necessary (yet), I think this is the best way to go."

I still believe this is the best course of action. Take them away from the articles where they are interacting (I'll leave that up to you all) and institute a page/content and a "wide-berth" interaction block (ie: give each other a wide-berth and leave each other alone).

As I said at the beginning, I have no dog in this fight and I have only sorta seen it unfold from talk pages of the admins I follow. If I didn't get curious and do 2 minutes of research, I wouldn't have found this out. But something needs to be done.

Courtesy note: I have used the {{u}} template to alert everyone to this thread. I will still alert and link them via a manual note on their respective talk pages. Please give me a moment to do so. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:39 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Both editors mentioned (BlueboyLINY and Mvcg66b3r) and the admin (MelanieN) have been manually notified, per rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer: You say you have "ZERO dog in this fight", but you recommended a sanction, and when it wasn't acted on you brought a complaint here, so you do indeed have a "dog", and it's your proposed solution. You're not exactly a disinterested party here, are you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:: Half a paw, then?...to keep the metaphor going. I'm not disinterested, I'm just not interested in seeing all this crap go down across multiple pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer! We actually do protect pages if they're the subject of an edit war or dispute between multiple users. I've fully protected the article for a few days, and I've warned Mvcg66b3r for edit warring, as this user hasn't been given one (the other user was already warned). If the users don't work things out properly on the article's talk page, and if edit warring continues on the article after the full protection expires, I wouldn't be against imposing a partial block on both users from the article for a period of time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah:: I didn't think we did protect them for content disputes anymore because it was more of a punishment to the community at large over the acts of a few. I was trying to look for ways that all parties (the users and the community) could benefit so that the acts of two would not cause the entire article to be semi or even fully protected. This is why I proposed the page or content block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

My comment: There has been a long-term pattern of disagreement and edit warring at many articles about TV stations. Combatants include User:BlueboyLINY, User:Tvstationfan101, User:Mvcg66b3r, and others. Mvcg is a long-established editor; the other two are newer but not newbies by any means. When these editors disagree there is never any discussion at talk pages; there is some shouting at each other in edit summaries. This is the underlying problem, across many articles. I don’t regard myself as “in charge” of the TV station articles or of monitoring these editors, but I am aware of the situation, and have now looked a little deeper to see how pervasive it is.

The current arguing at the WRNN-TV article goes back to last March. Mvgc was already a regular editor on that page. In March an editor called BlueboyLI turned up and made a change or two which were reverted by Mvcg. Two months later the current editor, BlueboyLINY, took up the argument, Mvcg reverted, and that back and forth has been going on at a slow pace ever since. In recent days the pace picked up into Edit Warring territory. At no time did they use the talk page. (Regarding the two similarly named accounts: BlueboyLI hasn’t edited since March; BlueboyLINY began editing in April. My guess is they are the same person but not socks; probably they lost the password to the first username so they created another.)

My own involvement with these editors goes back to a November request at RFPP regarding the article WMBQ-CD There was slow-motion edit warring going on between a different pair of editors: BlueboyLINY on one side and TVstationfan101 on the other. Again, no discussion on the talk page, although TVstationfan made a few unsourced assertions. I took the unusual step of full-protecting the article for a year, hoping it would force them to the talk page, and I posted several times on their user talk pages, but they never did discuss. I finally unlocked the page at the request of an uninvolved editor, who cleaned up the page, and the edit warring did not resume on that page.

The bottom line is that there seems to be a culture of WP:OWNERSHIP and “because I said so” at many articles about TV stations. The editors revert each other, sometimes over and over, without any evidence or discussion. IMO any action here needs to address this cultural issue regarding TV stations - something to get these folks to recognize the need for 1) discussion and 2) showing evidence for their own version. If that requires warnings or sanctions or whatever, I leave up to the community. But I suspect that partial blocks from a particular article, or short-term protection of an individual article, will have no effect on the overall problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN:: Sanctions, be it page and content blocks or protection of the article, couldn't hurt. If the behavior is systemic across multiple articles, a site-wide block might be necessary (again, that's an admins call, not mine). There are behavior correcting sanctions, not punishments. We want these editors to become respected members of the community, or at least better than they are now, not just edit-warriors and subjects of ANI threads. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

Another neutral comment from a constant TV editor; I completely agree with NH's assessment, and have purposefully avoided all of the New York TV and radio articles in the last couple years unless the edit is so uncontestable that it can't be reverted (see WNBM, where I keep trying to assert transmitters in New York are atop buildings because...they're in New York City and transmitters are on the top floors of skyscrapers, but BBLI is insistent that they're not and only the antennas are, and thus they've been insistent that 'at' is used rather than 'atop' for skyscraper transmitters, which I tapped out of arguing about with them long ago). These editors need to resolve their differences and allow consensus and other editors to say their peace. Mvcg also had a long-time issue with another editor, Spshu, on articles dealing with the Lansing, Michigan television market that petered out after Spshu seemed to retire from the encyclopedia without notice. I've also told Mvcg to stop stalking my contrib page several times (they always seem to jump on my TV edits, no matter what), without success. The WMBQ-CD edit war over a station 99% of the New York market doesn't care about seems to be one of the lamest edit wars I have ever known, and I do agree with Melanie on that also.Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Nate's right. BBLI's "arguement" that the antennas are atop the skyscrapers, but not the transmitters, is just untrue at best and intentionally misleading at worst. First the view from atop the Empire State Building and from inside. To 1WTC, as it was. As it is today, high above and a rare picture in the transmitter room. At 4 Times Square, high above and in the transmitter room.

BBLI is very wrong. The transmitters and their antennas are high above in the skyscrapers of New York City. A rare few of FM stations have their antennas elsewhere and all AM towers located on the ground. This is a very clear example where this user should not be editing certain articles and where a content block would be most helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:06 on January 14, 2021 (UTC)

I forgot the exact incident from BBLI why I stopped editing New York TV articles, but I just remembered. On WABC-TV back in July 2018, an IP was throwing death threats towards BBLI, so I reverted the edit, then made an additional summary edit of a harmless space to explain why beyond the standard rollback summary. Instead of thanking me, they called me 'disruptive' for doing so. I declared to them I found their behavior appaling and indeed backed out of NY TV edits because their OWN attitude blinded them to the actual disruption. When another editor defended me on the talk page, they then decided to attack that editor for another OWN matter entirely just to pick a fight, and that's when I decided to avoid BBLI from then on. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh...yeah. Clearly unconstructive and uncollaborative edits and posts to others. Why is there no action on this thread? These users are NOT going to get anywhere if we set around and twidle our thumbs and play "let someone else worry about it". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:14 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

As I have explained many times, my edits are in depth while Blueboy's edits are kind of bland. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I'm going to need a LOT more clarification on what you mean by "in-depth" and "bland". I've looked at both your and BBLI's edits. Your edits look like a LOT of reverting and some minor GNOMEish edits. Nothing I was classify as "in-depth". His I was classify the same, but not so much of the reverts except when he was around you and Tvstationfan101. More GNOMEish edits. Nothing I would call "bland".

So, I'm gonna need clarification on the "in-depth" and "bland" meanings. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, Like when Blueboy constantly deletes pertinent information on WRNN's channel-sharing deal with WWOR. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: Yes, but he makes a point, WRNN is NOT a flagship. While he is removing the channel sharing part, which is correct, you continue to add the flagship part. That is incorrect. The WRNN signal is only "piggybacked" on WWOR's signal. So, there is no "flagship" to be had. You both are correct, but you are edit-warring and going about it in a very bad way. You see our point? You need a little seperation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

I've tried many times in the past reaching out to Mvcg66b3r, going back to his first ediits in 2015 (I was editing under BlueboyLI which I no longer have access to) to no avail. His edits, which he sees as "in depth" tend to be a WP:SEAOFBLUE with unnecessary WP:OVERLINKS ie: "Through a channel sharing agreement, the station shares transmitting facilities with Secaucus, New Jersey-licensed MyNetworkTV flagship WWOR-TV (channel 9) at One World Trade Center". In my view "Through a channel sharing agreement, the station shares transmitting facilities with WWOR-TV (channel 9) at One World Trade Center" is sufficient. After all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a novel, as such it's ok to be bland. I try and edit in such a way that the article is factual and does not lead to reader fatigue with an over-abundance of unnecessary links. BlueboyLINY (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlueboyLINY: In this instance, regarding WRNN and WWOR, I agree with you. Your version of the edits look sufficient. There is no need for the overlinking and no need for the "flagship" addition.

What I don't agree with, is how you went about it. You can't edit war. You have to be the bigger person, even if that means walking away and getting an admin. If this has been going on since 2015, an admin was needed waaaay before than. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:42 on January 15, 2021 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Now that we have heard from both users and the associated admin, who is "leav[ing it] up to the community", it's time to make some recommendations, decisions, have a conversation. The thread has been a little light on admin participation except from the immediate start. So, let's hash this out and put this to bed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:03 on January 16, 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from MarcoAntonio007

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.

---

• MarcoAntonio007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has been warned multiple times for uncited edits. I believe MarcoAntonio007 is editing in good faith but a combination of poor English skills, low quality information added to articles and lack of citations mean that their edits regularly require complete reversion.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2C-B&diff=prev&oldid=998643718
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bromo-DragonFLY&type=revision&diff=983022459&oldid=982198192
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco&type=revision&diff=1000158547&oldid=999131278

The user has previously received a short ban for the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#MarcoAntonio007._disruptive_editing Testem (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Upon seeing the previous warning, I'm no longer so sure it's in good faith. Testem (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is just "poor English skills", then it's such an imparement that they should not be editing here. Creating lots of English problems without gain of useful actual content needs to stop. I'd support indef. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, just an editor here, but this person is making a large number of edits and won't respond to the comments on the edit summaries or his page. MartinezMD (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Indef'ed. Unable or unwilling to even discuss, and no evidence of the problem slowing or stopping. DMacks (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism on WS-10 and J-20 page

There is the user called Revolving Personality Construct who keeps removing sourced materials on the WS-10 and Chengdu J-20 pages. He asked me to reason with him on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RovingPersonalityConstruct

After many attempts to reason with him and proofs with reliable sourced materials. He still goes by the same behavior. He never made any constructive edits on practically any articles, simply removing materials based on his personal agenda.

Please take a look at his behaviors and his disruptive editing here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shenyang_WS-10&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=history

He keeps arguing with empty air, never tried to come up with anything constructive, never showed me a good reference to prove his point of view. I tried to reach an agreement with him but he ignored. After all attempts failed. I ignored him and treated him as a disruptive editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shenyang_WS-10

He was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and edit wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARovingPersonalityConstruct

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotected both pages for a couple of years, because enough is enough. Also, not sure what two 3RR blocks (days apart) that were imposed in 2015(!) have much to do with anything, but I do note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang which features this IP has been filed by RovingPersonalityConstruct earlier today. I also note that RovingPersonalityConstruct was not informed of this complaint by the filing editor (IP), as is required. I will do so myself momentarily. El_C 17:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the China-India-Pakistan aircraft articles have been for years (decades even) a cesspool of nationalistic fanboyism, so every little bit of help is greately appreciated. As a note I have dropped a link to this at WP:AIR for any potential input from those with higher SAN scores than I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So true. Mind you, I get the sense that some of our preeminent aviation editors may point out similar problems happening with US aircraft, too. El_C 17:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, but the CIP realm takes it to the next level by not just going "OURS R DA GREATUST" but then going to "*theirs*" and vandalising them downwards! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that a couple of ancient blocks earned while learning the gentle art of self-defence are more battlescar than badness. Aircraft articles tend to to attract fanboys like laminar-flow wings attract insect splats. Countries such as China also tend to have a different idea as to what constitutes WP:RS. Once those semiprotects expire, the partisans will be back. Hey-ho. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in seeing what sort of "discussion" I had with 2601:152:4400:5580::xxx (multiple IPs since this latest encounter started), please see Talk:Shenyang WS-10 and the reference bombing that starts with section titled (according to anon editor's unsupported claim) "WS-10C now officially powers the J-20 production variant according to Flight Global". You may find something I missed in that mess. You can follow along with the related article edits easily enough.

It's really a matter of anon editor refusing to stick to what the sources are saying, and making everything sound as rosy as possible. Hence the insistence on vaguely saying that the engine in question will equip the aircraft in question "soon" (after finally accepting that said engine was not, in fact, equipping production aircraft now.)

The last revert by anon editor for the WS-10 article ([63]) shows the broad extrapolation that the WS-10C will "soon" replace the AL-31F in Chinese service. There's also the unnecessary list of aircraft in the lead-in paragraph - there's already a list in the infobox and toward the end of the article; the claim that the listed fighters are the "major" ones in the PLAAF might also be contested, but that's neither here nor there.

The last revert by anon editor for the J-20 article ([64]) is worse, because it deliberately misrepresents sources and the current state of the aircraft. It also doesn't help the organization of the Engine section of the article, but that's a comparatively minor issue.

Saying that, if I am correct with the SPI, all of this sort of tendentiousness is pretty much par for the course for anon editor. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:74.74.128.248

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 returning from a two-week block on 15 January, User:74.74.128.248 has repeated their past behaviour of nuisance edits and/or vandalism. Several editors have warned them on their talk page, myself included. I think it's fair to say this is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE, specifically: "General pattern of disruptive behavior – A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions." JG66 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll second that. The IP seems, perhaps, to mean well, but is making a real mess of things. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IP just got a one-month block after a report at AIV. Another problem with this IP is a complete lack of communication after warnings. It's possible this is a WP:COMPETENCE problem, but I think it is more likely WP:NOTHERE. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Long-term logged-in and logged-out edit warring by Anthony20morris

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.

---

• 37.228.192.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Anthony20morris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anthony20morris has, while logged in and logged out, been edit warring on-and-off for over a year at the Fine Gael article, generally involving the same issue, namely they don't think the party is conservative. During this time they've never made a single attempt to discuss their proposed changes at the article's talk page.

As IP.

• 21:37, 24 December 2019 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 22:45, 26 May 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 15:18, 27 May 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 14:22, 18 June 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 16:54, 8 July 2020 removes "Liberal conservative parties" from categories
• 14:49, 12 July 2020 removes various items from "Ideology and policies" section, "conservative", "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism"
• 20:11, 13 July 2020 removes "conservative" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 20:13, 13 July 2020 removes "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 12:23, 25 July 2020 removes "Conservatism" from infobox
• 21:50, 12 January 2021 removes "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 13:17, 15 January 2021 reverts to reinstate disputed edits they made on 12 January

As Anthony20morris.

• 16:44, 2 July 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead
• 16:24, 3 July 2020 removes "liberal-conservative" from lead (plus some other changes)
• 20:46, 3 July 2020 removes "cultural conservatism" and "economic liberalism" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 20:47, 3 July 2020 removed "liberal-conservative" from "Ideology and policies" section
• 20:51, 3 July 2020 amends "liberal-conservative" in lead to "liberal"
• 14:01, 25 July 2020 removes "Conservatism" from infobox
• 23:13, 18 September 2020 removes "Christian-democratic" from lead
• 20:35, 14 January 2021 reverts to reinstate disputed edits made by IP on 12 January. They admit to being the same editor as the IP with this edit summary

Talk page posts, or lack of.

• IP's edits to Talk:Fine Gael = Zero
• Anthony20morris's edits to Talk:Fine Gael = Zero

Perhaps something could be done to encourage them to engage please? FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I share this concern. The Banner talk 21:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So that "partial block" thing is a great tool. Three months for account and IP. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

I want to appeal for my account(User:Hums4r)

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

---

Hi Dear Admins, i am hums4r, a new wikipedia editor trying my best to contribute to the wikipedia encyclopedia by adding notable articles from kashmir, i in my earlier stages did a lot of mistakes, but i didnt knew the rules back then, today i am aware of all the rules. 1. in the start my first mistake was to contact (Zeyan Shafiq) for information, which i didn't know that it would lead to COI, i followed all the COI steps and declared the COI on my user page and on Zeyan Shafiq Talk Page. 2.After that when i drafted my article i didn't get any options of moving it to mainspace, so i googled it, since i had no idea about the afC process i came to know that i need to have an old account to be able to move it, i asked (Zeyan) if he has an old account that i can use to move, i logged in using his account. i made this thing public when i was earlier confronted for it. i have posted the COI on my userpage. 3. After that There was a sockpuppet investigation on me which found that i use another account(User:shahzada iqbal) which i never used, i never edited/owned or logged it into my computer/mobile or any other device. i am accused for it but i can prove my identity and you can surely block the ip address of that user. 4. Today my first article was labelled as Paid Article by an wiki editor, but i have took no payment for it, i can share any kind of proof or evidence like my bank statement to support my statement, i am a very common resident of kashmir who had no prior experience of wikipedia article creation, why would someone pay me? my article's have very weak english and incorrect style, even my first article was cleaned up and edited by Fences_and_windows and Kohlrabi Pickle why would someone pay me for wikipedia. i may have COI with the subject but i have never ever recieved any payment or any other compensation for it. 5. at last, i don't want my wikipedia account to be deleted, i apologise for all the things i have done in past but i assure the admins that it will never repeat, if they find me doing it again even once i won't even appeal for it. i request for this chance to me, i want to be a great wikipedia editor one day, i am inspired by steven pruitt. Also whenever i request help from some editors they are rude to me, i have found many good editors here but many sound rude to me. i don't want to name anyone but i just want to know how do i report them when i come across them, because wikipedia is a encyclopedia and everyone is here to contribute.

this is my appeal for my account, i request admins to help me. thanks Hums4r (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your story makes no sense. Shahzada Iqbal is checkuser confirmed to you and they also created Draft:Mutahir Showkat, which you noted is your name on your userpage. I find it highly unlikely that someone who is technically confirmed to your account and writing about you has no connection. Not to mention your user of the Zeyan account while also publishing promotional articles about him...CUPIDICAE💕 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae Hi Sir, i might have written promotional subjects about (Zeyan Shafiq) but i have cleared my stand on the use of (Zeyan) Account, I never logged in to it again. And my connection with (Shahzada Iqbal) is not true, i request you to block his ip address from accessing the wikipedia if you think it is me. i can share the details of all my gadgets,( my 2 laptops and 1 Phone that i used to make edits on wiki). Also talking about the paid allegation on me, i might have violated policy of wikipedia by getting in touch with (Zeyan Shafiq) but i have not taken any payments for it, adding a payment tag is an allegation on me that i never did, if there are any evidences you can continue with deleting the page but the tag is there without any reason and it might even affect Zeyan Shafiq because he never paid to me for it. sir i am an unexperienced editor on wikipedia, why will someone pay to me for wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, you're calling Praxidicae, who is female, "Sir". Some women editors just roll their eyes at this kind of thing, but some are offended by editors who assume everyone on WP is male. I'd recommend enabling Preferences>Gadgets>Navigation popups. —valereee (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee i am extremely sorry for this mistake, i will enable it once i get on my laptop, i will make sure I don’t repeat it again, sorry for this, i had no idea about it.Hums4r (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

oh no. it is defo your ID meant to promote yourself. Sorry. I do not have an on-wiki evidence. CU result is suffice and enough. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There's long term promotion revolving around the draft about you, CSDed twice, Zeyan Jeelani and so on. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to checkuser. Was there an SPI? How disappointing to do this, the deleted bio draft was clearly self-promotion. Regarding Zeyan Shafiq, I don't see the need for the paid editor tag - I and others have already cleaned it up. It's meant to be for maintenance, not shaming. Fences&Windows 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r. I went ahead and notified Oshwah of this thread. SQL^{Query me!} 21:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r. Checkuser confirmed socking using two accounts and there's a lot of logged out editing going on too. Hums4r had better stop digging this hole and start apologising fast if he wants to stay editing Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 21:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows I sincerely apologise to the wikipedia community/admins/editors/users for the sock puppetry done by me and i am sincerely ashamed of it and i assure the community that this shall never be repeated, but i can not apologise for the paid editor allegations made on me when i did not take the payment for anything, if there is anything written in the article that might look promotional, you can delete that part and clean it up, but kindly don’t call me a paid editor. Hums4r (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

oh no! The history is quite old. Mutahir showkat created that draft first. This user account was deleted by Oshwah in February 2020. What has changed since then? Self promotion? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AafiOnMobile i have mentioned it clearly above, i have done mistakes of sock puppetry and many other mistakes like COI and other mistakes but I didn’t have the knowledge of wikipedia back then, i have apologised earlier and i will apologise again to the whole wiki community for sock puppetry, but i will never take any money for an article because no one will ever pay me to do so, I can’t make articles properly that might pass aFc even my last article was cleaned by (Fences and Windows) and then posted,I don’t understand why are you so negative towards me, i praised you as a brother always not to gain your unjustified help but to gain your guidance to edit wikipedia for kashmiris, wikipedia is to contribute and to help other people to come and contribute to wiki, but you are just discouraging me brother. I think it might be bothering you with all those tags, i will never ever ping you for guidance again, thanks. Hums4r (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r, My above comment is about promotion, and not about sock-puppetry which you've already addressed. No one, not me, and not any of other editors including Praxidicae is negative towards you. My comment just means to ask you that when your earlier user page was deleted in February 2020 as a blatant violation, draft was deleted in November 2020 as blatant promotion, why did you continue this behaviour of promotion? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding to this, since you already have expressed Conflict of Interest, why do you want to write about the things very closely related to Zeyan? That suspects that he too is involved in this promotional game. I guess. Try learning through WP:AAU. Promotion, vanity doesn't help. Definitely. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AafiOnMobile i got to learn the complete basics of wikipedia on around 13-14 january, i have made many mistakes before it and this was also my one mistake to create a draft that was already declined for promo/adv, but after i have become a active editor on wiki, i did not make or repeat any mistakes and if i repeat them in future i surely must get penalty for it, and even if you want to give me penalty right now, you can suspend my account for temporary time like 7 days, but I don’t want my account to be blocked permanently. I apologise for it as well. I never wrote things closely to zeyan, i have made research, also discussed many things on (Zeyan Shafiq) talk page, to learn more about wiki basics, I have only added the part which i find in sources and my reason to add so much information abt zeyan shafiq is because this was my first article and i wanted to make sure that there is enough information and it is productive to the people who read it, but brother that doesn’t make me a person who would take money for it, you or anyone else in the wiki community can easily go and edit or delete that part which you feel have been edited by me like promotion. But please don’t call me a paid editor. Hums4r (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable argument. @Praxidicae: would you like to say something? I'm bad at paid-editing related issues. Perhaps you can better analyse the above statements from this editor? Dear Hums4r, a note to you that I did not ever called you a paid editor not did anyone else, this is a maintenance template adding in AGF & it should be discussed assuming good faith. Right? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile:,but since that article was made by me there is a banner that refers to “it might have been made for money” while as I didn’t do that, and if anyone checks the contribution history to found out who made it, it will show my name, and then i will be accused for it, and it will degrade my name in future in Wikipedia community, also i have no idea of maintainence template, ( pls share a link where i can read about it,) yes i do understand and agree everything here should be debatable and discussed briefly. I have gained more information today on many aspects, thank you. Also i even removed my name from my wiki user page so that no one ever tries to contact me and ask me for article creation, i swear to god, i will never ever indulge in any kind of violated activities of wikipedia like taking money. Hums4r (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to accept the apology from Hums4r and give them another chance, but I won't close this myself as I edited the article they created and moved it live. Fences&Windows 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r, Taking money is itself not against our policies. You just have to say if you're doing so, because we care about transparency. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hums isn't blocked, so I have no idea what they are asking for here. They got off without a scratch considering they were socking. And their article has been cleaned up. So I don't see anything to be done here. To Hums: I suggest you work on editing existing articles for the time being, in areas you are interested in and don't have a conflict of interest over. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval and guidance and suggestions CaptainEek, Fences and windows, i will definetily start working on existing articles and improve myself and never repeat the old mistakes. thank you all so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

SNL trivia, original research from Pontiac, Michigan

• 2600:1702:3200:D3B0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:408:C300:39F0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:408:C301:3EA0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using IPs from Pontiac, Michigan, has been adding tons of unreferenced trivia to articles about the TV show Saturday Night Live, comparing recent and past episodes in violation of WP:No original research.[65] They've been warned repeatedly on dozens of IP talk pages but there has been no communication and no stop to the disruption. Special:Contributions/2601:408:C300:39F0:219:E3FF:FEE1:15A5 was blocked back in September. There are probably more blocks in the history but you get the drift. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Artemaeus Creed

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

It is becoming increasingly difficult to try to work with Artemaeus Creed (talk · contribs) (AC). The editor persistently posts information that is factually incorrect and/or in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policies. He has also been putting false statements about my edits in his edit summaries 'warning' other editors about my edits.

I have gone to some lengths to try to get the editor to engage properly on article Talk pages, but for the most part he refuses to do so, and when he does, it results in little or no improvement of articles.[66][67] A few examples:

• Falsely claiming that Associated Bible Students is simply the former name of Jehovah's Witnesses,[68][69] whereas Jehovah's Witnesses developed from a branch of the Bible Student movement and the Associated Bible Students are a separate branch of the Bible Student movement;
• Editorial speculation in articles about the purported quality of cited sources[70][71][72][73][74][75] (this seems to have been resolved since after compromise on my part);

• Statements in Wikipedia's voice that rival denominations to Jehovah's Witnesses are 'fraudulent Christians'[76][77][78][79] and apparently not understanding why this is a problem (paragraph starting with "Your final comment..." in this diff:[80] (though I think I may have since stemmed that by replacing their statement with a clearly attributed quote);

• Undoing an entire copyedit just to restore one sentence preferred by the editor;[81]

• The editor is dismissive of Wikipedia's collaborative discussion processes, stating (the only time the editor has responded at any relevant article Talk page), "You seem to be the type that enjoys discussing the various changes of an article no matter how small. I myself am quite the opposite and desire to simply move on after a change is made.".[82] Despite his apparent reluctance to discuss more complex issues about a religious denomination, his first edit under his current account was to comment at a Pokemon-related talk page[83] before making a minor change to that article [84], so it is not simply a case of not being familiar with Wikipedia's processes. (The editor's instant familiarity with Talk pages and marking edits as minor suggests they are not actually entirely new to Wikipedia.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Posting dishonest edit summaries 'warning' editors about my edits;[85][86][87]

• Changing the summary of a book to some chapter headings from the book as quoted in a later JW publication, claiming it is "more detail";[88]

• Another editor, SuperHeight (talk · contribs) also reverted one of AC's edits[89] and advised AC that their edits are not neutral[90] (but has not otherwise been involved);

• An IP editor 2603:9000:7b02:d510:c479:701f:4c82:69fb (talk · contribs) has made similar problematic edits with dishonest edit summaries at some of the same articles in the same period.[91][92][93] I have also attempted to engage that editor at article Talk.[94][95]--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to confirm whether I am needed or not. So am I? I haven't noticed Artemaus around much so I can't provide an informed opinion. Thanks, SuperHeight (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not formally notify you because your involvement seemed only incidental. Happy for you to comment, including if you disagree with my assessment of AC's edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank you for taking the time to get to the bottom of this. Difficult to work with is putting it lightly. And I'm not talking about myself. I do actually appreciate Jeffs guidance on some of my edits. He's made some great points. However, for the most part he has hounded my edits (even minor ones) and made mostly unnecessary reversions to valid contributions on Bible Student movement and Studies in the Scriptures entries. (especially the latter) The past 2 weeks he has literally edited all of my contributions on various pages, even minor word adjustments. He has made minimal effort to compromise on changes that would be valid (and after much effort on my part). He has completely ignored the guidance as found on Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. Admittedly, it makes the editing experience quite unenjoyable and I can't help but feel hounded. I sincerely feel that he is following me so as to cause me distress or frustration. In addition, It's a little disconcerting with respect to any other contributors who want to improve the article/s. I fear he may do the same thing to others as he's done to me, in which case the article will simply never progress and the status quo will continue indefinitely. I've summarized my edits within the history pages of the aforementioned articles. I've also had quite the discussion on the talk page of the Bible Student movement, as found here. In any case, I do wish peace with Jeff. I wish him the best in his endeavors. And I do sincerely hope things can be resolved in a way so we can both be happy. All the best, -AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that I have reverted all of your efforts contradicts your claim that you appreciate where I have retained and improved your edits. Your claim of hounding is either a misunderstanding about the fact that the relevant articles are on my Watchlist, or a lie. Your claim that I have reverted even "minor word adjustments" is a lie, and I have given specific reasons for all changes to your edits.

You have mostly refused to properly engage in discussion at article Talk, and where you have commented at article Talk, it has been mostly accusations rather than 'discussion'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He has once again gone and reverted a copyedit of an article just to get his one preferred sentence back.[96]--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He has also clarified his previous unverifiable claim about 'discussion with other "editors"',[97] indicating that he has supposedly discussed my edits off-Wiki,[98] contradicting his previous claim that he has discussed with other Wikipedia editors, and seeming a lot like an attempt at canvassing by stealth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that sentences like "The book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom published in 1993 stated that a further reason for the name change was also due to the fact that as they “progressed in their understanding” of the Bible," are not acceptable. This instance presents a controversial self-serving claim of the Governing Body as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. There is another variant in the last diff that is an improvement. this one at least presented it as a quote that at the same time exposes their attitude; it would have been even better to find a secondary source. Something obvious is that this account has only edited JW related articles with one exception. This suggests a potential conflict of interest, I can't say WP:NOTHERE at this point and it is a relatively recent account. The edit summaries are indeed personalized so would like to warn Artemaeus Creed about WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:FOC. There are cases of edit warring but it's not obvious to me if it sometimes met WP:3RR (slow edit wars are still edit wars, though). I see some use of talk pages, but the first instance I look at has the typical argument WP:ONLYREVERT that I am surprised to see a new editor use. However, that page is only an essay, WP:BRD is a more important supplement page to the WP:CONSENSUS policy. —PaleoNeonate – 06:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor's changes to articles that I have reverted fall into these categories, in which AC had:

• Reverted a copyedit of the whole page to get back his one preferred sentence (in one of which he asserted theological beliefs as a fact);
• Called non-JW denominations 'fraudulent Christians' in Wikipedia's voice (not in quoted text).
• Falsely claimed that Associated Bible Students is simply the former name of Jehovah's Witnesses, whereas it is actually a separate branch of the Bible Student movement.
• Editorial speculation about the verifiability of cited sources.

Despite AC's claims, I do not see any of these as trivial or "miniscule" edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:FOC are duly noted. I would like to reemphasize that again not all of Jeff's reversions were unwarranted or unwanted even. A sounding board on such things is good. And it's been a learning experience with respect to Wikipedia policy. However, instead of attempting to maintain the points I was trying add to the Encyclopedia by editing them in a way so that they would be acceptable, I observed a tendency to completely undue edits in preference of the previous edition; or simply target the changes I made and reword them in a way that is completely different. As an example, on the Bible student movement page a litmus test was done on the 13th of January simply by using the book name and the people who published it (Watchtower Society): In 1993, The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania published the book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom which stated that the name change was also required because they felt "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian"

This was a perfect compromise and peace could have been achieved without any other intervention. Yet, he continued to undue such changes, stating that such wording was a "trivial elaboration". Another example of this can be found on the pages Studies in the Scriptures. Notice the changes I made on January 4th, and then follow it up to the present day. Such behavior is extremely puzzling, especially for one who has been been on Wikipedia for so long. I would also like to mention that every single addition I have made to an article are completely backed by verifiable sources. Some of Jeffros above statements are slightly disconcerting. I will now address each of them.

• Reverted a copyedit of the whole page to get back his one preferred sentence (in one of which he asserted theological beliefs as a fact); I did revert the sentence because it was completely removed by said user.

The removal of fact is valid and was added spuriously. Again, I don't believe all of Jeff's revisions were unwarranted; though a slight editing of my sentences so they would be acceptable would have been appreciated instead of simply removing the majority of them.

• Called non-JW denominations 'fraudulent Christians' in Wikipedia's voice (not in quoted text).

Again, see first point. I was under the impression that as long as the source indicates something it can be said. However, instead of keeping my point in by rewording it in a way that would be acceptable (as it is now), he initially removed it completely several times. Such actions are maddening and hinder any kind of collaboration here on Wikipedia.

• Falsely claimed that Associated Bible Students is simply the former name of Jehovah's Witnesses, whereas it is actually a separate branch of the Bible Student movement.

Again, this is supported by my source. Jehovah's witnesses were indeed once known as Associated Bible Students. I attempted to compromise with said user by including both their former name and how they are part of a branch of the Bible student movement. Please see the edit history of History of Jehovah's Witnesses.

• Editorial speculation about the verifiability of cited sources.

This is in reference to the publication Watchtower Slave cited. This is again one of the areas I appreciated Jeffros rare display reasonableness. The publication is heavily biased against the religious movement. After reading source it was found that statements were author speculation. A compromise was achieved by simply stating what the authors thoughts were.

With that, I will leave such things in the administrators hands. I am not unlike PaleoNeonate in that for over a decade I have been the anonymous user that would occasionally add things to an article when something was slanted or less than it could be. Such additions were never completely reverted as I have seen here. Never have I run into any problems or such immense toxicity as I have experienced with said user Jeffro77. Such a virulent and nasty spirit of one who is generally unwilling to help will only push people away from our community, and I think that's sad. I'll be taking my leave from this discussion now as I am a busy man with much more pertinent things to attend to. I have faith that the administrators will handle this in a way so that a reasonable compromise can be achieved within the aforementioned articles.

Thanks so much, I wish you all the best in these times. Sincerely, AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Note the following about AC's rebuttals above:

• Yet again he has since reverted a whole copyedit of the article[99] just to put in his one preferred sentence (in which he got the corporation name wrong anyway), falsely claiming in his edit summary that there actually were no intervening edits. It's also not clear why he feels it is so important to redundantly add that the publisher "published the book" that contains the statement, which gives the impression that he is insisting on his wording just to make a point. See Talk:Bible Student movement#Input from additional editors requested for versions of the sentence he is quibbling about.
• I trust that my removal of his earlier edits referring to 'fraudulent Christians' without inline attribution requires no additional explanation.
• His claim that Jehovah's Witnesses were once known as Associated bible Students is based on a false characterisation that there was a smooth transition from 'Bible Students' to 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. His cited Watch Tower Society (JW) source 'supporting' his view that JWs were known as Associated Bible Students simply indicates that Bible Students in 1914 were also sometimes known as Associated Bible Students. However, the other Bible Student denominations (including the Associated Bible Students) split from the group that became Jehovah's Witnesses in the period from 1917 (Watch Tower Society leadership dispute) through 1931 (official renaming of the Jehovah's Witnesses departure). Claiming that the group in 1914 were Jehovah's Witnesses is like saying the flour in the cake is the cake.
• Regarding his editorial speculation, he stated in the article that a previously cited statement was "unverifiable" and provided membership statistics from the denomination. The source made no reference to the previous cited source, and the claim about the reliability of the other source was entirely unsupported.

AC's personal attacks are quite odd and in any case inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP violations by Keekash

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.

---

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

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3

A single-purpose account repeatedly adding "convicted criminal" to the lead in Matija Babić, along with other potentially defamatory information in highly uncyclopedic tone through the use of mainly tabloid sources.

I've posted about it more in detail at the BLP noticeoboard. I've also tried explaining it on article's talk page but I think it's worth reporting the editor here as well as he's clearly not bent on following editing guidelines. --Griboski (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Index.hr is a tabloid, the sites I'm referencing are not tabloids but legitimate news websites and I've even quoted and referenced our former prime minister Jadranka Kosor. This is obviously one more attempt to hide who this person really is. I'm adding more convictions, crimes, lawsuits and references as we speak. I've just started as an author on Wikipedia so I'm still learning the technical stuff, but the information I'm putting on is true, legitimate and checked. I'll even put a reference to the article where Matija admits most of these things himself, proudly. Our courts are corrupted, he's getting convicted all the time but still gets away with it and this is the only way to get the truth out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keekash (talk • contribs) 22:37, January 16, 2021 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not some of the information on his legal problems are out there. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and WP:BLP policies. We don't usually put that someone's a convicted criminal in the lead because he's been convicted of one offence. You need to have consensus in order to add such a contentious and problematic label to the lead.

Much of the rest of what you added is also problematic. Writing things like " organized crime who he has obvious connections to.." and "Croatian people who he continuously insults and offends using hate speech on Facebook" is not encyclopedic language. Read about NPOV.

I also highly doubt most of those sources you used are RS, considering just the first one cited says things like: "Matija Babić has always despised "Great Croats" and "he hates "big Croats" because a small Croat must always hate the more successful than himself". It's clearly a biased source. --Griboski (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Keekash:REstoring your contested material yet again [100] after havign been reported, and with the comment in the report "this is the only way to get the truth out there is not a good approach. Your edit has been contested by more than one editor, there is no consensus for it on the talk. Meters (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the text yet again because of serious BLP concerns. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We are an encyclopedia, and we focus on neutral presentation of factual information. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet again [101], this time with a personal attack thrown in the summary. I have not done anything worth a report, and I am certainly not "somebody from Babic's criminal team creating false narrative in Croatia". I think the user needs a block. Meters (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Give me constructive tips, don't just delete all my work because you're biased. I'm gonna revert this until I die, every time from a different IP. It's all true, it's all referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keekash (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's as clear a declaration of intent to edit war as is possible. Meters (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• indef block them they're here to push an agenda and nothing more. CUPIDICAE💕 23:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Given there seems to be steps towards possible understanding on the user's talk page, I have parblocked them from the article indefinitely (as opposed to an outright overall indef). Indefinite is not infinte; if clue is sufficiently improved from that discussion they can be un(par)blocked at any time without need to contact me first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Although given the fact their response to having policy spelled out was to blame Wikipedia's software, I may have spoken too soon...and given this I'm tipped over to supporting an overall indef per WP:CIR - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Continued removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced content by User:Ashish Saikia

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

User:Ashish Saikia was warned several times on their talk page to not remove content without explanation, as seen as on their talk page User talk:Ashish Saikia. Recently User:Ashish Saikia has resumed their behavior of removing sourced content without explanation and adding unexplained content [102]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Projects

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.

---

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

I have dealt with this user around 6 months ago. This user has been banned by the WMF. Their long-term abuse page is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects. I have received many emails from this user 6 months ago and now I am receiving them now. I haven't been responding to their emails and have been deleting them. The email address they have been using is (Redacted). I would like to request Gmail to ban this user since there is nothing the WMF can do about it. If you could direct me to the avenue so that I'm no longer dealing with this user, please let me know. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Interstellarity, please don't post the account here. Can't you block the address from your G-mail account? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Interstellarity I just Googled 'gmail block user' and instructions came up, looks like it's something you could handle at that end. You can block an account from e-mailing you through Wikipedia in your e-mail preferences, but if someone knows your e-mail address there's not much that can be done from this end, better to block them from your Gmail account. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Interstellarity It probably won't help -- I recommend just ignoring him. The only way to get him to leave you alone is to ignore. (I have failed in this mission. Now he harasses me all the time. And I mean all the time. ALL the time. Fifteen years.) He has dozens of gmail accounts; I have a list. Antandrus (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. I don't have a Gmail account. I use ProtonMail as my primary email. I believe based on what you have said, there isn't anything Google can do to block the account. I have been ignoring him the whole time and hopefully he will stop altogether. Interstellarity (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

ProtonMail Spam filtering, Allow Lists, and Block Lists. Woodroar (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this option only hides the emails from the inbox, but it seems like the best thing I thing I can do right now until this LTA is gone once and for all :-). Interstellarity (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think if someone has dozens of accounts, and keeps sending harassing emails, especially if you've asked them to stop, you could probably report them to Google with your evidence and they will hopefully block those accounts. It would likely help if multiple people who've received the abuse report them. They may even block other accounts they have identified as being from the same individual. You will have to report them to Google though, not us [103] [104]. Note that any abuse report to Google should concentrate the abuse happening through Gmail or other Google services. Your chances of success probably depend on several factors, if someone sends you a lot of emails saying stuff like "YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT, DESTROYING WIKIPEDIA" or worse stuff like threats of violence it's probably fairly simple especially if it's multiple accounts. If the emails aren't obvious harassment, it may be more complicated especially if you haven't asked them to stop although again, demonstrating it's from multiple accounts may help since it would explain why you can't simply block them. Note that I'm explicitly not recommending you reply to ask them to stop, simply that if you did, it'll likely be another form of evidence the person is abusing Gmail. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Racist edit request on antisemitism sidebar template

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.

---

Hello! [105] Here is the diff for one of the most recent edits on the sidebar talk page requesting to rebrand it from antisemitism to patriotism, from Bradhanks83. I don't feel like it's necessary to explain further why this isn't acceptable but let me know if you need me to. Also, this is my first submission on this noticeboard so let me know if you need any additional information. Jonmaxras (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. Given discussions concerning the use of this template at Talk:Parler and Talk:Gab (social network), more eyes may be needed on this and related topics. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:AnatoLion

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.

---

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

AnatoLion (talk · contribs) -- edit-warring and discussion resistance on Bayraklı, Template:Largest cities in Turkey, and Bet Israel Synagogue (İzmir), trying to push a copyright-violating picture, with severe personal attacks in summary ("bad faith", "man on a mission", "say hello to Putin"). --A.Savin (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This sounds at the very least like a need for strong warning to me. The user has only started editing two weeks ago, so may be not yet a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And continuing edit-warring [106]. Please stop them. --A.Savin (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this one tells something about the battleground behavior of the user but does not make much sense - if the Commons request is closed as delete, a bot will take care of the image.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, user is continuing harassing and insulting me [107] [108]. Anyone dare to stop them? @Ymblanter:? --A.Savin (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

He is fresh sock of User:Shuppiluliuma, created 1 day after his last sock was blocked see last report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma. To lazy opening new report, Shadow4dark (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Reblocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent unsourced controversial edits in article Tutsi

• Reported user: ‎Bukamba78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tutsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The reported user is persistently deleting sourced info in the article, and adding unsourced and controversial info, despite successive reverts by different editors:

• Johannnes89 (talk · contribs)
• Gwennie-nyan (talk · contribs)
• Dehlisandwich (talk · contribs)
• Cordless Larry (talk · contribs)
• Keith D (talk · contribs)
• and myself Megustalastrufas (talk · contribs)

The user deletes the statement that the tutsi are bantu-speaking (which according to quoted sources they are, as they speak kinyarwanda, which is a bantu language) and then adds on the intro that they are nilotic people (which quoted sources limit to probable nilotic origin), not providing any other sources for the edit.

I tried a neutral version [109], where the intro does not say neither bantu-speaking nor nilotic people, explaining both aspects in the origins section, but the user persists with the controversial edit.

Note that there was a civil war and a genocide about this, so, calling this a controversial issue is an understatement.

The user has been requested sources for the edits via talk page, both by Gwennie-nyan (talk · contribs) and myself, with a clear explanation, to no avail. The user has only contributed to four articles, all retated to the topic, and with the same aim.

I think a ban is in order, but as I have been involved in the reverting, I would appreciate other eyes looking at this. Megustalastrufas (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have reverted the changes which do seem WP:FRINGE. There has been some related discussion at Bukamba78's talk page, but not at the article talk, where I opened a section to discuss content issues. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

IceFrappe and BLP

• IceFrappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Eric Bieniemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yesterday I answered this edit-warring noticeboard entry. User:IceFrappe was inserting trivial rap-sheet related material into Dawn Wells despite an RfC in November 2020 reaching consensus that the material should not be included, and reported the editor (User:Aloha27) that was reverting the material back out. Aloha27 had indeed reverted four times to IceFrappe's 3, but there was clearly no way I was going to block them, and I protected the page with the negative material not present.

Today I noticed another AN3 report here where IceFrappe has reported another editor - and it turns out that again IceFrappe is inserting large amounts of mostly trivial rap-sheet material (diff - [110]) into Eric Bieniemy, and edit-warring with another editor - this time User:Log47933 - to ensure it stays in the article. However this time it also included a WP:SYNTH-y section which insinuated that Bieniemy had been involved in a serious crime, the important sentence of which had no source. I have removed this [111].

The issue seems to go further though with other articles - for example this addition, yesterday, of a claim of adultery and other negative material. That particular one has't attracted an editor - yet - to remove it, but it is clear that IceFrappe does not understand the concept of WP:BRD and they are also quick to accuse others of sockpuppetry and paid editing with no evidence, tendentious editing (also note the comment itself), double standards, forum shopping, canvassing and lying. And that's only in the last few days. I am unconvinced that this editor understands some of our core policies nor is willing to work collaboratively with others. Thoughts welcome. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a very biased and one-sided account of what had transpired and a failure at assuming good faith. The "forum shopping" accusation was seconded by the highly respected admin User:Seemplez [112], who quickly closed the frivolous complaint User:Log47933 filed against me. Moreover, you are required to use article talkpage to resolve the dispute before resorting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. User:Log47933 did not do that and falsely claimed he did in his filing [113]. Is that not a lie? Is that not a clear-cut example of gaming the system and abusing the dispute resolution process?

By definition, User:Log47933 is a single-purpose account who has so far made zero mainspace edit except on Eric Bieniemy [114]. In fact, his account was created 8 minutes before he unilaterally mass removed content on Eric Bieniemy for the first time (much of those content were not written by me; I simply organized them under a new subheading per precedents Richie_Incognito#Bullying_scandal_and_other_controversies, Chris_Henry_(wide_receiver)#Criminal_history_and_suspension, Adam_Jones_(American_football)#Legal_issues, Greg_Schiano#Controversy. If you consider Bieniemy's "trivial rap sheet material," then so are those). Since then, he has spent a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia every day railing against me on multiple noticeboards, yet still hasn't made any mainspace edits except on Eric Bieniemy. He has also since edit-warred with other editors over it without discussion on talkpage or seeking consensus [115]. I don't think it's much of a leap to suspect him of having a conflict of interest or even being a paid editor. Even more damningly, despite being a self-proclaimed "newbie," he's clearly well-versed in Wikipedia's dispute resolution, so I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect he might be the bad-hand account/sleeper sock of an experienced editor. Whether a checkuser or SPI investigation is necessary at this juncture, I will leave it to the admins to decide.

In the Dawn Wells article, User:Aloha27 not only reverted the pot bust, but also the more recent dementia diagnosis four times within 22 minutes. Even if he takes issue with the pot bust section, he could've kept the dementia diagnosis paragraph in place instead of mindlessly reverting using the undo function. Worse, he used "edit-warring" templates to intimidate me on my talkpage twice within that same 22 minutes span when he himself was the one who violated 3RR [116] [117]. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN. He has also refused to engage in any meaningful discussion on Wells' talkpage and has yet to respond to me since User:Black Kite protected the page (see Talk:Dawn_Wells#Potential_WP:OWN_violation).

As for the so-called "consensus" you alluded to, not only was it from 11 years ago but the only reason User:Aloha27 cited was WP:UNDUE. In other words, the "consensus" was against the length, not the content of her pot bust. I assume the previous version was too wordy. Of course, I'm not advocating using up a significant portion of Wells' article to describe her pot bust in great details and I even asked User:Aloha27 to trim it down if needed right from the start on my own talkpage [118]. However, as I noted in the article talkpage, citing WP:UNDUE is not a "get out of jail free card" that justifies the censorship and suppression of any and all mention of Wells' arrest from reputable sources. Nor is it an excuse to simultaneously remove mention of her dementia diagnosis last June [119]. So far, User:Aloha27 has refused to respond.

In the Bill McCartney article, both the Chicago Tribune [120] and New York Times [121] sources stated McCartney's adultery. These are reputable sources and part of public record. Quote "In an interview, Rev. James Ryle, McCartney's pastor at Boulder Valley Vineyard Christian Fellowship and chaplain for the Buffaloes, said the catalyst for Lyndi McCartney's breakdown came in an Arizona hotel room on the morning of Jan. 1, 1993, when McCartney confessed to his wife just before the Fiesta Bowl that 20 years earlier he had committed adultery. Then McCartney left the hotel for his traditional pregame walk with Ryle, and in the car told his pastor what he had just done, Ryle recalled.

I will apologize to the community for my flawed understanding of BRD. I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, but a sporadic editor. My impression was that detailed edit summary suffice and the onus was on those who are deleting huge chunks of material to explain their reasoning in the talkpage. I will do better in the future. However, that does not excuse the WP:OWN conduct of User:Aloha27 nor does it excuse User:Log47933 for being an obvious single-purpose account who has edit-warred with multiple editors. I also think I deserve credit for bringing these troubling behaviors to the community's attention (I have nothing to hide), so I am frankly disappointed and dumbfounded by User:Black Kite's failure to AGF.IceFrappe (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IceFrappe, one, I am not "highly respected" nor an admin on this site. Two, I was not aware of your previous edits to Dawn Wells. Three, the closure of that DRN as forum shopping appears to be a rash and misguided judgement on my part, and I apologise profusely to Log47933 for that accusation.

Black Kite, you said this was lying, which talk page did Log47933 post on? I didn't see any edits by him on the Eric Bieniemy talk page or any regarding this on their user talk page. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 21:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My bad. I thought you have to be an admin to be able to close DRN. Regardless, he's an obvious single-purpose account who was forum-shopping after being reported for 3RR violation, so IMHO you have anything to apologize for. If I remember correctly, the Dawn Wells situation happened after you closed DRN.IceFrappe (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the one with the accusations of lying - check the edit summary. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you are required to use article talkpage to resolve the dispute before resorting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. In fact, that's the first question you have to answer before you file. User:Log47933 did not do that and falsely claimed he did in his filing [122]. Is that not a lie?IceFrappe (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, oh, accusations of lying, I misread. Apologies. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 22:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Seemplez You're exactly right. Log47933 did not post on Bieniemy's talk page before going to DRN as required and lied about it on DRN. Why is Black Kite angry at me for saying he lied? It's a verifiable fact that he lied.IceFrappe (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the so-called "consensus" you alluded to, not only was it from 11 years ago.... It was from November 2020 - Talk:Dawn_Wells#RfC_on_driving_incident. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was not aware of that. In fact, I repeatedly asked Aloha why he was bringing up an 11 years old "consensus" and he did not disprove me. In fact, he said "The discusssion was as pertinent then as it is now"[123] and cited only WP:UNDUE as the reason. Naturally, my assumption was that if we made it concise, then WP:UNDUE would not be an issue. Still, he could've kept the dementia diagnosis paragraph in place instead of mindlessly reverting using the undo function and refrained from reverting 4 times within 22 minutes.IceFrappe (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As the editor involved with IceFrappe in the Bieniemy page dispute I co-sign everything User:Black Kite has said about their behavior. IceFrappe has a clear pattern of hostile behavior towards others who have disagreed with them and has never shown anything but contempt for any of the suggestions I made for the page. First off, as a new editor, I did not really understand how the reporting process worked. So when you quickly reported me for edit warring I was worried I would get quickly banned without a chance to say anything in return. I apologize if I gave the intention of forum shopping. Once I realized my error I did not proceed any further. Thank you to User:Seemplez for explaining that I was not attempting to forum shop and I accept your apology. The idea that I am "well experienced" in Wikipedia dispute resolution is patently absurd. Secondly, the other editor who I supposedly "edit-warred" with simply stated that I should some summarize my edits with an accurate edit summary and had no objections to the content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Log47933). The fact that you would provide such a dramatic mischaracterization of those two interactions of mine in order to make yourself sound more sympathetic seems extremely malicious to me. In fact, I would call your apology in the last paragraph a non-apology. You definitely sound like someone who doesn't think they did anything wrong.

Furthermore, the page Black Kite noted IceFrappe edited yesterday is Bill McCartney, who was Bieniemy's coach in college and cited as one of his mentors in a recent interview (Bieniemy produced a wide grin when asked how about McCartney....“Coach Mac shaped me a lot,” he said. “He was a great disciplinarian and he brought together a lot of different men from a lot of different areas and that was huge. I’ve known Coach Mac for half my life and we would all run through a wall for him.” (https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/29/eric-bieniemy-chiefs-super-bowl-liv/). I think some of IceFrappe's edits to the page (like the part mentioning McCartney's recent dementia diagnosis) made sense, but it sure seems like pretty questionable judgement to me to insert a lot of negative material into someone's page who just so happens to be a close associate of Bieniemy at the same time this dispute is going on and makes it difficult for me to believe IceFrappe can adhere to the guidelines of WP:NPOV as it pertains to those associated with the Colorado Football program and perhaps many other biographies of living persons. Log 47933 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) That was a prompt reply :-) Let me ask you something, you clearly spend a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia given how quickly you respond, so why do you seem to have no mainspace interest other than Eric Bieniemy? So far, you have made no mainspace contribution except reverting Eric Bieniemy. By definition, you're a single-purpose account. In light of the fact that you seem to have no other mainspace interest and know everything there is to know about Bienemy's recent activity, it's not unreasonable to suspect you have either a conflict of interest, personally associated with Bieniemy, or employed by his agency. It's not a matter of being hostile. It's the fact that you created your account specifically to revert Bieniemy's page, has made zero edits on any other mainspace articles, yet clearly has enough time to rail against me across multiple noticeboards every day since you registered this account and usually reply within an hour. As I said above, I will leave it to the admins to decide whether to pursue a checkuser or SPI investigation against you.

User:Njd-de isn't the only one you have edit-warred with. User:Bongwarrior and User:Kaltenmeyer are also fine with me re-organizing the article. As I already pointed out to you numerous times, just because you're not old enough to remember Bieniemy's well-documented, well-sourced criminal history doesn't mean they weren't covered extensively. Anyone younger than 25 years old don't remember Chris Henry (wide receiver)'s criminal history, so should we delete Chris_Henry_(wide_receiver)#Criminal_history_and_suspension section too? Most of Adam_Jones_(American_football)#Legal_issues occurred before 2008, so should we delete those too? Read Wikipedia:Recentism. I also take issue with the fact that you seem to think just because something happened in 1989 or 2001, it should be hidden. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I suggest you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Bieniemy has been a public figure since the late '80s and was a Heisman Trophy finalist in 1990 (finished 3rd in voting). The incidents listed are certainly more noteworthy and encyclopedic than Richie Incognito getting into a Twitter food fight about Mike Zimmer and his funeral home outburst, so should we delete Richie_Incognito#Commentary_on_Minnesota_Vikings'_head_coach_Mike_Zimmer and Richie_Incognito#Funeral_home_incident_and_arrest too? How about Greg_Schiano#Controversy? You can't have it both ways. There are plenty of precedents here.IceFrappe (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Log47933, thank you for this information surrounding Bill McCartney (I smell a WP:TBAN coming) and thank you for accepting my apology. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 22:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is objectionable about my contribution to Bill McCartney to warrant a topic ban? That article has been dormant for years. His family publicly announced his dementia diagnosis as far back as 2016, yet nobody bothered to add that information until I did a few days ago. I also added pertinent information about him having a grandson fathered by his former player Shannon Clavelle (the previous version only mentioned Sal Aunese, the year of his wife's death, and him speaking out forcefully against the firing of Jon Embree in 2012. How are any of these "negative material" (as Black Kite falsely claimed)? The adultery revelation was sourced by both the Chicago Tribune [124] and New York Times [125]. This was something McCartney himself admitted as part of his journey/testimonial in his Promise Keepers organization and a key reason why he retired in 1994 at only 54 years old. This is clearly a pertinent part of his biography. I can't believe my good-faith edits are being misconstrued as hatred for Colorado Buffaloes football.IceFrappe (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IceFrappe, you have disruptively edited other articles surrounding this topic, no? Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 08:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As the editor involved in the Dawn Wells incident, I AGF'd the first edit in question with the summary that it had already been discussed on the DW talk page. As we look at that talk page, instead of seeking consensus for his/her edit there as was suggested, IceFrappe begins the section here. I'm a big boy, I can take that, which in my mind resonated of Stillwell Angel ("League of Their Own"). As an admin on a couple of other internet forums, make no mistake, had it been directed towards any user than myself, he/she would have been warned after the first instance and flicked for 24 hours after the second. As far as responding to the comments as mentioned above, TBH, they warranted no response whatsoever. I am of the opinion that it will take time for the user to grasp how this collaborative project works. I'll close by saying that some of their work is good. Yesterday, in particular, was not. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  23:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I've already apologized by my flawed understand of BRD, but you shouldn't be proud of your conduct either. Keep in mind you not only reverted the pot bust, but also the more recent dementia diagnosis four times within 22 minutes. Not exactly the behavior of a mature and "collaborative" editor you seem to think you are. Even if you take issue with the pot bust section, you could've kept the dementia diagnosis paragraph in place instead of lazily and mindlessly reverting using the undo function. Worse, you used "edit-warring" templates to intimidate me on my talkpage twice within that same 22 minutes span when he himself was the one who violated 3RR and far more deserving of the "edit-warring" templates [126] [127].

You also misrepresented the "consensus" as 11 years old when it was not. When I repeatedly asked you why you were bringing up an 11 years old "consensus," instead of pointing out the newer consensus I did not see, you said said "The discusssion was as pertinent then as it is now"[128] and cited only WP:UNDUE as the reason. Naturally, my assumption was that if we made it concise, then WP:UNDUE would not be an issue.IceFrappe (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah absolutely I'd be fine about deleting information about Incognito getting into a Twitter food fight with Mike Zimmer. That is not really relevant information. Arguing that Bieniemy receiving a speed ticket thirty years ago is as relevant as Incognito threatening to shoot employees at a funeral home while in possession of multiple firearms is ridiculous. Pacman Jones was found liable for multiple shootings (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/sports/football/jury-orders-pacman-jones-to-pay-11-million.html), again, that is not really a relevant comparison to the content we are engaged in a dispute over. I am not saying you have hatred for Colorado I just think it is an odd choice that to edit those pages so closely together.Log47933 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're fine with removing the Twitter food fight section on Incognito's article, why didn't you just do it? I would be far less inclined to suspect you of being a paid editor with a conflict of interest if you take an interest in non-Bieniemy articles. As for Bieniemy, if you read the sources, an arrest warrant was issued for Bieniemy's arrest merely 2 days after he was drafted in the 1991 NFL Draft due to failure to appear in court and failure to comply with the term of his plea deal. I doubt you were old enough to remember 1990-1991, but Bienemy had just finished 3rd in the Heisman Trophy voting and his off-the-field issues were just as noteworthy as Richie Incognito getting into a Twitter food fight, anger management episode in a gym, or emotional outburst a funeral home, if not more. Again, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Recentism. Bieniemy was also a much bigger name than Incognito. He was the equivalent of Najee Harris or Travis Etienne right now. Nobody would care what Incognito is doing, if not for the 2013 Bullygate scandal. Running backs are far more notable than guards. Anyway, you're not the sole arbiter of what is relevant and what is not. I don't think editing McCartney and Bieniemy's articles is an odd choice. It's certainly less odd than creating an account specifically to revert edits to Bieniemy's article and making no mainspace edits anywhere else. As I said already, I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, but a sporadic editor. I only edit when I come across something I have expertise in or something glaringly wrong. I came across McCartney's page after fixing a link to McCartney on Bieniemy's page and noticed it was out of date. McCartney's dementia diagnosis was made public in 2016, yet was not added until I did. McCartney speaking out against the firing of Jon Embree in 2012 was national news, yet was not in the article until I did. McCartney has a grandson (T. C. McCartney) fathered by the late Sal Aunese, but he also has a grandson, Derek, fathered by Shannon Clavelle. His infidelity was noted by the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times. That incident was a key part of his journey/testimonial in Promise Keepers and the implication in those sources was that it was the main reason of his sudden retirement in 1994 at the relative young age of 54.IceFrappe (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited the Incognito article to remove the frivolous content. I am not the sole arbiter of what is relevant, but it's not like there was any discussion on the talk page about these edits before you made them. I think the more major incidents should absolutely stay (which is why I left them) And part of my problem is how you frame this stuff. You describe Incognito, a three hundred pound man in his mid thirties chucking dumbells at someone in his gym as an "anger management episode". You describe him threatening to kill employees that work in a funeral home while holding half a dozen firearms in his car as an "emotional ouburst". Yet you describe Bieniemy taunting one of his players (admittedly bad on his part) with the subheading "The Bullying of Marcus Houston". Bullying sounds much worse than an emotional outburst to me. It seems to me like you're mostly trying to edit the McCartney article in good faith but I just don't think you are going to be able to write this Bieniemy article while adhering to the guidelines of WP:NPOV. Log 47933 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Antondimak evasion of CfD outcomes

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

Has repeatedly defied CfD outcomes by creating substitute categories with the 'o' in "from" replaced by another look-alike character (omicron):

Fyli

• Category:People from Fyli (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created after deletion, then re-deleted again.
• Category:People frοm Fyli (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created later the same day.

Didymoteicho

• Category:People from Didymoteicho (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created after deletion, then re-deleted again.
• Category:People frοm Didymoteicho (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created later the same day.

Arta

• Category:People from Arta (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created after deletion, then re-deleted again.
• Category:People frοm Arta (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-created later the same day. This was again listed at CfD a day later, and has since been speedily deleted, but nobody noticed the 'o' substitutions until now.

These will be relisted for CfD and speedy deletion. Requesting suspension of editing privileges for 14 days until discussion and cleanup is completed.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

They did the same thing with the below, which I've deleted now.

• Katerini
  • Category:People from Katerini (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:People frοm Katerini (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ioannina
  • Category:People from Ioannina (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:People frοm Ioannina (municipality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If the recreations weren't from a month ago, I'd have blocked them too. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, "repeatedly" is false, since this all constitutes one case. I have explained my reason for doing this, and I have written it in the edit summaries (which I believe administrators can bring up if they don't believe me). In the CfD in question there was essentially no outcome, as there were many ways to move forward, but none were chosen, just a vague "merge" by people who weren't interested enough to continue the discussion. A bot was put to do the merge, and, since we hadn't decided which way to go, it resulted in literally buggy categories (self-linked). When I tried to fix it, the bot fought me, so I changed a character to circumvent it. When the discussion continued soon after, regarding other similar categories, I said it was necessary to find a general solution for all such categories, and to decide what to actually do. There was no interest and the discussion didn't continue. --Antondimak (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• By the way, since there seems to be a passion to just delete everything despite being from a different country and not caring enough to understand the repercussions, the former subcategories of all these municipalities are navigationally almost inaccessible, so this time it's isn't buggy per se, but certainly broken. --Antondimak (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'll also add that the situation has changed since the discussion, and there are now even more articles-subcategories, making the merge less viable. All these subcategories have too been rendered practically navigationally inaccessible. --Antondimak (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Recent discussions on Antondimak's talkpage about related categorization issues show a advanced case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [129]. This is a long-term behavior pattern, and together with the outrageous creation of fake categories as reported here, and the way he's been doubling down about them, warrants a block, or topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise seems to have a grudge against me from when we had a disagreement about an RFC on the Macedonian naming dispute. This part: "creation of fake categories as reported here", shows that he doesn't even understand the issue we're discussing here. --Antondimak (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Also claiming "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" is ironic since I have devoted an unreasonable amount of time trying to fix wrongful edits of people who claim to (and in many cases I believe they're truthful) not understand why their edits are false. Just look at the article for Efi Thodi, it being the tip of the iceberg. I have had to correct constant disruptive editing, only for my explanations to be ignored and be reprimanded for correcting. I have had to provide government documents to prove Greek geography twice. We had a user mistakenly categorise the article under the city of Karditsa, after which there was an attempt to delete the category as empty. I found it and fixed it. Then I was accused of falsely adding the article there to save the category. I had to find government documents to prove Vrangiana is in fact where I claimed it was. Then William Allen Simpson, in a systematic attempt to empty Greek location categories, tag them as empty, and delete them, removed the article claiming there was no source, and the article just says the person is from the regional unit of Karditsa in general, why he decided to ignore "Vrangiana" is beyond me. Then we had the person who I had to provide the government document the previous time again miscategorise the article, after which I posted the document in the talk page, added a disclaimer in the article, created a separate disambiguation page for the locations, and created an article for one of them, just so that I could be freed from this madness once and for all. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. --Antondimak (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We have an issue of people who rightfully seem to think this situation is too insignificant to devote their time to, and to have conversation long enough to understand an issue far from their area of expertise. But I then am in a situation where I have to explain the same things over and over again only to be met with the same false claims time and time again. --Antondimak (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If everyone other than you is saying one thing, and you're saying the other, it might just be possible what everyone else is saying is not "false claims". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's why I'm feel like I'm going insane. Anyway, most of these are verifiable (again, I have provided what happened with Efi Thodi as an example), so it doesn't matter who says what. There also aren't a lot of other people, only me and William Allen Simpson. Two other people are part of the discussion, but they are more cooperative. --Antondimak (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It would help if both editors communicated directly with each other. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have reached out to Wikiproject Greece so we can have more participants in the category discussion who have some knowledge on the subject. So it's possible the most comical errors, such as the most recent claim that Greece's periferies constitute suburbs, can be corrected by somebody other than me, and the discussion can start to be somewhat productive. If there is no interest, I am ready to accept that this category tree will be destroyed. I was somewhat operating under sunk cost fallacy, trying to defend what took me months to create from people who obviously have no idea what they're doing. However, since this is pretty meaningless as I have said before (very few people use the categories in Wikipedia), if we continue like this and no "help" arrives, I will withdraw and watch this play out. I will always be available to help if asked to. --Antondimak (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

---

We now have 3 days of CfD to redo the work of the previous 4 CfD last month. There will be more.

1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages
2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages
3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages

Marcocapelle and Rathfelder and I have all tried to explain that to categorize an article at all, there need to be WP:RS; that we build categories from the top down, Greece to region to city.

In the first, I've also carefully described the two existing articles, having no WP:RS for their location. We don't build a tree 5 deep for 2 articles.

For example, in Efi Thodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all three of us have removed the non-reliably sourced low-level category, and always immediately been reverted.

For our troubles, we have been repeatedly called pejorative names:

• "ridiculous"
• "it constitutes vandalism"
• "confused"
• "removed 5 articles ... in order to avoid discussion"
• "purposefully ignored them in order to misrepresent the situation"
• "*wrong*, some to a comical degree"
• "confused"
• "disruptive"

Also Antondimak recently called me personally a liar:

• "at this point I can't even trust that what you say is true"

That was only the first CfD. We didn't discover the additional deception until the second day. Then I posted this notice, and JJMC89 uncovered more deception.

CfD already had the discussions in December. I was not a part of it. Once those discussions were closed, I've tried to enforce the decisions. Instead, we're back at CfD again.

Now we have a retaliatory report. When I'd first looked this morning, it had been rapidly closed by an administrator. Apparently, Antondimak re-opened it. That doesn't make it any more valid.

Because no action has been taken here, we've endured 2 more days of verbal diarrhea.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting coming from the user who refused to listen to anything I have said and deeply mistrusted me from the beginning, until I was forced to believe it was deliberate and couldn't assume good faith anymore. The user who dragged me here and did all that which I describe below. I also like how you call "purposefully ignored them in order to misrepresent the situation" a "pejorative" name. All the actual adjectives referred to arguments and actions, and were never directed towards users, as any third party could check. In fact, this last phrase: "we've endured 2 more days of verbal diarrhea", regarding what I wrote, is the most offensive thing said in this entire discussion yet. Anyway, this is probably my last comment on the matter here. You are free do destroy all the categories you desire. I have now learned a lesson to always act first when I notice obviously bad-faith behaviour, or else the other party will be able to construct an entire narrative, so thank you. --Antondimak (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible attempt at avoiding discussion, and possible intentional misunderstanding by User:William Allen Simpson

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I should have posted this as soon as I saw it happening, but instead I decided to wrongly assume good will despite the obvious signs to the contrary. I am also unsure if this constitutes an actual violation, but the way things turned out I believe I have to talk about it, and an administrator can tell me if this isn't an actual issue.

On 13 January 2021, this user went to the following categories: Category:People from Argithea, Category:People from Acheloos, Category:People from Anatoliki Argithea, Category:People from Archanes, Category:People from Pteleos, Category:People from Almyros, Category:People from Asterousia, and Category:People from Sourpi. They edited all of the articles belonging to them, removing them from their relevant categories. Each time there was a different excuse. Sometimes they made false claims regarding Greek geography. Other times they claimed there were no references, sometimes correctly, other times falsely. In this case, the issue should be brought up in the talk page, and if the contentious fact can't be sourced, it is removed from the article, and then from the relevant category, which follows the article. Instead it was just used as an excuse to remove the article from the category, sometimes adding it to a different one. Other times, they didn't use any excuse, as happened in the case of Category:People from Sourpi, which was emptied of its five articles, without any explanation for why. Every time they emptied a category, they then tagged it for speedy deletion as empty.

I am a major contributor to this category tree, and have created many of these articles, so I was notified in my watchlist when it happened. I went and reversed the edits, each time explaining what was wrong with them (except the final five ones which had no explanation for why they were removed, so I had nothing to respond to).

They then misrepresented my edits, as if they they were disruptive, like they hadn't read my reasoning/edit summaries, or as if I hadn't provided any, and opened a discussion to delete the categories, for various reasons, which I have already explained as false. They went and found the result of a previous discussion, where as I have explained I fought with a bot to reverse a buggy merge, mentioning in the next discussion on the same issue the need to find an actual solution (not a general "merge" left up to a bot) to deal with the general issue, and tried to use it to exclude me from the discussion. They have claimed that the categories constitute "Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages", and I have explained to them how they obviously don't. They tried to claim that Greek regional units/prefecture, which they tried to upmerge to, essentially constitute metropolitan areas, which they obviously do not, as I explained to them. They keep talking about lack of references, no matter whether they actually exist or not, and despite the fact that this is an issue to be raised about the article first and not its categorisation. They keep claiming that these places "no longer exist", which is obviously false and originally seems to be the result of a misunderstanding regarding the renaming of Greek administrative divisions in 2011. I have wasted a lot of my time explaining these things again and again, but the claims are repeated over and over again. They keep pushing for more and more extreme deletions, now trying to upmerge everything to first level divisions, something which seems to not have been done for any other country in Wikipedia, and which would result in unreasonably large categories. Among all the noise, there is an actual issue raised, which is the small number of articles in each category, which we however can't focus on because of all the mentioned noise.

Seeing how far this insignificant issue has gone, I can't believe that the misunderstanding isn't intentional. It's what should have been obvious from the start of this whole thing, with the series of targeted mistaken edits. It's not that they didn't see that some of the articles had references. It's not that they didn't see the more specific information about the people's origin written in the article. It's not that they didn't understand that prefectures aren't metropolitan areas, or that collections of towns aren't streets. At least that's what I have come to believe.

I can not claim that there is some ulterior motive, simply because it's impossible for me to imagine one. After a point I could think it could amount to simple stubbornness, but then how is the first round of removals explained?

Anyway, I reiterate that I do not know whether any of this is an actual violation, and I can't request any kind punishment, but it needs to be resolved one way or another because this, and this whole situation (referring to what I wrote above regarding the Efi Thodi article under my own case here, as an example), is driving me crazy.

--Antondimak (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It would help if both editors communicated directly with each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note for anyone reading; this appears to be a retaliatory report in response to this report above. — Czello 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• For everyone's convenience, I've moved this report into a sub-section of the above-mentioned report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears to me that Antondimak is unable to accept that he could ever be wrong and has some fairly fundamental misunderstanding of how categorisation works. Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't care anymore. I will leave you to do whatever you want with the categories. I know I am right in this case. It's either that or me and every person who lives in Greece, who I have explained this situation to, is wrong as well. I hold no grudge against you, it's just an issue about a foreign country far from your area of expertise. Maybe an issue would be that you are so persistent about it, and can't accept a correction from a native, but that would only be the case if you were alone in this. Given the circumstances, and the fact that there are al least three people on the other side, I would almost certainly think Antondimak was either lying or delusional if I were you (which may make you understand how hilarious it looks from my point of view). --Antondimak (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Secretly recreating categories that were deleted in a CfD discussion is not acceptable. It is very well possible that the (execution of) the CfD outcome in December led to unforeseen issues (or to foreseen but underestimated issues), but those issues should have been flagged and discussed in a transparant way, for example by contacting the closer of the discussion at their talk page or by starting a follow-up discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories. Transparency is an absolute necessity for controversial issues to be solved. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I urged people to find a more general solution in the followup discussion. There were and are going to be a lot of discussions about this, and it would be better if, whatever the decision is, it is enacted in an organised way. --Antondimak (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I urged people to find a more general solution in the followup discussion. And you also recreated categories using character substitution, which can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to hide the recreation. You should have ONLY "urged people" instead of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I changed the character in order not to fight with a bot, not in order to hide it. If you retrieve my edit summaries from when I did it (which I think is possible for the administrators), you will see that that's what I did. In retrospect, seeing how this turned out, I admit it was probably not a good idea. Anyway, I have left the debate and only comment on it from now on, so this isn't an issue anyway. --Antondimak (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as CFD participant) Recreating categories that had Os with omicron symbols is pretty egregious. Obviously Antondimak has experience using Greek alphabet so I wanted to somehow say the substitution was accidental but the timing makes it far fetched to assume good faith. I don't think most the discussion above is relevant: the editor created look alike categories to subvert CFD and should be sanctioned. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Content manipulation

Content dispute. Not an AN/I issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Someone has edited the alternative medicine pages describing them as fraudulent pseudoscience. This is incorrect. Naturopathic medicine is based off of biochemistry and scientific evidence. Traditional medicines have helped many people for decades who cannot afford conventional medicine or may not have access to it. To simple state fraudulent medicine and pseudoscience is simply incorrect. I believe this has been written because of lack of wanting to understand and some random vendetta. Controlling public content to this degree is wrong. I changed one thing without explanation and someone locked me out. I didn't realize I HAD TO write an explanation, and would gladly give one, but now it's apparently to late. Wikipedia is edited by anyone, you cannot believe everything on here. It is simple someone's opinion. Take it with a grain of salt and do your own research away from Wikipedia and their, clearly, fascist editors. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit101123456 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, misrepresentation of sources by User:Alexbrn on Nutrisystem

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.

---

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

Nutrisystem is a business that sends persons who want to lose weight portion-controlled meals to help them lose weight.

The lead in the article for Nutrisystem describes a systematic review in 2014 that examined previous studies on Nutrisystem's efficacy. The systematic review concluded that, as a weight-loss tool, Nutrisystem "demonstrates better short-term weight loss than control/education and behavioral counseling." However, the systematic review could not draw any conclusion about Nutrisystem's long-term efficacy because there were no long term studies on the matter. To quote the systematic review again: "we identified no long-term trial results. We conclude that Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions."

User:Alexbrn repeatedly is misrepresenting this systematic review in an apparent attempt to make Nutrisystem look ineffective. Most recently, he has edited the page to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that "The authors recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence [than Nutrisystem], in preference." This is pure invention on his part; this claim appears nowhere in the source, which concludes that "Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions.".

Alexbrn is also engaged in another, more subtle form of misinformation and misrepresentation. He has repeatedly (e.g.: 1) (2) (3) (4) inserted the claim that there is "no good evidence of any benefit [from Nutrisystem] in the longer term".

Alexbrn's use of the qualifying adjective good in the phrase "no good evidence" implies that there is some kind of evidence, presumably bad evidence; but in fact there is no evidence whatever for or against long-term efficacy because, as the paper says, there are simply no long term trial results regarding Nutrisystem. I have explained why this language is misleading, and multiple other users have pointed out the same problem on the talk page. Yet Alexbrn swiftly reverts any attempt to replace his misleading language with a simple quote or paraphrase of the actual conclusion from the authors, namely that Nutrisystem is promising but the absence of long-term studies prevent a definitive conclusion.

As noted above, Alexbrn also has added to the lead the claim that the authors of the systematic review "recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence [than Nutrisystem], in preference," a claim that he completely made up, and contradicts the actual conclusion drawn by the authors.

Can someone warn or sanction this guy? I have explained to him why his edits are misleading, erroneous, and tendentious and find myself incapable of AGF at this point. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Largely a content dispute. But I'd note that coming to ANI to demand sanctions while at 3RR[130][131][132], and failing to engage with the points raised at Talk:Nutrisystem#Reversions is ... courageous.

As to the accusation that I "completely made up" the claim that the source recommends other diet programmes instead, it says this:

Clinicians could consider referring patients with overweight or obesity to Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig. Other popular programs such as NutriSystem show promising weight loss results; however, additional studies evaluating long-term outcomes are needed.

Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your quote supports my claim that you were engaged in OR ("making it up"). LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Well either I don't understand English or something very odd is going on then! My summary seems good. You might legitimately disagree in some minor way, but the accusation that it is "completely made up" is false. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is a content dispute on ANI? Why are you coming to ANI to claim someone made something up when it's a simple content dispute over the best way to summarise something? Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This really should have gone to the dispute resolution noticeboard first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

NEW AN/I THREAD
PROBLEM ACUTE!
CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION
"CONTENT DISPUTE"
Burma-shave

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE, vandalism and POV-pushing by User:Pole6464

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.

---

• Pole6464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user since coming here has shown a host of biased edits, which show he has no real interest in adhering to the policies ad improving Wikipedia. His very first edit is on Pinchas Winston, where he agrees with his comments about Big Tech being like pharaohs and adds his long statements in a list of his publications (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinchas_Winston&diff=prev&oldid=1000710220).

On John Earle Sullivan he decides to cherry-pick his tweets about burning down the system [133] due to the fact that right-wingers have been trying to allege leftist involvement in the recent Capitol riots and Sullivan participates in left-wing protests. He had been arrested for alleged involvement too. On his talk page User talk:Pole6464 I've already told him he can't keep on adding whatever he wishes to. He's even confirmed in his comments on talk page he's doing it to point out left-wing involvement. [134]

He continues to indulge in a vandal-like behavior by mocking me as socialist guy (my name is just for a joke but he'll pick on it anyway) or making random comments like "This is HISTORY". He also added his own unproven claims about what hashtags Sullivan used the most and what he supported, then he used sources which don't back up what he's claiming [135]. He also tried to falsely claim he is an antifa member [136] even though he isn't identified as part of any antifa organisations [137].

It is clear this guy is not here to contribute and only to indulge in whatever he wants to, no matter the rules and even if he acts like a vandal. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Doug Weller, I saw you warned them, to no avail; we've already wasted too much time on this nonsense, and I blocked per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

IP range User:130.105.10.0/24

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.

---

• 130.105.10.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This venue is now a last resort because an IP on this range removed a copyvios tag on Pop Girls. This entire range appears to be disruptive with no effort to discuss when contested. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rangeblocked by Widr for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Steveengel

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.

---

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

I'm not sure what Steveengel (talk · contribs) is up to, but their edits for the last three days have been strictly almost entirely confined to copying bits of material from Talk:Gab (social network) to their userpage [138] (which I've blanked pending this discussion) and a subpage [139] (which was nominated for deletion as an attack page (and which was properly declined by Liz), together with a list of the editors who have been editing there. This editor first came to my attention when they complained about the "jew star" [140] in the sidebar, in their very first edit. There is a valid discussion to be had, which has been ongoing, about whether the article should be part of a series on anti-Semitism, in which Steveengel has not participated since starting the section - since renamed. Given the nature of editing associated with Gab (social network) and their choice of words in their initial edit, I don't think it's appropriate to compile lists of editors on that topic on a userpage, especially as a single focus on WP. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I filed the request for deletion because having a list of editors, and copying the comments of various editors, looked like it was trying to put aside attack material as you said (in particular, having a list of editors). That being said, this [141] still just seems weird.

I'm also concerned by their linking a Gab account on their user page (prior to Acroterion's blanking it for WP:UPNOT).

I listed some specific concerns and evidence related to possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Steveengel. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You people are insane. I created a space on gab recently. I went to their wikipage. i thought it was crap. Now I'm thinking there must be a conflict of interest for this page to be so slanted. The scary "list" was copypasted from here ::https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Gab_%28social_network%29/

i'm not familiar with wikipedia rules, im a newb. I didnt know i couldn't simply collect research material to my own user page. Steveengel (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We're not insane. Why are you compiling lists of editors? Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm following a lead that that the main editors to the gab page are biased, so I copy/pasted a list of editors that have made the most edits to the gab wiki page, then I went and looked at their user pages to see if there was any indications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And how do you plan to use that information? Acroterion (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As the first editor on your "list", I am enormously creeped out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't take literary genius to go to Gabs wiki page and see why so many people take issue with it & subsequently the editing behind it. Its a crap page. It looks like somebody took a big ol crap on their page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs)

Do what your gonna do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On that page, you appear to be accusing of conflict of interest editors who widely edit the encyclopedia's many topics. On the other hand, WP:SPA is more plausible evidence of WP:COI. You also accuse them of bias, but Wikipedia articles shouldn't be the mouthpiece for companies and organizations and should instead rely on reliable independent sources. It's normal that those sources don't portray it in the light Gab or its users would like. —PaleoNeonate – 21:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Would I be out of order to propose a WP:NOTHERE block? (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Based on their edits since this thread was opened, I'm not sure what this user's goal is unless it's to get blocked.--Jorm (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold Steveengel (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• As it is blatantly obvious, given the above and this, that this user is not here to help build an encyclopedia and accordingly is now indefinitely blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Martevenere

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.

---

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

Sockpuppet of recently blocked AnatoLion, block evasion, same kind of disruptive editing with personal attacks in summary [142] (this time against @Coderenius:). Given the history of AnatoLion and this one, time to indef both as per WP:NOTHERE (@Ymblanter:). --A.Savin (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Now blocked; I threw in the sock Izmir photos (talk · contribs) for free. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

XIIIfromTokyo

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

The user XIIIfromTOKYO has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants".

I tried to add a story that is all over the news the best I can, and it made XIIIfromTokyo say about me: "Junk sources, fraudulent use of references, and abusive promotion of Paris Assas University. Nothing New."

Last ANI by Guy Macon listing all the previous ANI about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#XIIIfromTOKYO_%28need_an_admin_who_speaks_French%29

Thank you.

--Delfield (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is a pretty serious BLP issue, dealing with the ongoing sex crime accusations against Olivier Duhamel. I know that's somewhat afield from what OP is concerned with—that XIIIfromTOKYO's references to "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University" is directed towards Delfield. Interestingly, the content at issue does not seem to discuss Paris Assas University, and in fact seems to be a throwback to accusations made in a SPI case opened against Delfield that closed without action. I think there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, thank you for clarifying that--it's very interesting. As for the accusations, XIIIfromTOKYO's comment strikes me as nothing but hot air. If XIII means that the edits, which are well-verified (what's "junk" about this?), are an attack on SciPo and thereby promote the competitor--well that's far-fetched. What I do know, and I've noticed this before, is that the article is way too promotional and needs pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{Failed verification}} & {{Better source}} to the article [143]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[144]. Other references were used to write elements that were not in the references. Once again, I'm not alone to claim that. Evidences have been provided already by Asterix757[145][146].

And once again, Delfield promotes Assas University. Without adding a single reference, Delfield wrote that "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students". It's nothing but Delfield's opinion, and it promotes Paris Law School. And guess who wrote all the articles related to that so called Paris Law School/Assas University... Further details can be found at the Launebee/Delfield SPI case. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO, I said elsewhere that that one edit doesn't prove "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University"--not in the slightest. Nor does the "better source needed" by Asterix757 add up to "junk sources"--again you are conveniently leaving out that there were references to Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times. And while you claimed "fraudulent use of references", which is an unacceptable personal attack if not rigorously proven, I see no evidence of that. Again, there's Asterix, who said "incorrectly used" on the talk page--whether that's correct or not is immaterial to me, but it's acceptable to speak in that way.

No, it seems clear to me that you violated the outcome of that ANI thread. BD2412, I think a block is in order, given your conclusion here. Delfield may be a sock, I don't know, but XIIIfromTOKYO was warned, and in this very thread they had an opportunity to retract the worst of their personal attacks; they didn't. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm notified, I presume I can make some remarks. First of all, I understand that there are past conflicts that may lead to these attacks. But from my fresh point of view, and only about Sciences Po article, recents contributions of Delfield about Duhamel's scandal were indeed problematics. The question of poor quality of "Gala" refs is in fact secondary (and now Delfield change them for "Libération" which is better), the worst problem is that good sources like "Le Monde" has been used incorrectly as I said (in French we may say "détournement de source"). I presumed good faith and tried to tag to see an improvment. But later changes, and removal (of tag {{Failed verification}} whithout changing sentence, or of Sciences Po statement regarding sexual violence related by NYT) are still questionable. But I don't want to be involved in some never ending dispute. I suggest XIIIfromTOKYO to apologize for the use of harsh words such as fraudulent. If one wants the truth to prevail one should stay moderate and polite, despite possible exasperation. Asterix757 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have spent weeks to document a SPI case against Launebee/Delfield, a case that was openned by MePhisto.

The current incident was opened by Asterix757 [147]. I quote "written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article[148]" :

"pretending facts that are not in the sources" is not different to "fraudulent use of references". I'm strictly following the openning statement.

Gala is nothing more than a tabloid. See the SPI for more input on the use of that kind of material. Asterix757 has provided more element on that newspaper[149], so I don't know what I can provide on top of that.

In the openning statement, Asterix only mentionned Gala. I answered on that statement, and that statement only. I don't know why " Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times " are mentionned by Drmies, since neither I nor Asterix mentionned them. I didn't make or intended to make a comment on the quality of these newpapers. @Drmies: you need to provide a link to support your accusation or remove it.

"abusive promotion of Paris Assas University". Links have been provided on the SPI, I not going to copy-paste everything here.

So, may we talk about the overabundance of {{Failed verification}} that need to be added to Delfield's work. Where does the line between "honnest mistakes" and "fraudulent use of references" can be drawn ? 3 contributors, myself included, have reported multiples issuses in the past months. That's the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't make accusations here, or write down edits, based on claims made elsewhere. The SPI doesn't even mention Gala, and at any rate that's subject matter for a community discussion on WP:RSN. Same with "abusive promotion"--if you make a very serious claim here, you need to substantiate it here. No, I am not convinced by anything you say here, and I stand by my point: you are making unacceptable and unsubstantiated personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is 25'000 bytes long, and the link has been provided. I not going to burry the whole discussion by c/c it here, that would be a WP:POINT. You refuse to click on the link, that's fine. But don't make claim that I didn't provided a link, I did.

You have just removed 8 times materials from the Assas University, on the ground that these abstracts were too promotional[150]. You do it 8 times on the edit summary, it's acceptable, I do it once with a 25'000 SPI bytes, it's not ?

You have just removed a full paragraph because, according to you "whether Eduniversal is a good enough source for this remains to be seen"[151], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it[152], this subject matter has do go through community discussion and approuval beforehand. An American contributor can make that kind of comment about a website written in French, but two French contributors have to go through community approuval first, even if references have been provided.

I hope that you understand that at this point, you have been doing nothing less than I have.

Do you have any comment about Delfield's comments on my sanity (see Comment 1 and Comment 2) ? Why is it acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I did not read what was written under this thread. I will just say that I read what Drmies wrote in the Sciences Po talk page (how I have to improve the section), it totally makes sense and I will try to improve the section. Feedback is very helpful. I think it is something different than having constant personal attacks about my motives after I edit an article or write something in a talk page, without any help on content, as it has been going on for quite some time now, since I began to edit the Sciences Po page.

I also kindly let know the admins of the problem I wanted information on there. XIII is clearly using the talk pages and filling them with statements about a university he does not seem to like, for whatever reason. He was recently claiming things in this university talk page that other contributors assessed as wrong and he is once again pursuing this obsession with section. I am not pursuing this if admins think it is not worth looking at, I just wanted to raise the issue.

--Delfield (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"pursuing this obsession you say "[153] ? You are questionning my sanity, that kind of statement in not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a colloquial expression, not a medical diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: see the edit at Comment 2[154] : The use of websites like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-health clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[155]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented that diff as if it applied to the "obsessed" statement. It has nothing to do with that, and it seems you're determined to distort this matter until it suits your agenda. 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment 2: To admins: I won't engage with XIII at all. He has been harassing me and the only way not to be a victim a such verbal abuse is to just ignore him if possible.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-mysteries-love/201612/the-best-way-end-verbal-abuse I made a report, you assess the situation in whatever way you want. He is trying a classic debate technique: make a scandal about the report so that the original issue get drowned in the smoke (what they call gaslighting: https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/what-is-verbal-abuse#gaslighting). I won't fall for that and I leave it to you, as I did last time (I did not comment), even though nothing was decided in ANI and even though the comment section proved him wrong and XIII was imo aggressive toward Narky Blert as an answer there (pointing imaginary mistakes instead of kindly discuss content).

Psychological health is therefore the reason I am not answering to XIII or going deeper in the ANI dispute. Thank you.

--Delfield (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You have already made comments about my mental health, and I have clearly told you that it was not acceptable. Yet, you made the choice to keep the discussion on that track, conspicuously using website like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-healt.

You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment[156] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs[157]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months[158][159][160]. Nothing came out of it, excpet a lot of wasted time on my side, thanks to the Brandolini's law. That is harrassment and playing the mental health game.

It's clear that Delfield is a new puppet of Launebee. It was banned for a reason. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, either file a WP:SPI or withdraw this accusation. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Already done by MePhisto who openned the investigation last August[161] . Already mentionned repeadly on that ANI, you can't have missed it. I have added some inputs to that SPI, and went as far as asking if he thought a third account should be added[162] before actually adding it. I haven't voiced an opinion that is not shared by at least one other contributor.

It took us 6 monhs to solve the issue at FR.Wiki, but it has been draging on for 4 years at EN.Wiki. It might be time to consider that you might be wrong on that. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A stale SPI from August is not a reason to repeat those accusations months later. Either file a new SPI with new evidence, or withdraw the claim. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify to the admins (I am not talking to XIII but to you admins): I was of course talking about my psychological health and my need to follow guidelines, but I guess it was clear enough. --Delfield (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) To clarify further: I am fine, these guidelines I follow are just to keep it this way. No risk of self-harm of course. --Delfield (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Lara Trump

Political trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Editors continue to include an intentionally less than flattering image of Lara Trump in the infobox of the article. Originally, This edit substituted a perfectly suitable image with a picture so unflattering it serves only to disparage the subject. For comparison, this is previous photo is the infobox image currently used at commons:Category:Lara Trump. I would go as far as saying this is in violation of the Biographies of Living People policy. Instead of allowing for the perfectly fine image across the platform, this was approved shortly after. I understand that people age, but it certainly looks like editors are attempting to portray the subject in the worst way possible. We all get age lines and wrinkles, it isn't going away. However, there is problem when a 38 year old woman has images that make here look several years older or in some comical sense used in a BLP. There are dozens of more appropriate images to chose, and anyone following neutrality could pick one. I don't believe editors have acted in good faith and am interested in poking about the real issue for a month while they play games. Talk:Lara Trump#Lead Image. When I brought it up at the BLP noticeboard I was told it was not urgent. These are the sort of things that spriral out of control and become urgent when it is a BLP and Wikipedia is at liability. There is zero reason not to eliminate the image and allow discussion... editors are not allowing that since it seems like a game to them. 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Hard to see why admin intervention would be needed. There is a talk page discussion and a BLPN post -- plenty of attention on this content dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC) There is no reason to not take action on this other than politics. It is a BLP. Editors are intentionally trying to make the subject look silly or unattractive. You would feel the same if it was your favorite rock star or celerity. A disgusting gross double standard applied against the guidelines this very platform is established on. 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC) The supposedly BLP violating picture of Lara Trump A content discussion, not a BLP violation by any stretch of the word. A perfectly acceptable image which in no way displays her in a negative light. ANI discussion should be closed, article talk page discussion is sufficient. What you are doing here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Fram (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A: as it says in very large writing at the top, you need to notify Tym2412 that you have raised an ANI topic about his edit. I have done that for you. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Comment - I was unaware of this discussion. To me, the three photos you've linked are of equal merit. I don't see how any one of them is unflattering. (Not that it is Wikipedia's job to flatter.) I suggest you withdraw this complaint. Deb (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review - qanon username

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 review my block. I blocked WWG1WWA2021 based on their username. WWG1WWA is a QAnon saying, "Where We Go One, We Go All". On the basis of WP:USERNAME, I issued a hard block. Without meaning to imply they are equivalent, we frequently issue blocks around Fourteen Words. I'd appreciate hearing if people believe this block is inappropriate. Note also this discussion is about my block, my specific action, not about that editor, so I have chosen not to notify them. If you think this is in error, I'll be happy to notify them (or you can). --Yamla (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since Special:Contributions/WWG1WWA2021 is about as textbook an example of WP:NOTHERE as it's possible to be, so they're not getting unblocked whatever name they use. (On the specific topic of the name, I wouldn't block for it if any only if they stayed totally away from US politics and stuck to editing the history of pedigree cats or whatever; what one thinks of QAnon is beside the point as we'd block User:Vote_Biden or whatever just as readily.) ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Erm, yep, this is a NOTHERE editor who couldn't really be further from HERE if they tried. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Also the acronym would be WWG1WGA. Another Jenius! —valereee (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, that's too funny 🤣🤣 Bacondrum (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello Wikipedia

• The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:3681:2300:1510:5657:46D4:9E27 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I did want to report the harassment committed by The Banner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Banner). The user was engaged in behavior that goes against the conduct of Wikipedia and was disrupting the working relationships required to cooperatively work together. The user has intentionally committed name-calling and hurtful comments towards me. The following is verbatim what the user wrote:

curprev 21:21, 14 January 2021‎ 87.198.60.169 talk‎ 40,697 bytes −253‎ →‎Passenger: DL and UA don’t operate at SNN and have no intention to resume. Some idiot living in fantasy land has no source, and yet keeps adding these. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Manual revert”

curprev 18:12, 17 January 2021‎ 2a02:8085:3240:c080:2d8c:c876:15a6:5af6 talk‎ 40,556 bytes −290‎ →‎Passenger: AA's route resumption date is irrelevant and DL DOES NOT FLY TO SNN ANYMORE. THE ROUTE IS TERMINATED FOR NOW. WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

This behavior does not contribute towards a safe nor inclusive editing environment required to collaboratively work together. Please take necessary action to help contribute to the welfare of the community that helps make Wikipedia a better place for all. I am urging you to advocate to make this a more inclusive and positive environment for all editors, practitioners, and readers to enjoy. The anger from this user must be eradicated. Thank you for your concern and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3681:2300:1510:5657:46D4:9E27 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, to quote the Hon. Matthew W. Brann: Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling [something] unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here. I can't even immediately tell (and am not inclined to search myself) what page/s this is even in reference to. Also, you failed to inform The Banner about this complaint, as is required. I will do this for you. El_C 23:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't even find the links the IP is referring to in either the listed IP address talk page history, Shannon Airport history, or The Banner's contribution history. Unless someone revdel'ed them, I am starting to think someone is trying to get them blocked. spryde | talk 23:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Spryde, even revdeleted edits still show up as something. Same with suppressed ones. I'm not sure there's actually a way to fully purge something from an edit history, save perhaps in some super-dev way. El_C 23:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits in question are on the Shannon Airport article, however not by The Banner. They’ve been made by other IPs: special:Diff/1000379276 special:Diff/1000984810. NJD-DE (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot twist! El_C 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's hard to tell at a glance because of how they were posted and I'm pretty sure that's deliberate, the IP addresses who actually made those edits are right there in the quoted text. I hear a whistling noise - pretty sure it's an incoming WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the complex of IPs and one account were in fact removing sourced information. That an airline remove an airport out of his list of current destinations is normal, but that does not mean that a temporary suspended flight is permanently out of the air. Especially when there are sources available that state that the airline will be back in 2021 or 2022. The Banner talk 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Admins, regarding creating new articles on schools in kashmir.

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

---

Dear Admins, I wanted to ask that can i create new articles for schools in kashmir, i have noticed that there are many major famous private schools which aren’t available on wikipedia. I have seen many school articles without any references, so i wanted to clear my doubt on how does the articles on schools work? Extremely sorry if i am asking a silly question but I don’t want to make mistakes again like i did in the past by giving incorrect references or other typing mistakes, that’s why i want to be confirm on this. And after creating the draft should i submit them to Articles for creation process or just move it to the mainspace by myself? Thanks. Hums4r.(Talk to me here) 00:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r—while I am not an Admin, let me say that a better place to ask this and many related questions might be Wikipedia:Teahouse. Bus stop (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop Hi Sir, hope you’re safe and doing good, i am new to wikipedia and learning, as mentioned above I’ve made some mistakes in the past and to avoid them i posted this here to seek advice from admins so that i make no mistake at all and I don’t violate any of wiki’s policies. Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll post it there.

I appreciate your response, Have a good Day/Night Ahead. Hums4r.(Talk to me here) 00:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible not to make mistakes. To err is human. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Saflieni

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

---

• In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Saflieni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HouseOfChange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous (very long) ANI

Saflieni is disruptive.

• He is recently back from a one week block for PAs. He spent that week posting attacks on other users, meditating how he could accuse people of "lies" without getting blocked again, and planning an ArbCom request, where he again attacked other editors.

• Today, Saflieni is trying to restore a sentence he regards as "my deleted edit." Both Buidhe and I explained WP:OR on the talk page, that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Salfieni ignores our policy concerns, responding I have explained several times that I fairly summarized what is in the book. Repeating a false OR accusation many times while ignoring my answer each time is not respectful and not helpful.

• Saflieni is defensive about "his" edits and contemptuous of criticism. Consider, for example, this discussion of whether the article should include the phrase "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert". Buidhe, Drmies, and I all agreed that this comment was not representative. Saflieni continued to argue that his own opinion should override our consensus:

• This is like two or three people claiming the Eiffel Tower is in Madrid
• that remark you've removed is not only true but also very relevant, whether the "unschooled in matters Rwandan" disagree and form consensus or not
• You're an editor on Wikipedia, not equipped to pass judgments about analyses in journal articles you don't understand.

• The book's subtitle is "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front," and reviewers typically say the book is about RPF "crimes," mostly during the 1990s. But Saflieni does not want the article to mention RPF crimes. He insists that The main topic of the book is double genocide. When, after fruitless debate, I created a section on the Talk page to show examples of what RS say the book is "about", he chose to provide no evidence for his opinion but instead attacked me for requesting evidence.

Saflieni is WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. His BATTLEGROUND attitude wastes the time of other editors. Please block him from further disruption, at the very least from Rwanda-related articles, where he considers himself an expert. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Due to the serious issues with their behavior, I would support a topic ban in Rwanda-related articles or from the topic of this book more specifically. Saflieni unfortunately doesn't seem to have learned the appropriate lesson from being blocked, i.e. that personal attacks are unacceptable. (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

These repeated attempts to paint me into a corner are pure harrassment. HoC and Buidhe have taken turns to delete and revert my edit, one of the last remaining, to dodge 3RR.[163][164][165] Digging up old diffs and quoting me out of context? Please. Saflieni (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: If you repeatedly insert an inflammatory and misleading claim into a Wikipedia page, one governed by BLP, then 3RR doesn't even apply to taking that claim out again. As for "old diffs," some diffs from Jan 7 of PAs and failure to AGF:

• The resumption by HoC and Buidhe of edit warring to get rid of my edits, even the old ones, and the continued posting of insults against scholars and me personally ...the posting of suggestive edit summaries accusing me of dishonesty, etc. I'm curious to learn what else the arbitrators expected would happen after handing them a free pass[166]
• They've continued to add insults to the Talk page and basically do whatever they want with the article. They're now taking turns deleting/reverting my edits to circumvent the 3RR rule.[167]
• Please feel free to look at my edit summaries to see which ones are "suggestive" or accuse Saflieni of dishonesty. And feel free to compare Saflieni's edit summaries.HouseOfChange (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

First it was "inaccurate" and now suddenly it's "inflammatory and misleading" and "governed by BLP". Sure, keep putting on that show and the sooner the folks over here will get wise to what's going on here. For the record: I haven't seen so many untruthful statements in my life as I have over the past couple of months during this case on Wikipedia. I can't be the only one noticing this, I'm sure. Saflieni (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support WP:TBAN per HouseOfChange. Having been a part of the previous thread this is my vote. Vikram Vincent 05:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Saflieni is still finding it difficult to differentiate between criticism and a personal attack and is still indulging in personal attacks during discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Detailed response by Saflieni:

1. Trying to punish me twice for the same offenses without clear and convincing new evidence is against Wikipedia policy. WP:HA says: Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor. And: It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user. WP:IUC lists ill-considered accusations of impropriety as an example of rudeness, and lying and quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say as examples of uncivil behaviour.
2. HoC says:Please block him from further disruption, at the very least from Rwanda-related articles, where he considers himself an expert. This sums up what this ANI complaint is all about: I'm knowledgeable about the subject and that's bothering the other two contributors because I keep confronting them with real and verifiable evidence from the literature which contradicts their POV.
3. This dispute is about content and should be decided on valid arguments, not by posting untruths in ANI complaints. Let me give a few examples of this:

• HoC says: Salfieni ignores our policy concerns. However, I followed the WP:NPOV guidelines. HoC doesn't agree with a brief content summary I made according to RS and the author herself. HoC and Buidhe for some reason only known to them do not want to give the aspects I mentioned a place in the article. Because they can't argue with RS, they either dismiss them as "anti-Rever militants" or worse [168], or they accuse me of biased editing and start dissecting every phrase, demanding that an exact match of the phrase must be somewhere in the book. So this is not about a "new analysis" or "synthesis" or ignoring a policy at all. My only "sin" here is to fairly represent the book's content based on ... carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
• HoC says: Saflieni is defensive about "his" edits and contemptuous of criticism. This refers to an old dispute where they falsely accused me of deliberately misquoting the literature. I have explained the truth of the matter several times in a civil tone, such as here: [169] and have invited others to check for themselves. However, this behaviour is more contemptuous: When HoC realizes they can't "win" a debate they respond by attacking scholars and dismissing my patient and careful explanations as: you've explained your reasons for not caring, so perhaps we are done here. [170]
• HoC says: But Saflieni does not want the article to mention RPF crimes. This is the type of framing they use all the time. The truth is that I have asked HoC several times to note that nobody contests RPF crimes, not the scholars I cite, nor me personally.[171][172] However, there's a difference between acknowledging the fact that criminal acts happened and quoting "guilty" verdicts against individuals or groups who have not been convicted by a court of law.
• HoC says: He insists that The main topic of the book is double genocide. More framing. Most subject matter experts regard the book as an indictment intended to prove a second genocide (making it a double genocide theory). It doesn't matter what I think about it. According to WP:DUE We have to represent the majority view of RS in this matter: ... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
• HoC says: he chose to provide no evidence for his opinion but instead attacked me for requesting evidence. But I did provide evidence, here for instance: [173]. HoC responded to it so he knows. Besides, RS listed by HoC support my argument, not his. I have shown this by quoting directly from one of the articles on HoC's short list (Claudine Vidal) which, by the way, is titled "Judi Rever will not let anything stand in the way of her quest to document a second Rwandan genocide", but if that's not clear enough I can do the same thing with other RS.
• I could make a list of personal attacks and expressions of sarcasm by HoC and Buidhe on the Talk page as well as in the edit summaries, but just look at tendentious section titles like this one: Caplan's "little doubt that the RPF under President Kagame is indeed guilty of war crimes" is more relevant to this article than disputes about funerary arrangements. Completely disrespectful. They themselves deserve a ban. Saflieni (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban from Rwanda-related articles, if only because maybe then we won't have to come back here again and face these Walls of Text. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies should disclose their personal feelings in this case and on the subject of the book. For awhile I couldn't understand their uncivil outbursts that follow me wherever I go, their false accusations, using words like bullshit while providing diffs that actually contradict their argument [174], until I saw their description of my careful efforts to explain the scholarly literature and improve the article: To see someone shit on that in that way, that's more than a bit hurtful. [175]. Besides incredibly rude, they're not leading by example WP:ADMINCOND, and it's definitely not a neutral approach of the subject.Saflieni (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Saflieni:: Clearly DrMies was upset that, instead of recognizing his efforts to inform himself and provide helpful input, you repeatedly claimed that he and EdJohnston were parroting "false accusations" without having read any sources, eg Most unsettling has been the quantity of false accusations with administrators echoing them without verification. Also, please re-read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
      • My personal feelings? It's a ridiculous amount of butter, but these are the best scones I ever made. I also have strong feelings about Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, and I wish you did. And your "careful edits to explain the scholarly literature"? Pshaw. And now I am here again, explaining for the third time to the ANI audience that you are the problem.

        a. My strong language was prompted by your dismissive and untruthful statement in that ridiculous arbitration case you filed, one of your many time sinks; again I'll say that you dismissed the good-faith effort I made for In Praise of Blood at a time when I disagreed with your opponents' claims, not yours. b. The actual edit in that diff contains yet another misrepresentation: my assessment of your misconduct was based on someone else's comment? Hell no--you did that all by yourself, on In Praise of Blood. c. You managed to upset a whole bunch of even-keeled people along the way, including EdJohnston, with your wikilawyering and your incessant complaints. d. Your fishing for my "opinion" on the book is just another example of bad faith. I'll give you my opinion: it is published, on paper and printed with ink, by a reputable publisher and got positive and negative reviews, and spawned an extensive discussion. There. Finally, "incredibly rude"--I bite my tongue every time I type yet another response to some wordy and false accusation by you. I'll change my mind about the topic ban I supported: you are NOTHERE to improve the project, and your very actions are toxic and destroy any desire to collaborate in order to improve articles. Do not ping me again, not even to notify me next time you pull an ANI or ArbCom stunt. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• If editors get so upset by the majority view among reliable sources that they resort to insulting main stream scholars and their work, and an editor who wants to give that majority view due weight, there is a bigger problem than my alleged "walls of text". For the record: my arbitration request was not "a stunt" but supported by 25 diffs; evidence of polarizing remarks and insults against scientists, mainly - not an exhaustive list.[176] Saflieni (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: Your ArbCom request was declined 0/7/0. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what HoC is implying but this information is not true. HoC has received the notification that I had withdrawn the request. I did that after three days (2 January) because the page was already flooded with new insults against scholars and the usual evidenceless "comments" by Drmies. Some arbitrators who had missed the email voted to decline because they regarded the case - about fringe theories and advocacy - as a content issue. None of them has commented on the evidence.Saflieni (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: On Jan 5, I got a notice on my talk page that "The case request Rwandan genocide has been declined by the Committee...<0/7/0>". Your having withdrawn your request does not change the fact that Your ArbCom request was declined 0/7/0 just as I stated. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've asked HoC to be honest. I'm asking again. This is the notification on HoC's Talk page: Rwandan genocide case request withdrawn by filing party [177] Saflieni (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-involved party with no interest in getting involved: Saflieni, this sort of bad-faith argumentation looks really bad for you. Regardless of whether formally the case ended because you withdrew it, it closed with 7 declines and no other votes; of all the claims in this uninteresting tangent, by far the most unreasonable is that HoC's description is in some way dishonest. --JBL (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain to me first why all the bad faith assumptions against me by HoC, Drmies and others are endorsed, and second what good intentions might have been in HoC's suggestive edit? I had just been pointing at my evidence for advocacy. HoC's response post suggests that this evidence was rejected, which is not true. This is all part of the framing I've explained in my detailed response on this page. And while we're on that subject, let me flag this one too: you repeatedly claimed that he and EdJohnston were parroting "false accusations" without having read any sources. That's a distortion again. I've asked them to check a specific section in a specific source because Drmies repeatedly accused me of misconduct based on something HoC had posted on the Talk page. I even provided a link to the (open) source. [178]. They never did but continue to accuse me of the same imaginary misconduct whenever they get a chance. Anyone can check this. Unfortunately nobody ever does. Saflieni (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please understand my role in this discussion: I sometimes browse ANI for amusement, and sometimes comment if I feel there is a simple, clear point to be made. Here is the simple, clear point: you made a specific claim that something HoC said was dishonest. But, it wasn't -- at absolute worst, it was technically incorrect. It's an extremely bad look to be accusing others of dishonesty in a situation where they were, at worst, technically incorrect; in particular, it will cause people not involved (like me) to view your comments with suspicion, and so it is counter-productive to whatever goals you might have in this discussion. --JBL (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your initial impression, and am even grateful that you took an interest in the case. But since I've explained the context and provided additional evidence I expected that to mean something. WP:GF says This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. I grant that this wasn't the best example, but it's the totality of the evidence that should be taken into consideration. It's all rather one-sided. Btw, HoC is still continuing the argument on their Talk page [179] Saflieni (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the article talk page, and the ArbCom case filing, I agree as an uninvolved administrator that a topic ban is appropriate. That having been said, I agree with Robert McClenon's comments at ArbCom when he says that this conflict could potentially be diffused by resolving the content dispute with the help of either DRN or RfC. If Saflieni is willing to comply with those processes and refrain from making allegations against other editors, a topic ban would likely be unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to know on what grounds people support or reject complaints. Last time I was blocked by an administrator who was involved in the content dispute and had posted a couple of verifiably (!) untrue accusations. Another one hounds me with false accusations and foul language, disrupting every procedure including this one. The editors who keep complaining are polarizing and confrontational, are uncooperative (they enforce their POV with 2:1 voting majority), they insult scientists, me, and use activists and other unreliable sources to inform the article, they downplay the fringe theories, and so on. I'm not aware of any significant wrongs on my part, especially after my block, that come anywhere near such behaviour. If anyone has questions they're welcome on my Talk page.
• On 3 January I responded to Robert McClenon's suggestion by posting this message on their Talk page: I would welcome an effort as suggested by you "to moderate a discussion to lead to a possible compromise, or (more likely) to facilitate a neutrally worded RFC." I foresee a limiting factor though which has hampered earlier attempts, which is a continuous distortion of the facts and the unwillingness by third parties to verify evidence. They didn't reply to it yet. Saflieni (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Saflieni, inasmuch as reaching out to Robert McClenon for mediation was a step in the right direction, the place to discuss setting up an RfC is on the talk page of the article in question, with the other editors involved in the dispute. If you take steps to do so now, keep your comments focused on the article content at issue rather than other editors' motives, and refrain from editing the article in the meantime, then I think that a topic ban will be unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Rosguill. I will do that. However, it is really tiresome to get the advice to not edit, when I have explained on this page and during other complaints that my edits keep disappearing, being deleted or reverted, never for a good reason. This started with my first edit of the article and the last time was just a few days ago. Whenever I start restoring, I find myself on this or that Noticeboard as a disruptive editor. Sometimes they leave some edits for awhile or even pretend to insert a part of my draft "verbatim", but soon afterwards they go again, one sentence after the other. It's vandalism in slow motion. But I'll try. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: It is the NORMAL Wikipedia process, not vandalism in slow motion for other editors to dispute, re-word, or even remove your edits. It is not normal to get angry if others don't want to keep, word for word, POV-pushing edits such as "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert" or your latest WP:SYNTH claim "The book describes the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a genocide comparable in scale and cruelty to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi" (when the book never compares the scale of the two events, and also never conjoins the two concepts of "scale and cruelty"). My warm wishes to all the kind editors who imagine that Saflieni will become a collaborative and civil user if only he spends time at DRN or RfC. I myself don't believe it. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat my POV again, which is still very simple: It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. What matters is what subject matter experts have published in RS. Why is this still a matter of debate after two months of misery? It will also have to be the subject of an RfC although the overall state of articles on this subject suggests there are few experts left here on Wikipedia who might be able to help out. We'll see. Saflieni (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: In Praise of Blood is an article about a book, which is "about" crimes by the Rwandan Patriotic Front, some of which were related to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Your repeated claim that only experts on Rwandan genocide have anything worthwhile to say about this book is misguided. Furthermore, claims you cherrypick out of these "expert" writings are often POV-pushing. For example, Gerald Caplan is a respected academic whose opinion on IPOB is well worth hearing. Consider this edit by Saflieni:

• Saflieni removes from the article "According to Caplan: the book 'had an immediate, destabilizing influence on the world of orthodox Rwandan scholarship', even though many of the accusations are not new." (p. 218)
• Saflieni inserts instead (and not a bad replacement except that it wrongly implies that Caplan's reservations about the book are what he "concludes") "Caplan acknowledges that Rever’s book "... presses all of us to give the uglier aspects of the RPF’s record the prominence they deserve," but he concludes: ... there are too many unnamed informants; too many confidential, unavailable leaked documents; too much unexamined credulity about some of the accusations; too little corroboration from foreigners who were eyewitnesses to history."
• Saflieni at the same time introduces a non-expert opinion from Caplan about Helen Epstein, "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert."
• Saflieni at the same time introduces a PEACOCKy description of a group criticizing Rever (not the book but the author) and quotes on their behalf a completely false claim against the book: 'During a promotional tour in Belgium which included speeches at three universities, a group of sixty scientists, researchers, journalists, historians and eye-witnesses such as Romeo Dallaire, published an open letter in Le Soir criticizing the universities for giving the impression that by promoting Judi Rever's book they supported her conspiracy theories and denial, noting that 'Whenever the author agrees to admit that Tutsi were massacred in Rwanda in 1994, it is in reality to affirm that they were massacred by other Tutsi!'" In conclusion, one can infer Saflieni's POV from his editing choices at IPOB. Also, people Saflieni agrees with always "note" things or "point out" things, unlike Judi Rever who "claims" things. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

These misrepresentations are personal attacks, not my POV. Moreover, most of the issues here have been discussed at length. Posting a warped one-sided version to discredit me again is uncivil and says more about HoC than about me. I'm not going to respond to them again. Saflieni (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As suggested by others, I am taking one of the content disputes with Saflieni to a content-dispute noticeboard, where people discuss content rather than other editors' behavior. I have tried to present our disagreement fairly, but no doubt Saflieni can present his own side better than I can, so I notified him on his talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Update Discussion proceeds at WP:NORN, with predictably uncivil remarks by Saflieni followed by more typically ad hominem claims. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• General remark: ANIs are pointless when they're used as a tool by hostile editors to railroad another one, when the defence of the accused is ignored, when evidence is misinterpreted, when relevant Wikipedia guidelines are neglected, when double standards are applied, and some editors come here to condemn me for old offenses that were already punished. I won't respond to any further harrassment on this page.Saflieni (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• It seems that Saflieni and HoC were able to resolve the content dispute through the ORN thread. While there were a few comments here and there that could be taken as personal attacks, it's somewhat understandable given the level of animosity on display here, and given that the content dispute appears to have been resolved and there have been no attempts to edit war since this discussion was opened, I think that this may be closed without action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rosguill: Respectfully, this ANI is not about one instance of edit-warring but about the fact that it is sheer torture to try to collaborate with Saflieni. The resolution at NORN was that the text he edit-warred to insert did violate WP:SYNTH, just as Buidhe and I multiply explained to him. Getting compromise on just one sentence took hours of my time and the help of two other editors. And of course he concludes with another blast of PAs: HoC and Buidhe reported me on ANI over the very issue that we've just solved here, which they wrapped in a bundle of fake facts that nobody is going to verify. If there really is a spirit to cooperate they'd have dropped that case by now. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight in anyone's BATTLEGROUND. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Rosguill while the issue is around content, I still do have concerns about Saflieni being able to work WP:CIVILly with other editors. A detailed examination of the conversations on the article talk page, ANI threads and OR thread show that they tend to use a bully approach with other editors by attacking them personally during content discussions and then tend to use a victim approach when cornered by the community. When this was pointed out to Saflieni they equated it to labelling them a liar. See Special:MobileDiff/1000466500, which is a complete mischaracterisation. A WP:TBAN will be appropriate until Saflieni can spend some time to reflect on their self-defeating approach. Vikram Vincent 07:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Vikram Vincent, In order to clear the air I've invited you and others who accuse me of something to come and discuss peacefully the facts of claims such as a bully approach with other editors by attacking them personally during content discussions and then tend to use a victim approach when cornered by the community.. Instead you come here and just repeat the same accusations. Another one responded by making general assertions about "some editors" to avoid having to examine the evidence and facing the possibility they might be wrong. Another one dismisses every factual explanation as "walls of text" or "bullshit" or "shitting on that" or "who the hell cares" etc. and posts one insult after the other without evidence. Who's bullying? Saflieni (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Saflieni I am no longer interested in mediating as I see no substantial behavioural changes on your part. Kindly don't tag me in any more replies. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 09:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Mediation requires taking the arguments of both sides into consideration. You did that on the OR Noticeboard for which I'm very grateful. But on this case you've made yourself part of the dispute last month. Don't pin that on me please. Once people form an opinion, there never seems to be a way back to reality. No amount of evidence is ever enough to change people's minds.Saflieni (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• NB: It is against Wikipedia policy to post falsehoods and insults about someone else, according to WP:IUC. Untrue statements like: The resolution at NORN was that the text he edit-warred to insert did violate WP:SYNTH, just as Buidhe and I multiply explained to him. violate that policy. The discussion at NORN did not conclude that I violated WP:SYNTH. The edit-war to remove my contribution from the article [180][181][182], should not be twisted into the opposite story. My contribution was already there, so nobody tried to "insert" it. A good example of wasting everyone's time: pretending that a paraphrased sentence from a peer reviewed article is original research of the editor; that a simple list of two concepts is somehow a newly synthesized thesis; starting an edit war over it; starting an ANI over it; having a lengthy discussion at NORN and then misrepresenting the result. Saflieni (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• • @Saflieni: it is not "you" but your text that I said violated SYNTH. As was explained to you, "I do not see the concepts of 'scale' and 'cruelty' in your citations' and later my personal interpretation of WP:NOR is that you should not add any information that is not explicitly stated in the source: you should just restate what the source says. The expressions were kindly and tactful but the meaning was clear: the sentence in dispute violated SYNTH. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

More falsehoods. Quoting someone's error from halfway into the discussion - they overlooked the three examples of RS that explicitly mention 'scale' and 'cruelty' - is disrepectful to that helpful editor and to the readers of this ANI. That same helpful editor concluded: There is ample room for compromise here: the relevant policies do not give a clear answer and it's probably somewhere in between both of your ideas. Last time I asked HoC to stop posting falsehoods I was blocked for that remark. However, the falsehoods never stopped, there are hundreds of examples by now. WP:AGF says: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. So I am asking the same question again. If others keep endorsing that behaviour and prefer to punish me for bringing it up, so be it. Saflieni (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can read the NORN discussion, where less than 24 hours ago Saflieni was accusing Vincentvikram of dishonesty: "accusations that are objectively false" and "calling me a liar ...Endorsing falsehoods and adding to the pile yourself is not helpful towards resolving the problem." Saflieni's response to Robert McClenon's kindly remark about "some editors" is just classic NOTHERE-ism: "Not sure what you're referring to, but a civil way to handle a complaint would be to go over the evidence together and try to resolve the issue. I'm not 'some editors'. I'm an actual person with feelings, thank you.." CS Lewis had a description for this kind of "actual person": someone who bleeds at a touch but scratches like a wildcat. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems my last comment calling for a close was premature. Saflieni has continued to deflect appropriate requests for sources ([183]) and to snipe at HoC ([184] ). I also reviewed the discussion at that talk page in its entirety, and affirm the assessment of other editors that Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. Saflieni has at this point been given more than enough opportunities to bury the hatchet and it seems like a topic ban is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Do it, User:Rosguill! Drmies (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Logged and notified. I've set the scope as "Rwandan history, broadly construed", splitting the difference between calls to t-ban from Rwanda in general and In Praise of Blood specifically. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Can you all please pause and take a look at what you're saying?

1. Vincentvikram: Your repeated accusation of bullying has no evidence. That makes it a personal attack. Besides, read WP:CRYBULLYING please. You refused my offer to discuss the matter peacefully.
2. Robert McClenon's "kindly remarks" (according to HoC) are textbook examples of depersonalizing. That's one step away from dehumanizing. He too did not produce any evidence and refused my offer to discuss the facts of the matter.
3. Rosguill: Your two diffs are not evidence at all. That's misleading. The first diff is me asking HoC why they ask questions that I've already answered many times, latest here: [185]. So your accusation that I deflect requests for sources is a false accusation. The second diff is my response to HoC misrepresenting Claudine Vidal's article, the one I had used as evidence. HoC twisted her information to make it look as though it supports their argument instead of mine. I'm sorry, but that's what HoC specializes in: endless circular discussions, twisting and massaging and inventing facts to push their POV. I don't think that's being cooperative, no.
4. Drmies: You should be ashamed of yourself. Consistently dismissing my contributions and explanations as "walls of text" and "only adding bytes" to make sure everyone knows how worthless you think I am, that nothing I do could ever have any value. Other expression of your demeaning attitude are "bullshit", "shit on that", "who the hell cares", "incessant whining", "gaslighting", and so on, not to mention your evidenceless accusations of misconduct. The worst part of it is that you're an admin in dispute resolution. I'm not claiming innocence to our differences but your routinely jumping to the wrong conclusions and dumping your - pardon my french - merde on me has gone way too far. Just like HoC's persistent attacks against scientists, I can't believe why such hatred is tolerated here on Wikipedia. Saflieni (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, Your insistence that the diff you shared in your response to me was an adequate example of evidence in response HoC's question is the reason that I decided to pull the trigger on this. The article cited in the diff does not say that IPOB is a book about double genocide (the claim HoC was asking you to support), but rather alleges that the book has repopularized claims that a double genocide occurred in Rwanda. On its own, this could be taken as a forgivable mistake. Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC, it crosses the line. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Vidal explains carefully how the book develops the double genocide theory. The title is:

Judi Rever will not let anything stand in the way of her quest to document a second Rwandan genocide. If that's not enough, I'll repeat the quote I used to prove the point:

"It reads like a prosecutor’s closing argument: the massacres are described in such a way as to classify them as genocide. Rever begins with hints, such as a quote from a former RPA soldier stating that the massacre of thousands of people perpetrated in October 1997 was meant to eliminate as much of the Hutu population as possible. Regarding the large-scale killings carried out in 1994 in the Byumba region, in North-eastern Rwanda, another former RPA soldier claims that the leaders of the RPF had settled on the killings as a way to make the land available for Tutsi refugees, formerly exiled in Uganda. According to Rever, the military authorities who organised and committed the massacres therefore took part in a joint criminal enterprise. This legal notion, introduced by the ICTY, was retained by the ICTR. By the conclusion of the book, the hints become an unequivocal statement: “[The] darkest secret that the FPR hid from the international community is that its troops continued to commit genocide against the Hutus in 1994 and throughout the following years.”"

Besides, you ignore every piece of evidence I have posted here and elsewhere. Your diffs aren't valid as I've explained with evidence. What's the point of an ANI if you only have ears for one side? Saflieni (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

One Editor's Comments

Since I was mentioned, I reviewed this ongoing dispute again and will comment. On 22 December, Saflieni was blocked for one week for personal attacks. On 30 December, Saflieni, coming off block, filed a request for arbitration. I said that the dispute appeared to be a content dispute complicated by conduct, and that, at the time, I was not ready to say whose conduct was problematic. I said that there was no need at the time for arbitration because other remedies could be attempted. I recommended at least one Request for Comments. Saflieni made an addendum to their request for arbitration, in which they said that there was no content dispute, but that update was incomprehensible. I had been about to offer to mediate, but then declined to make such an offer. I see that User:Vincentvikram and User:Rosguill have also tried to mediate. Having researched the dispute further, I see that it has been dragging on since the end of November 2020, and it is clear that the editor who is being tendentious and disruptive is Saflieni, who has long lists of grievances, while claiming to be the victim of lies and of personal attacks.

Saflieni claims that I was depersonalizing when I said that some editors who complain about admin abuse are editors who don't want to compromise. I made that statement for two reasons. First, it is true. There are many new editors who complain about admin abuse. Most of them discover that they and Wikipedia don't get along. Second, if anyone says anything specific about User:Saflieni, they complain that they are being personally attacked.

I see that Saflieni has now been topic-banned from Rwandan history, and I concur with that action. I was about to suggest a one-way interaction ban against HouseOfChange and Buidhe, but closing this thread is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In view of the most recent diatribe by User:Saflieni, I recommend a three-day block for incivility and wasting pixels. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• None of you provide any evidence. And none of you address mine. According to WP:NPA some types of comments are never acceptable, such as: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Saflieni (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill. You can't ban me over a content dispute, especially since you're ignoring my explanation - again. That's abusing your privileges.Saflieni (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Saflieni - User:Rosguill said:

• • • • They are imposing the ban as a community ban.
      • So the ban can be appealed to the community at WP:AN. That is what Rosguill said.
      • You told the ArbCom that this was not a content dispute. Now you are saying that you should not be banned because this is a content dispute.
      • That inconsistency supports my statement to the ArbCom, which still seems to be valid, that you, User:Saflieni, do not have a clue.
      • One way that clueless editors are dealt with is an indefinite competency block.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Can this thread be closed, please. Vikram Vincent 05:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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.

---

• Query @Rosguill: Is the tban in place already? I find Saflieni making statements like this I think a block may also be necessary as per Robert McClenon Vikram Vincent 12:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you Vikram Vincent: the disruption is ongoing in that conversation on User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, with "if regular people back away each time bullies and/or advocates make life difficult it becomes a process of natural selection favouring those attitudes and ideologies"--a set of personal attacks with a demonstrative lack of good faith--and "an admin who had previously inserted themselves as parties in the discussion who blocked/banned me"--a personal attack coupled with a demonstrative lie, since EdJohnston, who blocked Saflieni for personal attacks and harassment, has not ever inserted himself as a party. This is toxic, and it's been going on for way too long. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Vincentvikram, yes, as Drmies stated the ban is already in effect and the comments that Saflieni is making are pushing it. I'm not going to enforce the ban if the discussion stays on Ser Amantio di Nicolao's page, as I think that would be interpreted as vindictive and unnecessary coming from me, but other admins may feel free to impose consequences. If the disruption makes its way to other pages then the need for a block becomes clearer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I respectfully ask the editors who continue to talk about me, rather than with me, even after the closing of the case to stop tracking me. I don't lie. If you believe otherwise you're welcome to my Talk page to discuss the matter peacefully. Saflieni (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Saflieni Your self destructive behaviour is only isolating you into a corner. You have attacked every editor who has tried to work with you, found your behaviour distasteful and discussed your behaviour either with you or at the appropriate forums. There is no rule which says we cannot discuss once a discussion is closed. It only says don't edit a closed discussion. I saw you WP:CANVAS your case and reported back here for clarification. Please use some discipline and either appeal your WP:TBAN at the correct forum or let it be. My good faith advice to you is to just take a break and come back 6-10 months from now and then appeal the ban. And yes, continued antagonism on your part will, unfortunately, lead to a block as well so do tread carefully. Best! Vikram Vincent 08:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I will appeal, I'm just saying that discussing my alleged behaviour without me, ignoring or misrepresenting my side of the story, and soliciting others to impose consequences is uncivil and if I'm not mistaken an example of canvassing too. It's a two way street. Every behavior I've been accused of has been exhibited by the accusers as well. That doesn't make me right, but it doesn't make the accusers right either. I was blocked for using the word "lie", for example, but others can say it without problems. I don't remember any dialogues on equal footing, which is why I'm repeating my offer. Saflieni (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry Saflieni. You please proceed with what you deem fit. Now that the WP:CBAN is in place do note that scrutiny of your actions and words will be higher and not lower than before. Vikram Vincent 11:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't mind scrutiny. I welcome it as long it's done with the right intentions, without prejudice, and if everyone gets the same treatment.Saflieni (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I requested a Rwanda topic ban at this ANI because I thought it was Saflieni's strong feelings about Rwanda that caused his BATTLEGROUND behavior. The last few days seem to show I was mistaken. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting slogans like his BATTLEGROUND behaviour and suggestive remarks like Saflieni's strong feelings about Rwanda reveal a framing campaign, not good intentions. So do horribly tendentious posts like this one: [186]. "Mistaken" doesn't quite cover it. Saflieni (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Why is Saflieni busy asking editors for proof of his bad attitude after the TBAN is in effect instead of approaching AN? He pinged Robert and See Amantio on their pages and then they gave him this advice which he promptly deleted with an "OMG" summary. Then he comes to my talk page demanding "proof" and to "peacefully discuss the allegations" and then attacks. Vikram Vincent 07:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example is an exchange with Barkeep49 where Barkeep49 suggests a break to get a new perspective and Saflieni attacks with a nasty racial equation. I some how feel that the issue is not simply related to the Rwanda article but personal toxicity at a deeper level. Saflieni this is specific proof I am offering regarding your toxic engagements. Vikram Vincent 07:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of racism on top of all the other unsubstantiated allegations? WP:WIAPA - Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Please stop looking for dirt in my discussions with other editors on their or my Talk pages. Clean up your own first. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh! "Racial equation" and racism are such different phrases but then again... @Saflieni the issue here, at least for me, was we were talking about a single article about a book. It wasn't clear, for me, that this had spread to related articles. When I get to the place you do with an issue, I find a way to step back from it for a time and focus on other things. Sometimes within Wikipedia sometimes outside of it. Then when I'm feeling a bit more relaxed, I often find I can come up with new approaches to the situation or at least a great willingness to take a longer view about the approaches I had been using. I don't know if that will be of any help to but I hope it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC). And the response, Making me the problem again is not very helpful here, no. I am relaxed, had time outs. I don't respond well to dishonesty, but got that under control now. However, I wonder if the community would be okay with this situation if it was about a more familiar but similar topic, for instance: if editors were promoting a book which claims that Jews had infiltrated the SS, were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and had themselves carried out a secret genocide on the side? Well, maybe they would. I've been picking up some strange vibes to tell you the truth.Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC). There! The "racial equation" has been put into context. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is actually a good example of the reason for inviting people to discuss content before jumping to conclusions. You called it a nasty racial equation while I was referring to something very different: the theory in IPOB that Tutsis had infiltrated the extremist Hutu-militias (Interahamwe etc.) and "enemy ranks" (government army) and that these Tutsi infiltrators incited the Hutu-extremists to kill their fellow Tutsis, and had even taken part in the killing themselves. Even Kagame's fiercest critic was appalled by it. The analogy - where I transposed that theory to the Holocaust situation - was meant to clarify that context makes a huge difference here. IPOB is "just a book" (your words) but if such theories were published about the Holocaust, would it still be considered "just a book"? That was my point. I did get "vibes" (not from you) but it was stupid of me to write that down without following up on it so I take it back.

I looked up the edits you were referring to in the text of your post in December where you accused me of bullying. That was a misunderstanding which resulted from judging one side of the debate and not the other. I was actually the one being bullied over two content disputes and in the process I was bombarded with misconduct accusations. In the end I offered a compromise that wasn't accurate to finally see the end of it. However, I made the mistake of using explicit language to define what was happening, and for that I received a block. Saflieni (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Antisemitic vandalism by IP 70.66.136.13

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

---

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

This diff speaks for itself: [187]. Another editor has already warned this IP about vandalism but I figured it may be worth bringing it here as well. In the past I've been encouraged to bring incidents of clear racism like this to ANI because we are meant to have zero tolerance for this type of behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Parler page incorrect/highly biased content

Political content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. See title. Parler is currently described as being an alt-right platform. This isn't true, may even fall into defamation while Parker's lawsuit for anti-trust and discriminatory practices is open against Amazon Web Services. Very very VERY unprofessional of Wikipedia to join the political bandwagon. 2601:281:C500:7FE:A891:712F:42F:1EA6 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive and partially uncivil editing by WhyDoIHaveThisName

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.

---

• WhyDoIHaveThisName (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Diffs of disruptive editing: [188][189][190][191]

Edit filter log: [192][193][194][195]

Wiping talk pages: [196] [197]

The user in question edits disruptively, but seems to know about the three-revert rule: They make 1, maybe 2 reverts every 24 hours. The user's edits are disruptive: Usually breaking links (changing Special:UserLogout to Special:UserLogin), or adding massive amounts of text (pasting the same page twice, adding copious amounts of "fuck you"). According to filter 1053, they fit the pattern of an LTA. Oshwah, who made the filter, may have more to say on this matter. Additionally, instead of vandalizing a highly-visible page, they went for a humorous essay, why not create an account; which gets, on average, 14 daily pageviews. The knowledge of 3RR and project pages make it more likely that this user is indeed an LTA. Thanks for your time. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 11:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like some type of vandalism to me, with failure to engage (only two project talk page edits were to blank some of their content and the only edit to their own page was to blank a warning). No edits to other articles or project pages. —PaleoNeonate – 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: This may be a nitpick, but check the edit filter log. They created a draft, BaconShadow, which was later CSD'd for promotion; and made an edit to Never Gonna Give You Up. Also, they removed a series of uw templates, and blanked my attempt at discussing the matter with them on the article's talk page. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 07:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is definitely a VOA, and I've indefinitely blocked the account as such. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

TPG question

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.

---

Sorry to be a pest, but since it's on the talk page of AN, it may have been missed. I think we need an administrator to weigh in on this question: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TPG. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

IP-hopper changing/adding unsourced content after many warnings

• 182.70.211.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 122.175.223.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 171.61.9.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User keeps making unsourced edits.[198][199][200][201] Has been given many warnings (as evidenced by their talk pages) and has been blocked twice. However, they then just change IPs and continue. These IPs are clearly the same person as they have all written the same phrase in their edit summaries.[202][203][204]

They later somewhat understood their changes need to be sourced, but they then started only doing so by pasting links in edit summaries, primarily leading to Wikidata.org.[205][206] I informed them a few times about their error in doing this and also directed them to read the notices left in their talk page,[207][208] though this seems to have only confused them.[209] I finally posted an edit summary in which I tried to explain myself as clearly as possible and also added multiple helpful links.[210] This has not made any impact and they continue to make the same edits.[211][212][213]
Alivardi (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I see this report after engaging with one of the IPs. Now they are editing warring while changing dates etc without any sources. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Александр Мотин 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.

---

Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is already under a partial block from MH-17 and under indefinite topic-ban from Covid-19 as well as Russian politics, and they regularly get featured at this noticeboard (they got more active here since they have been banned from the Russian Wikipedia, unbanned and got banned again after a few days), but managed to escape site ban because users claim that he has good contributions or works without problems in other topics. This is just not true. His main topic is, after the topic ban has been imposed, railway stations in Russia, which unfortunately overlaps with one of my interests in Wikipedia. In particular, I created articles about all railway directions / lines in Moscow such as Savyolovsky suburban railway line (which happened before Александр Мотин became active on the project). Александр Мотин for whatever reason does not like these names, he moved one, I moved it back and insisted he opens a RM (Talk:Savyolovsky suburban railway line), the result was no consensus. This is obviously a content dispute, so I tried to resolve it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Moscow suburban railway lines and got some reasonable suggestions. I was planning to open a move discussion with multiple options (and had unfortunately less time recently because Ukrainian districts, with several thousands articles with outdated info, have a higher priority, but I am still planning to do it). At the same discussion, Александр Мотин was clearly told to stop. However, as with other topics, he is not prepared to accept the fact that consensus is different from his personal opinion. He started to create articles like Petrovsko-Razumovskaya railway station (Leningradskaya line) (the name of the article about the line is currently Leningradsky suburban railway line), and today they moved Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line perfectly knowing this goes against consensus. I am not sure why we should tolerate this any longer. The whole editing history of the user, both here and at the English Russian Wikipedia, shows that he is incapable of listening to other opinions and would not stop. We finally need a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Most recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive328#Unban--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I moved Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line because this Russian administrator failed to provide reliable sources for name like "Gorkovsky suburban railway line" etc (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Moscow suburban railway lines). And I provided such reliable sources as: Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation [214], Moscow Mayor official website [215][216]. What is the problem Ymblanter? Why did you file this request instead of providing reliable sources? Is it WP:HOUNDING again? When will you start providing reliable sources for the names you came up with (see WP:OR)? I don't know anyone in Russia who call these lines like "XXX suburban railway line". It is pure WP:OR of this administrator who cannot even provide reliable sources. If you look at the official route map you will see that the line is called "Gorkovskoye line" (Russian: Горьковское направление). --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have told you countless times that calling me a "Russian administrator" is factually incorrect, but, as usual, you prefer not to hear it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  And I've told you that you should provide reliable sources instead of harassment. Why don't you provide these reliable sources? What's wrong with the official scheme of Gorkovskoye line? Why you can't translate two words into English (Горьковское направление) from that official scheme?--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably this needs to be closed, either as site ban, or as insufficient participation to impose site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no minimum participation for a community ban, only a minimum time (72 hours barring a clear WP:SNOW case, in which it can be 24). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Site-ban for Александр Мотин

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.

---

• Support (as proposer). Note that I very rarely support site bans, I have supported may be two or three during my whole tenure. However, we really need it here. The time good-faith users (and not just me, but also these who tried to argue with them that Russian propaganda must not be in the articles in Wikipedia voice) lose for dealing with this user is enormous and can not be justified by any potential benefit from his editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  If this is not clear from the exchange above, Александр Мотин just does not care about WP:CONSENSUS. It is just not within his horizon. Referring to WP:CONSENSUS is just not a valid argument for him. We have seen it in MH17 discuissions. We have seen it in Covid discussions. We have seen it in his unban request which I referenced above. We see it here. If he is not site-banned, we will continue seeing it in all new topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I waited 4 months for you to start providing reliable sources which prove those original railway line names you came up with. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support From what I see thus linked, you have my full support in your reasoning for this Ym. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 09:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cancel culture?--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, enough already. Александр Мотин had been given more than enough chances and WP:ROPE, to no avail. Александр Мотин's comments in this thread just underscore the conclusion that this is a WP:NOTHERE case. Nsk92 (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support (after edit conflict). This editor has been given too many second chances already. Just the pointing out of another editor's ethnicity ("this Russian administrator") should be enough for a ban, on top of everything that has been mentioned in previous discussions. We wouldn't tolerate, I hope, anyone who habitually referred to another editor as "this Jewish administrator" and we similaraly shouldn't tolerate this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Phil Bridger: Disgusting commentary about "this Jewish administrator". You should be banned for attempting to incite a racist conflict here. This Russian administrator left a bad legacy in the Russian Wikipedia. And that's it.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Well, this is just bullshit. Not even a lie, just bullshit, in hope that something would stick.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    @Ymblanter: Oh really? So you forgot how you called the editors of the Russian Wikipedia "scum", for instance? How quickly you forget everything that you managed to do in the Russian Wikipedia. P.S. I can provide that diff with insults if required to the Arbitration Committee because it contains personal information. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    @Phil Bridger, the idea that mentioning another editor's nationality constitutes an attack is not only flat-out incorrect, it's something that happens all the time on Wikipedia. ("The consensus looks clear but every editor to participate so far has been British, I won't close the discussion until people in other parts of the world have had a chance to comment", "There's a clear split in the Arbitration Committee with American arbs consistently taking a stricter line on civility", "You say this isn't considered important in Turkey but every Turkish editor to comment has agreed that it should be included"…). This isn't particularly relevant to this particular case which is a straightforward conduct issue, but "Russian administrator" warrants at most "I'm not Russian" or "the fact that I'm Russian isn't relevant in this particular case". ‑ Iridescent 11:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Ymblanter has made such replies many times before, but Александр Мотин persists in calling him "this Russian administrator". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Iridescent, Ymblanter has asked AM many times to stop calling them Russian, but they persist. If you look at Ymblanter's user page, they're Dutch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support based on what he's written in this thread and the case laid out above. It's pretty clear he cares more about winning than collaborating, a mindset which is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 10:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a siteban. It shouldn't take three topic bans to get someone to behave properly. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but should this be a global ban? Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the formal site ban from the English Wikipedia (to formalize the indefinite block). It only needs to be a global ban if he is banned from other Wikimedia projects also. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know what his status is at ruwiki but I believe he is at least indeffed. Could be worth looking into. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    He is blocked for an indefinite duration. Ruwiki does not have a site ban. He might be unblocked there either by the same administrator who blocked him, or by asking the ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    Well meta:Global bans suggests that this meets the third criterion for a global ban: Indef blocked or banned on two or more projects. Whether the behavior is severe enough to be called "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse" I'll leave to those more capable of vetting his contribs to other wikis. It does look like he's active at Commons and Wikidata. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support the site ban. It seems that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Renat (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Desysop for Ymblanter

Pure retaliation and continued nationalistic mislabling after multiple requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. It is clear that the actions of this Russian administrator correspond to WP:CTDAPE and WP:HOUNDING (1, ). I suppose he should be desysoped to prevent further harm to the English Wikipedia.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Александр Мотин indefinite block

Noting that I have indefinitely blocked Александр Мотин. Happy to let the WP:CBAN discussion progress as it may, but otherwise, enough is enough. El_C 10:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and I am sorry that you now have to spend your time discussing with him at his talk page and explaining that your block is not misuse of the tools (which they have already implied). Hopefully this is the last time someone has to invest to this timesink.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I think it's almost done now, anyway. There seems to be a sort of dissonance, made more obvious with this ANI report and culminating with my block, that ultimately just leads to an unmistaken dead end. El_C 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Given this should the block be amended to remove email access? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, it was only one email, so I'd hold off, for now. El_C 17:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note to participants, Александр Мотин's talk page access has been revoked. So don't expect further defense against the siteban proposal. I don't think that should prevent it from being enacted, but felt it worth noting here. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

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

---

In the discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic I have now twice been accused of sockpuppetry by two editors in their attempt to discredit another editor and promote their POV, and in doing so discredit my account as well. First by editor Alexbrn, followed two days later by editor Britishfinance. Please refer to my comments there. This behavior is totally unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to have notified either Britishfinance or Alexbrn as required. I have corrected this oversight. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that was already assumed when commenting on a page with sanctions and after notifying Alexbrn earlier in the same thread. It's kind of difficult to defend against multiple sockpuppet accusations without admin involved. Regardless, thank you! Dinglelingy (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy you didn't "notify" me. And I didn't "accuse" you of being a sockpuppet, but asked you (once) whether you were the same as another user[217] -- it just struck me as odd you appeared from nowhere in the middle of an exchange and seemed to be responding as if continuing that user's conversation. Sometimes new users don't understand that it's problematic having multiple accounts, and have a less thorough grasp of the WP:PAGs, when new, than you evidently did.[218] Anyway, I was happy to accept your response, which you already gave. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not commenting about sockpuppetry accusations, but to discredit another editor and promote their POV considering how reliable sources treat the theory, I see it more as preventing the editor from promoting a view that is still considered WP:FRINGE by the scientific community. —PaleoNeonate – 05:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This post is about sockpuppetry accusations, not whether my view is WP:FRINGE. There are different reliable sources provided that present different views of the lab leak theory (some of the dated sources say it's an outright conspiracy and some new ones say it may be plausible and even credible). Regardless of which sources provided you think are or are not reliable, and whether or not the theory should be considered a conspiracy theory or misinformation, you must agree that personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry aren't good for this conversation and won't help us reach a consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

1.) There is a proper procedure to follow if you suspect someone of sockpuppetting. It is not asking someone "huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)?" in the middle of a discussion, for any reason. If you want to tell yourself that this was not a loaded/accusatory question and that you were only trying to help out a new user that you are in conflict with, be my guest. But let's not kid ourselves about the impact it has on my account and the position it puts me in. You were happy with my response? Well, did you apologize, withdraw the question, or just let it linger there for another editor to pick up and make the same allegation? As an experienced editor, you should know better.

2.) You are correct that I did not notify you by using Alexbrn. I responded to the question that you asked with, "I am not and I do not appreciate the completely unfounded and inaccurate accusation. Seems my suggestions were ignored. A reminder of the rules: Assume good faith, Be polite and avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming to newcomers. I suggest you follow them." on a page with sanctions in place. If you are claiming a notification technicality, I'll give it to you. But I also did not accuse you of doing this twice nor did I name you in the title of this complaint. My complaint is that this has now happened twice in the same thread and it needs to stop. You started it and Britishfinance ran with it despite my warning. Again, as experienced editors, you both should know better.

3.) PaleoNeonate I guess you are commenting on motive for violating Wikipedia policy and accusing me of sockpuppetting? Strange approach, not a good look. I suggest you 'can' it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• If I look at the contribution of Dinglelingy, it is pretty obvious to me that this is not a new user.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• If you are claiming a notification technicality, I'll give it to you. Bruh. Read the bright orange banner with big, bold text in this page's editnotice every single time you try to post anything:

This is also in bright red at the top of this page. You didn't follow those instructions. There's no "technicality" when it comes to something that unequivocal. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• • 69.174.144.79 My bad Bruh, I thought notification referred to naming them as in Alexbrn which seemed like a lame excuse. Thanks again for taking care of it for me. My apologies for the oversight.Dinglelingy (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Admins/69.174.144.79, this just happened again at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#break

"Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)"

The [13] link sends you here if there is any doubt who he is referring to.

This is ridiculous.

I assume I don't need to put another notification on his talk page? Thanks.Dinglelingy (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement from Britishfinance

Given that my name is on the title of this ANI, I would like to note that:

• I did not call Dinglelingy a sockpuppet or make a personal attack on them. The only edit I have made referring to Dinglelingy is here, where I said to ScrupulousScribe:

"Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website [here] shows that NinjaRobotPirate's earlier concern at your unblock request that you should be topic banned is well-founded. I am concerned that if NinjaRobotPirate checks Dinglelingy, who has been pushing the same material on Wuhan Institute of Virology, that more substantive action may be appropriate. You now have consumed large amounts of editing time constantly pushing theories regarding COVID lab leaks on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOTHERE territory)."

• Having read ScrupulousScribe on Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology, I agree with NinjaRobotPirate's view that they are a strong case for a topic ban, for which their attempt to "shoehorn" an unproven allegation of a lab-leak, despite quality sources discounting it, into fact, is a single issue crusade. Despite established editors such as CowHouse, Thucydides411 and others, spending considerable amounts of time refuting ScrupulousScribe's "wall of text", the crusade carries on.
• My reference to Dinglelingy in the above edit was that they were also involved in sustaining ScrupulousScribe's crusade (for which there can be material consequences). Whether they are a sock puppet of ScrupulousScribe (or other) was not my concern, nor was any personal aspect of their actions. It is purely that they are repeatedly trying to make a fringe theory, a fact on Wikipedia; and are prepared to repeat the same points/sources ad-infinitum to do it.

I hope Dinglelingy will now withdraw the false allegation and take my name off the title of this ANI. Britishfinance (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is a proper procedure for handling socketpuppet concerns. Bringing them up in the middle of a discussion is not one of them and was a blatant action to discredit my account and the other editor. Your motive is irrelevant. In fact, you repeating your motive here and attempting to add my name to the topic ban discussion below makes the case. I'd suggest the only bans to be handed out are to those editors who continue to use threats of bans in discussions, make accusations of sockpuppetry in discussions, and who advocate POV with bullying tactics instead of sources in discussions.

The proper response is sorry, I should not have done that. I understand how that can stifle discussion and consensus making. Not weasel words claiming you did not do what you did, that it was justified anyway, and I want you banned from the topic in the future.

And I will remind other editors, that Alexbrn has now made sockpuppet accusations again in open discussion after being warned here. Neither him nor Britishfinance seem to get it.

I will not withdraw the accurate description of your actions nor my complaint. In fact, based on your response, I suggest harsh penalties.Dinglelingy (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a disappointing response. Your allegation has been shown to be incorrect, but you double down and look for "harsh penalties". Your response underlines my concern that you are not suited to editing on the area of WP:FRINGE, where you, and ScrupulousScribe, have adopted the same approach of ignoring what other editors have tried to exhaustively explain to you regarding sourcing, and WP:MEDRS in particular, to advocate your own POV. The subject is an important and evolving topic area, however, I believe you are not suited to it. Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No response from Dinglelingy. Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for ScrupulousScribe

• ScrupulousScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ScrupulousScribe has done almost nothing since their account creation in December except to push for the inclusion and crediblilty of the "Lab leak" origin for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, which has no evidence in favour and is not supported by virologists. ScrupulousScribe has relied on many non WP:MEDPOP reliable sources, including newspaper op-eds to push this theory, as well as "independentsciencenews.org" a website that publishes anti-Bill Gates conspiracy theories diff. They have also commited copyright infringement at their draft Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, copying directly from newspaper articles. At this point ScrupulusScribe's continued contributions on the matter fall under WP:IDHT. After ScrupulousScribe was blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring, NinjaRobotPirate declined their appeal, concluding "I am honestly surprised that you're not topic banned". I agree, and as such I propose a topic ban from the origins of SARS CoV 2 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, broadly construed under the community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians start out on a topic which they know something about. In my case, I started out by creating a draft on Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory after reading an article earlier in September in the Boston Magazine titled Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?, and when I submitted it for approval, two reviewers declined it suggesting that I merge it instead with Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying also that I should take it up on the talk page there, which I did.

Since the Boston Magazine piece, the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario has been picked up by a number of other publications, including the the BBC, The Washington Post, The Telegraph, The Times, Bloomberg, Presadiretta and Le Monde, the New York Magazine, and a number of others which don't especially meet WP:RS, so I won't cite them here. There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page as to whether we should spin off the accidental leakage section of the Misinformation page into a new page (my draft, which is still a work in progress), and so far the discussion has been more focused on whether the above sources meet the criteria of WP:RS to do so, or whether WP:MEDRS should apply (which it does not, as the lab leak theory doesn't constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information). There is also a discussion taking place on the talk page of Wuhan Institute of Virology, where too the discussion has focused on WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and hasn't reached a consensus.

Instead of calling on me to get banned, it would be better for you to engage in the discussion, and explain your position on why the lab leak theory shouldn't be considered a plausible origin scenario, as the reliable sources I provided quite clearly indicate it is (including this Washington Post article which you claimed doesn't support the theory, which it does, unless you meant this one, and that one does too). The fact that this isn't your "first rodeo", as you said in the talk page of the article, and the manner in which you discount reliable sources, seems to indicate that you are more of an activist than I am, and you are obviously seeking to wield your power as a more experienced Wikipedian, without any basis in Wikipedia Policy. A number of other editors (in particular Britishfinance and Alexbrn) have been quite condescending in their manner of talking to me and other users (prompting this RFAA), and will require us to either request a dispute resolution on the NPOV noticeboard, or some other form of administrator intervention. As it stands now, I and a number of other users maintain the article on Misinformation or the Institute adhere to WP:NPOV, and the discussion will go on.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC).
• Support. This user has some other concerning behavioral issues, but a topic ban is a good start. If you take a look at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user has issues with responding to every comment, responding verbosely, and not respecting consensus. He is taking up a large amount of editor time and talk page space. I would also support a broader topic ban on all COVID-19 topics. I also support investigating this user's sockpuppet behavior. I also support a topic ban for Dinglelingy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and agree with Novem_Linguae on their extension to all COVID topics, and include Dinglelingy. Britishfinance (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that this user has barely participated in the discussion, other than to "rubbish" my claims with strong language, and accusations of sock puppetry; indicating a clear bias. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Per my clear statement above, I accused nobody of sockpuppetry or used strong language (or did I use the word "rubbish"). I am (largely) uninvolved, but from a reading of ScrupulousScribe, and Dinglelingy, in Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, it is clear that they are on a single issue crusade to override WP:MEDRS to get their WP:FRINGE theory legitimized via Wikipedia. They will confront anybody who gets in their way (hence this bogus ANI). There is a consistent and sustained use of WP:IDHT and WP:SEALIONING. This is an important and evolving topic area (i.e. origins of COVID), but ScrupulousScribe, and Dinglelingy, are not suited to editing on it. Britishfinance (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, this user appears to me to have followed the community guidelines and engaged in civil discussion. I fail to see how a topic ban is deserved in this case, since it should only be awarded on clear cases of disruptive behaviour. ScrupulousScribe behavior seems constructive, productive, and well intentioned, at least in my opinion. Forich (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: As can be seen in their edit history, Forich's editing has also almost solely focused on the origins of SARS-CoV 2 over the past year. It doesn't matter that they are civil, their failure to back down after being told no by numerous people is disruptive and counts as Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. ScrupulousScribe has been blocked indefinitely for copyvio by an admin. I wouldn't mind keeping this discussion going though, because of possible socks and other issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Indefinite might not be very long - it just means the duration is currently, well, not defined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  On re-examination, I think the copyright block is likely to be short, and it would help if any passing admin feels like offering a second opinion and reviewing the unblock request and subsequent discussion at User talk:ScrupulousScribe#January 2021 copyright. Please? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've unblocked now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose this sanction on new user per WP:ROPE and WP:DONTBITE. The user clearly has a lot to learn, and is just as clearly working on it, has progressed in some areas, and has failed to progress in others. That said, there is an underlying lesson this user needs to absorb -- when you find opposition to something from a lot of different users, and little support, it's time to rethink. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. ScrupulousScribe has tried to engage in a civil and meaningful manner throughout this episode. He's a new user, so it's unsurprising that his contributions so far have been related to a single topic. Why should that suggest a topic ban? The copyright issue is being addressed sensibly and productively right now, so again, why should this suggest a topic ban? It seems that ScrupulousScribe's only 'misdemeanour' is to hold some views that don't resonate with other editors. Arcturus (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus has made clear that the reason that he opposes this is that he also supports ScrupulousScribe's fringe views, as can be seen at Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#break. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Garbage! Arcturus (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Funny. I was just listening to a podcast with two biologists who ask 'is it safe to acknowledge the obvious yet?' about the 'Lab Leak Hypothesis'. Apparently the answer is still no. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There is nothing wrong with an editor focusing on a specific topic or category of articles. Also, the editor seems to be working in good faith and clearly has found some WP:RS (Bloomberg for example is a Wikipedia perennial reliable source) despite this appearing like a fringe theory on its face. Stricter sourcing might be needed but this is not egregious enough to warrant a ban. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Bloomberg story cited above describes it as a conspiracy theory. It's as fringe now as it ever was, and the existence of news stories talking about it doesn't change that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. ScrupulousScribe has made some new user mistakes but I am outraged by the bullying he has been subjected to. Its the whole reason I got involved in this discussion. He seems to have been working in good faith and trying to follow the rules while being subjected to an onslaught of ban threats and personal attacks by other editors failing to follow the rules. If there are any bans to be handed out they should be to the experienced editors who should know better. Dinglelingy (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This user only made 13 edits to two pages since their account creation prior to the 6th of January, when they also became fixated on advocating the lab leak theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support orginal tban proposal. SS has certainly engaged in a civil manner, but the ban reason is not incivility, and WP:Civil POV pushing is a thing. SS is, in my view, a disruptive presence on that article. They link to sources they haven't read, make points that blatantly fail Wikipedia policies, and that's okay (editors aren't expected to know everything) as long as they listen to arguments that tell them what the issue is, and either amend their argument to address, say why that argument is wrong, or simply walk away/ignore. They do not. They ignore the points, make a different point, let that point get refuted, and then come back to the same original refuted point, force editors to refute that again, and then rinse and repeat. This is simply disruptive, and a waste of editors' time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I forget to mention: there's also misrepresentation of sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  And the cycle continues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support, per ProcrastinatingReader above. Note only is WP:Civil POV pushing unacceptable, but in this case it concerns a loony discredited conspirancy theory regarding COVID. We should have zero tolerance policy regarding trying to use Wikipedia for propagarting this kind of harmful gargbage, and people who try to peddle it here absolutely don't deserve WP:ROPE. A note to the admins reviewing this thread. The pages in question, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic are already subject to WP:ACDS, as notices at the top of their talk pages indicate. If this thread does not result in a formal community topic ban, any uninvolved admin still can, and in my opinion should, issue page and talk page blocks using the discretionary sanctions available. Also, a formal notification notice probably needs to be left at the user talk page of ScrupulousScribe regarding the existence of discretionary sanctions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case. Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  The GS for COVID certainly applies, under the same regime rules, and the editor is aware. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92, you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should go down the route taken by Twitter, Facebook and Google, and ban certain views. Such a course of action would be a very dangerous development and would be at odds with WP:NOTCENSORED. Arcturus (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is about material that some may find objectionable like language or images, although the encyclopedia is also not a WP:FREESPEECH platform. This is not about censorship but about preventing disruption and unnecessary time loss. Talk page posts are to be eventually archived not suppressed, as for article content it should reflect the conclusions of reliable sources without unduely promoting speculation. —PaleoNeonate – 22:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• We don't ban views per se, but we absolutely place sharp restrictions on how WP:FRINGE topics can be covered to prevent Wikipedia from being used to promote them, and more broadly our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and so on functionally place restrictions on how we can cover certain topics (eg. things that are clearly identified as conspiracy theories in the sources have to be covered as such, and can't be covered in a way that risks promoting them.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Nsk92 is making a false claim by saying that I propagated "loony discredited conspiracy" theories, and likely hasn't read the discussion on the abovementioned talk pages. From the very start of the conversation, I have only ever held that the lab leak theory be considered with due weight as per WP:DUE, based on reliable sources, as per WP:RS. The accidental release of a virus of natural origin should not be conflated with fringe claims that the virus was created in a laboratory as a bioweapon and deliberately leaked, as proposed by the likes of Li-Meng Yan, and Luc Montagnier, which have been disproven and retracted, respectively.

In the past twenty-four hours, a number of new reports from reliable sources, including The Australian (here), have confirmed that the WHO will consider a lab leak as part of its investigations. There is also a report in the Financial Times and an opinion piece in Bloomberg.

This is a controversial issue folks, and we would all do well not to conflate legitimate scientific inquiry with "loony discredited conspiracy" theories.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As I understand it, there were at least two lab leaks for the original SARS and the possibility has not been ruled out for the current SARS 2. There's a WHO team assembled to investigate this on the ground but they have not yet been admitted by China. The topic is therefore still a work-in-progress and it is too soon to be making definitive findings and statements. As this is a high-profile and developing topic, new editors should therefore be given reasonable freedom to hash this out without heavy-handed sanctions. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: per ProcrastinatingReader and Novem Linguae. They summed this up well and no need to repeat it. Editors that are here with a POV mission are almost always counterproductive in that area and often timesinks.   // Timothy :: talk  13:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that ProcrastinatingReader and Novem Linguae have barely participated in the discussion, which is about the lab leak theory and whether it should be considered misinformation or conspiracy, or not. There is a virbant discussion as to whether WP:MEDRS applies, as the topic should not be considered Wikipedia:Biomedical information (its not a medical claim). Furthermore, the only two WP:MEDRS sources provided to support the claim that the lab leak theory is misinformation and or conspiracy are here and here, and while the authors of these papers consider a zoonotic jump to be the most likely scenario, they specifically say that lacking evidence for the former scenario, other scenarios, such as an "accidental laboratory escape", do in fact "remain reasonable". I have repeatedly stuck to my position that calling the lab leak theory "misinformation" and/or a "conspiracy theory", is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I hope this clarifies the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I see some opposed votes on the basis that the editor is new, but this is precisely why a topic ban remains a better approach than a more general WP:NOTHERE block that could eventually result. It would allow the opportunity to edit on less sensitive topics. While my participation at related articles was limited, it was not difficult to predict eventual trouble considering the sustained advocacy at several related articles (after the multiple-declined Draft). —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

He doesn't need a topic ban to enable him to edit on less sensitive topics. This topic ban proposal is quite bizarre. The editor has not disrupted any articles, save for one minor case of 'edit warring', which was hardly edit warring at all. It seems the main argument for the ban revolves around material on Talk pages. Well, no one is forced to respond to content placed on article Talk pages. If anyone feels it's disruptive they are free to ignore it. Arcturus (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you suggest would be a better way for them to move on to another topic and hopefully beyond WP:TE? Is source misrepresentation acceptable on Wikipedia, for instance? —PaleoNeonate – 05:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, My draft was declined twice on copyright grounds, and twice on grounds that it should be merged with the "Misinformation" page, where I took up the discussion on if/how to spin off the topic covered there. The discussion has turned into a debate on Wikipedia Policy, as to which sources are considered reliable, given that it is a controversial subject with very fine nuances, and the main participants in that discussion continue to engage, and I trust that we will soon reach a consensus. However, there are editors who have dropped into the discussion only to offer rebuke, such as Britishfinance and ProcrastinatingReader, dismissing my views with derogative statements, rubbishing my sources without reason, and then show up here to support a topic ban proposed by another uninvolved party (who dropped in only to claim that he has swatted away other users on this topic). As for my draft, it was reviewed by two admins yesterday, and they have it will be undeleted soon. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note ScrupulousScribe now seems to have given up on WP:AFC and is creating new articles directly in mainspace. The latest is The Cambridge Working Group, about a "biosafety" group, which is largely unsourced. From a quick look, apparently only one of the cited sources makes a brief mention of this group. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from COVID-19 topics. I was unsure about this, but following the latest screed[219] it's evident that ScrupulousScribe is in full-on WP:BATTLEGROUND mode and either ignoring or not-comprehending the WP:PAGs (specifically, WP:MEDRS) to further their (yes) crusade to push the lab leak "theory" into Wikipedia with undue prominence. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You accused me of "casting around" to find sources to fit my POV, and question me and another users of being socks, since we dared to have a different POV as you. "The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step."

When I call you out on doing the same thing (providing two very poorly selected sources that do not supersede existing sources provided already on the page), you resort retire from the conversation, and support a topic ban.

Though I have always found you abrasive, in how you rubbished my sources from the start, I always tried to remain polite and explain my position.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

How are recent, secondary, academic, peer-reviewed journal articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals, specifically on the topic of the origin of the virus (e.g. PMID 32920565.) "very poorly selected sources"? This distortion of basic facts about sourcing is concerning - you just seem to be switched to transmit and saying anything - and at great length - to try to advance your POV. Editors are already stretched thin on the COVID topics without having to waste time dealing with this kind of BS. This a reason why the topic is under sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Egads what a massive sealion campaign, yes topic-ban from all covid19-related pages. Let's see if they can contribute meaningfully in other topics areas. ValarianB (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note. It seems increasingly when ScrupulousScribe supposes an editor an opponent, they go personal. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And you don't get personal? You also accused me of being a possible sock of another user, said I was "casting around to find sources" to support my POV, and misrepresent sources to your position in clear violation of WP:NOR. It is completely impossible to reason with you as only you can determine what classifies as legitimate MEDRS sources, and what doesn't, and any attempt to provide a counter opinion is met with WP:CREEP. Currently, you are proposing two new WP:MEDRS sources, which contradict other WP:MEDRS sources, but which support your POV? At the core of the issue here is that you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources to support your position that Covid-19 should be considered "misinformation" and/or "conspiracy theory", while you discount WP:MEDRS sources offered to give a contrarian POV. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's so fucked-up for a moment I wonder whether it's deliberate trolling. Anyway, TBAN requested - an admin is going to need to consider all this. I shall not respond to you further here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe said, At the core of the issue here is that you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources to support your position that Covid-19 [lab leak theory] should be considered "misinformation" and/or "conspiracy theory"

The source that is currently in the article, a review article (meets WP:MEDRS) couldn't be clearer. Quote from the source:

The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue.

WP:MEDRS is very important for determining how much weight to give this lab leak idea. This review article states as fact that COVID came from bats, and that all other ideas should be regarded as conspiracy theories. The lab leak idea should get a one paragraph mention in the misinformation article, and that's that. Not the ridiculous 19 paragraphs that it was at previously, and that people are edit warring to put back in as we speak. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fact: The virus is widely acknowledged have come from bats. You won't find anything in the Lab Leak Theory that would indicate otherwise. The excerpts you pasted from the paper that Alexbrn brought up, creates a false dichotomy of "bat origins vs lab origins", which isn't something I or anyone else proposed. The lab leak theory proposes that a bat coronavirus undergoing gain of function of studies at a laboratory in Wuhan, may have escaped (accidental leak). After all, it is well documented that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was performing gain of function research on bat coronaviruses, and it is also well documented that viruses have escaped from labs.

In Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology, I replied to Alexbrn, asking him why is digging up these papers and making this false association, to which he hasn't responded, and he is instead derailing the discussion by saying my questions are "fucked up", accusing me of trolling, and of course questioning my motives. Prior to that, Alexbrn proposed that we find the WP:BESTSOURCES so as to steer away from controversy, but instead of providing the two most cited papers on the topic, written by the most authoritative authors on the topic, provided by Thucydides411, namely the Anderson et al paper and Ralph Baric et al paper, he digs up two obscure papers from authors in Greece in India no one with no established authority, just because of some wordplay between "Covid-19" and "conspiracy" in their contents. Considering that the Anderson paper is very much the gold standard for those proposing the zoonitic jump theory, along with Baric's paper, it makes no sense to bring along these two new papers, unless it specifically to support a certain POV, which the former papers would otherwise not support. Indeed, neither Anderson or Baric's papers discount the possibility of a lab leak, and most definitely do not call the lab leak theory conspiracy (which I pointed out to Alexbrn earlier in the conversation).

It may very well be that Alexbrn has made significant contributions to Wikipedia and is more familiar with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines than I am, but the intellectual dishonesty on show here is simply astounding and not what I expected of Wikipedia. I do not believe that a capable and competent admin who reads the entire thread in Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic would miss what I am pointing out to you, and also catch on to his WP:CREEP. At almost every critical junction in our conversations, he has used his "superior" understanding of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to offer rebuke, discount contrarian views, and nullify reliable sources provided. It hasn't even been possible to discuss how WP:MEDRS fully applies to a subject that doesn't classify as Wikipedia:Biomedical information. Discussing policy requires a certain level of good faith and intellectual honesty that has been completely missing here from the very start of the conversion with him.

I wonder how much of our conversation you Novem_Linguae actually read, and why you are only chipping in now?

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The papers you keep saying are the "gold standard" are (for the nth time), not WP:MEDRS. We want review articles, and ... we have them now. We don't reject such high-quality sources because authors are Greek or Indian (what's your logic there?); as MEDRS says: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections". The fact you keep invoking WP:CREEP in a way which shows you either haven't read it or understood, at a very basic level, what it means, is is an informative exemplar of the problem here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Anderson et al paper and Ralph Baric et al are not WP:MEDRS sources? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PMID 32284615 is a letter to the editor; PMID 32392464 is classed as a comment. Neither is a secondary source as needed by WP:MEDRS. We want review articles (or better) - and there now at least 3 of these available on this topic, so no excuse to use these lesser sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, said PMID 32284615 and PMID 32392464 are MEDRS sources earlier in the conversation, and then you announced they're not, and instead you provide two other sources, which seem to indicate your POV, based on comments taken out of context. Whether MEDRS is even applicable here is a matter of debate, as there are no MEDRS sources that can fully prove or disprove any origin scenario of the virus, though there are a few like this one that make the case that it could have happened, without attempting to prove it (as it is but a theory). Based on your reply to Arcturus, I can see you are ready to dismiss the matter of how a lab leak of a virus with natural origin may be possible, which calls into question whether you acting in good faith. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet again you link to a much-discussed non-WP:MEDRS source, wrongly saying it is MEDRS, and then top it off with a personal attack. Alexbrn (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban after reading this conversation and the discussion on the article talk page. This editor is a tenacious and tendentious POV pusher trying to draw greater attention to a fringe theory using poor sources. The editor refuses to listen to helpful input from experienced editors and engages in one of the most common tactics of tendentious editors - repeating the same point over and over and over again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is an effective method of persuasion. I suggest that the editor go work on articles about butterflies or asteroids or paint brushes or something else non-controversial. Not this topic, where their strongly held point of view overwhelms their good judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, your comments are at odds with WP:CIVIL and could be regarded as an ad-hominem attack. Arcturus (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support The moment a reasonable source is available, Wikipedia will tell the world the news about covid's origin. At the moment, no such source exists and single-purpose accounts should not suck up the time and energy of the editors trying to maintain policies at these pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The editor is having a civil discussion. I've enjoyed reading the discussion of the different editors. It is important to have an open discussion that presents the different sides of the topic. If the majority disagrees with the editor's suggested changes, the changes will not be made. Also, welcome to the new editors on these virology related articles. There are lots of calm and peaceful virology related articles to work on. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose for the same reasons that Forich and others have listed. JustStalin (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC) BLOCKED SOCK. Britishfinance (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

JustStalin is also pretty much a SPA, having done nothing other than pushing the Wuhan Lab leak since the 29th of December, only having made 48 edits to 10 pages prior to then since their account creation in November. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The discussion at Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology is a long disput by multiple parties. Pathogens leaking from labs is not "fringe". That had happen a number of times in other labs, including other pathogens in Wuhan. The only question if the Chinese scientists actually had COVID-19 in their lab (they say they did not). This is a new user being engaged in a difficult subject, where others have strong opinions too. Understandably, the user is making mistakes with copyright and other aspects of editing around here. Yes, they are interested in one specific subject and have an opinion. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this per se. As about COVID-19 lab leak theory, well, that might be a conspiracy theory, but we have a lot of pages about notable conspiracy theories. This page can be placed to an AfD whenever it is ready. End of story. I would suggest to create another page, Origins of Covid-19 where such controversies could be neutrally covered. Importantly, contrary to assertions by some participants, we do not need WP:MEDRS sources for pages about politics-related conspiracy theories. We would need MEDRS sources only if we wanted to say that the virus was in fact leaked from the lab. But we do not because there is no such evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Using WP:MEDRS as a cudgel to exclude non-medical claims is a bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support The draft article ScrupulousScribe created gives far more credence to the Lab Leak theory than reliable sources do, where it has been relegated to fringe. The statement in the lead is a clear violation of weight: "Some scientists, have said that the possibility of a lab leak is unlikely." In fact the consensus is that it is very unlikely if not totally ruled out. This approach inevitably leads to conflict. Until they are willing to accept Wikipedia policy, they cannot contribute constructively, at least on this topic. TFD (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, the lead of the first draft page by this new user is poorly written. Yes, it must be fixed. A reason for a topic ban? Wikipedia:Competence is required? Perhaps, but I am not convinced after looking at their edits. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the recent threads at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology (still ongoing)? —PaleoNeonate – 14:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Here are last comments by ScrupulousScribe. Frustration aside, I do not see anything really problematic. Para #1. Peter Daszak does not object to WHO or any other investigations, and he does has a conflict of interest here. The Wuhan lab was indeed partly funded by US. He is right. Para #2. Yes, MEDRS is not applicable to non-medical claims (this controversy is not even scientific; this is merely a question of what people in the lab actually did). He is right. Para #3. Yes, this is an official claim by US government, and it can be cited. He is right. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support; their edit history strongly suggests they're here solely to push a particular fringe theory, and while editors above suggest they may improve or invoke WP:ROPE, there's no particular indication that that basic goal is going to change, which raises WP:NOTHERE concerns. If they are genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, or if they're just a new user grappling by our policies, then they would be better off taking an enforced break from that topic and contributing elsewhere; they can always appeal later after they've learned more and demonstrated that they're not here just to push one conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with others that ScrupulousScribe seems too focused on pushing a fringe conspiracy theory. And their replies here suggest that even after the comments here, they still don't get why their editing is a problem. Unfortunately then, the only option is to keep them out. Hopefully if they gain more experience in areas they don't feel so strongly about, their will learn how to edit here and how to handle it when your views are not supported by the sources, and will one day be able to successfully appeal their topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• But this is not a fringe conspiracy theory. For example, David Relman (who is an expert) described "several potential origin scenarios" in PNAS, such as "SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally." and another is even worse. He tells: "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts. Just because there are no public reports of more immediate, proximal ancestors in natural hosts, doesn’t mean that these ancestors don’t exist in natural hosts or that COVID-19 didn’t began as a spillover event. Nor does it mean that they have not been recovered and studied, or deliberately recombined in a laboratory." And so on. And this just one of many sources claiming this is possible, although yes, unproven, in the absence of proper studies and independent investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support – per Johnuniq. A block is overdue. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No longer a fringe theory. While there are reasons for thinking this was not a lab leak from the high security lab in Wuhan, there are also indicators that are at the very least concomitant with in vivo lab research. It is important that we have non-orthodox voices in the community, provided they abide by community norms, which seems to be the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Oppose. This is clearly among the most contentious topics on Wikipedia; the New York Times is writing articles about how we're defending the truth from subversive elements, and I'm sure everyone here is cognizant of the possibility that these very comments are going to make it into a thinkpiece about Wikipedia governance. That said, I think it's important to stay on topic; while I don't know whether the claim that the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by accidental release from a virology lab is true or not (it seems unlikely to me), I'm not sure that this is 100% relevant to whether the person here gets topic-banned. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

• Information that is not true. There are a few categories of how true something is, ranging from obviously true per every RS ("the Earth goes around the Sun"), controversial but knowable ("being vegetarian is more healthy than eating meat"), inherently subjective ("Led Zeppelin is better than Pink Floyd"), and obviously false ("COVID-19 is caused by 5G equipment", "Bill Gates is putting microchips in the COVID vaccines"). Obviously, while we can mention that some people say these things, it is crucial to our role as encyclopedia editors to avoid saying, or implying, they are true. Their falsehood is well-supported by all available evidence, and there is no credible source that says they could even potentially be the case. In this scenario, I think it would be absurd to let someone edit articles to say so.
• Information with harmful implications. I don't think it is within the purview of our role, as encyclopedia editors, to remove content solely because it could hypothetically cause people to hold false beliefs. Guidelines, policies and consensus do not support this interpretation: for example, we have well-documented factual articles about the environmental impact of aviation, despite the fact that some people may use this as a basis for claiming the chemtrail conspiracy theory is true. We have well-documented factual articles about the Watergate scandal, COINTELPRO and Jeffrey Epstein, despite the fact that some people may use this as a basis for claiming intricate pederast conspiracies within the United States federal government. True statements which can cause people to distrust authority ("an investigatory committee found that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was made worse by TEPCO's half-assed safety protocols") are not removed on this basis.

This brings us to the current issue, in which people have brought up a variety of rationales for why writing a draft article about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis should justify topic-banning its creator. One is that the information is simply too harmful to document. I don't buy this: the origin of the virus does not, to me, seem to in any way affect what actions people take about it. On WP:RSN, I pointed out that finding irrefutable evidence that little green men brought the coronavirus from Neptune would not have any effect on whether I should wash my hands or wear a mask or avoid attending crowded indoor restaurants. The only argument I have heard on this basis is that it could cause people to distrust authorities, which I don't think justifies a topic ban.

Another argument against this information's inclusion is that it's been conclusively proven untrue. There are a lot of sources that seem to say different things. Reviewing all available literature would be prohibitively time-consuming, so I don't have a very strongly-held opinion on this. Certainly, if an overwhelming majority of reliable sources say it's a complete crock, our article about it should say that an overwhelming majority of reliable sources say it's a complete crock (as we do for the "Elvis is alive" hypothesis). If our article suggests that a total crock is true, it should be edited to say otherwise, and if it cannot be edited to say otherwise, it should be deleted. I do not think that merely being incorrect about something justifies a topic ban. :That said, I'm sure that additional research will be done, and we will have a confident answer fairly soon on whether this is a total crock or not: the balance of evidence will be overwhelmingly in favor of one model, and reliable sources will say so. At that point, it would certainly be disingenuous to claim otherwise. Until then, however, I'm not conviced it is our role to decide what they say.

Note that, as with my other comments on this issue, what I'm saying here is based on having read what people have had to say in the discussions above; if someone can make a convincing case that my thesis is in error, or bring to my attention some important thing I've forgotten to take into account, I will happily change my opinion. jp×g 02:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The above appears to suppose that writing a draft or acknowledging the possibility of a leak would be the reason various editors support a topic ban, when it is more behavioral, including persistent promotion, using source misrepresentation, repetitive arguments, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is my naïvete showing (since I have never had an AN/I thread made about me nor had an article nominated for deletion), but "misrepresenting sources" seems like a content disagreement; and wouldn't anyone argue "repetitively" if they were engaging with a dozen different people making broadly similar points about why they shouldn't be allowed to edit an article? jp×g 10:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) Strong support. For almost a year now, WIV etc. have been bombarded by "new", persistent editors pushing the lab leak scenario. These talk page discussions take up enormous amounts of time because they inevitably devolve into arguments over whether or not MEDRS applies to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, despite the thousands of kilobytes other editors have spent explaining why MEDRS obviously applies. The walls of text demanding we read whatever misrepresented non-compliant article they (plural "they") are trying to insert and insisting all the veteran editors just don't understand the sourcing policies do start to blend together, so I can see why some socking allegations have been made over the last few months. It's not the fault of an accused new editor that their debate style and singular focus resemble that of past blocked accounts, but it's also exhausting to AGF when like the ninth brand-new editor shows up having leapt straight from personalizing their userpage to arguing policy on Talk pages. Like others have said, the issue in this (and previous) cases hasn't been the content being pushed or the quality of the editor's argument per se, but rather the unrelenting IDHT-style refusal to drop the stick. Bludgeoning other editors with the same primary medical sources, then pivoting to claim MEDRS somehow doesn't apply and opinion pieces from non-experts should be accepted, is exhaustingly tendentious and can only be stopped with a TBAN. JoelleJay (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, in case you are unaware, there have been new developments to this story, calling for a new discussion and change in consensus (WP:CCC). If you are unfamiliar with controversy that lead to the addendum made by Shi Zhengli to her Nature article, relating to the timing and sequencing of RaTG13, then you can read about it here. Besides for the addendum, there has also been a number of articles published in reliable sources (such as the Boston Magazine, New York Magazine, Wired Magazine and just yesterday CNET), as well as a US government statement just last week. All of these new articles and the US gov statement clearly differentiate the lab leak theory from conspiracy theories suggested by other editors, and it is not presented as fact, but as a possibility. These articles and the US government statement call for Wikipedia to remove the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" labels from its mentions of a lab leak as a possible origin scenario of Covid-19. Furthermore, from the very start of this conversation, I have always maintained that MEDRS does not apply, and it is not a recent "pivot" as you falsely claim. :/ ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The only way I can see for non-MEDRS RS to be used in support of the lab leak not being a conspiracy theory is in the case that a government investigation actually reveals compelling evidence of coverup. Right now, all we have is the lab's proximity (location- and research-wise) and the shitty opaqueness of the Chinese government. These are both circumstantial and unconvincing, so the media relies on overinterpreting scientists' evaluation of the virus's genetic origins to strengthen their narrative. This means the evidentiary details that we can actually empirically analyze are all dependent on expert interpretation of viral evolution and epidemiology. That is to say, any "evidence" we have to boost this out of misinformation territory requires a) constructing a timeline that fits with the known epidemiological timeline; and b) proposing a mechanism that would align the genetic history with what one would expect if there was passage within the lab beforehand. Both of these necessitate MEDR sourcing reflecting expert agreement. The consensus among scientists, from very early on, has been to assume a zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans, because that is how all prior epidemics have arisen and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance. Of course there are lots of unknowns in the early days; we almost never have a clue as to who patient zero was for any outbreak. But given the corpus that has been published over the last year, the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Instead they looked at the available data, found it comports with the standard origin assumptions, and did their analyses using those assumptions. That a handful of academics, many not even in virology, have spoken up about a lab leak does not change the consensus. This is best demonstrated by the fact that when the lab leak is addressed at all in the literature, even in articles directly relating to viral origin, it is treated as a hedged "sigh" note to humor the pressures of laypeople before being discarded. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I was just on my way here to begin this discussion after looking through User:ScrupulousScribe's edits. I didn't realize this conversation had already begun, but I'm not surprised. This account is less than 2 months old. In that time:
  • SS' first edits [220] advanced the conspiracy theory, over the objections of Alexbrn, of a "lab leak" origin for COVID19.
  • SS then began advancing the claim [221] that their own close reading of theses or original scientific research proved that Shi Zhengli is lying about RaTG13.
  • Boing! said Zebedee blocked SS for edit warring over these issues [222].
  • SS created Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory.
  • SS created Ralph S Baric, which I'd ordinarily support, but I'd rather that bios for these scientists aren't being created by conspiracy theorists seeking to undermine their work.
  • SS creates The Cambridge Working Group, indirectly suggesting that gain-of-function experiments are the source of the COVID19 pandemic.
  • SS has now created a bio for Huang Yanling, an otherwise unknown research whom conspiracy theorists allege is the COVID19 "patient zero."

Literally the entirety of SS' brief Wikipedia career is spreading conspiracy about COVID19 all over the site. In the summer, I gave up trying to keep track of the extent to which conspiratorial COVID material was being added to this encyclopedia: the rate was too high, and the admin response too relaxed. I'd like to see some tougher rules being applied in this area. If we don't do it, readers who come here looking for answers are going to be seriously misled, and we'll be responsible for our failure to educate them. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lengthy topic ban; absolutely oppose block' Where COVID19 originated and its route of transmission is a public health question; whether there have been attempts to suppress information about the origin is a political, not medical question, and is equally a political question whether such attempts have or have not occurred, and regardless of the actual epidemiological question of the actual origin. I do not know and am not going to guess whether or not this particular origin account is correct; I similarly do not know whether there is a conspiracy to suppress discussion of it in the general media either in China or elsewhere, though I do have an opinion. . As pointed out earlier, it wouldn't be the sort of conspiracy theory which is patently implausible on the face of it; such an supression attempt is within the bounds of possibility; it involves a government known to suppress non-official views; it is about a topic where they have been reliably reported to have attempts to conceal or hinder or control the dissemination fo some information at some points in time in more than one country. It is the sort of topic where fair coverage is part of the core mission of Wikipedia as a NPOV medium.

I see here an attempt to rule out discussion in WP articles of some of the possibiltles, and I do not even understand it, because it's not the sort of absurdity that some editors here sometimes honestly (but in my view mistakenly) try to minimize. Conspiracies do occur. Conspiracies to conceal information are a particularly common type, and recent years have had quite a number of them that seem to have been real--and also a number of accusations of them that clearly have not been real, & more that probably not been real. All these are appropriate topics for WP articles.

It certainly is possible that the particular ed under discussion here has tried over-zealously or unfairly to force inclusion of his own viewpoint. But I cannot accept the assumption that seems to have been made by some editors here that their viewpoint does not merit discussion. I would consider reasonable a short break from the subject; I would consider unreasonable and prejudicial anything more than that. I've heard various opinions in general about the appropriate length of such topic bans. My own thought, never having been the subject of a topic ban proposal myself, is that 48 hours away from a topic is enough to bring about a pause, but I may be judging by the relatively short time I personally tend to follow any one issue. An editor who has ben the subject of such topic bans has told me privately, not with respect to this particular topic, that two weeks or so the right time to regain perspective, and this may be more realistic. Since we are speaking about suppression, an indefinite topic ban or a block would seem to merit such a description. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: The topic ban I placed has got nothing to do with the plausibility or otherwise of the lab leak theory. You say you have an opinion on it, but I do not and I have no interest in discussing it. The problem is the relentless promotion of the theory using horribly unreliable sources, rather than trying to produce a balance of reliable sources as required by WP:NPOV. This has extended across multiple articles, occupying the valuable time of other Wikipedia editors. The last straw was the article about a person rumoured to be patient number one, sourced to gossip, blogs, conspiracy chat, and no reliable sources showing anything remotely close to notability (and I judge that partly on the AFD discussion). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I must also respond to "It certainly is possible that the particular ed under discussion here has tried over-zealously or unfairly to force inclusion of his own viewpoint. But I cannot accept the assumption that seems to have been made by some editors here that their viewpoint does not merit discussion." No Wikipedia editor's viewpoint (on the lab leak theory or anything else) is of any relevance, and no Wikipedia editor's viewpoint merits discussion. We're supposed to leave our own viewpoints at the door when we enter, and edit only in line with what reliable sources say, reflecting their balance. Any editor who can not do that with a specific subject should not edit on that subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues with this view: (a) the issue is not their views, but how they go about pushing them. Conspiracy theories can be totally plausible on the surface, and still be conspiracy theories. In fact, many of them sound quite plausible. And reasonable talk page discussions are the way to go to establish so. Poor sourcing, walls of text, arguing points endlessly, changing ones point, arguing that new point endlessly, then coming back to the original refuted and already-exhausted point and discussing that again is beyond disruptive. It's just disrespectful of the time of others, and the sheer volume of fringeness is overwhelming. (b) admins should really step up in the COVID misinformation department. It's ridiculous to what lengths editors trying to keep fringe content out of Wikipedia have to go to. It shouldn't be this difficult. It's quite unfortunate that only a couple of admins are willing to actually use the GS that the community has authorised to take action. The talk page is full of walls of text yet next to zero substance. So much time of productive editors drained. This is far from the only such case on COVID-19 articles. Just look at Talk:Ivermectin, for another recent example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I have no dog in this fight, but there are enough opposes in this thread that warrant further investigation. We have an editor with 631 edits, and the only black mark on their log is the block by Boing (since self-removed), but now we have a indef 3 month t-ban? ^{Apologies, correction per below. 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)} I agree with most of what DGG stated above, and because he has seen these issues from the highest seat in DR - ArbCom - which he has served on for many years, I respect his position. I'm of the mind that what just happened is another valid reason why DS/AE needs drastic modification. I'm also wondering what happened to WP:BITE and WP:AGF? I'm not criticizing anyone for wrongdoing because I believe the problem lies with ArbCom's DS remedy which was supposed to resolve issues fairly and expediently but opened the door to WP:POV creep, and disregards better ways to resolve these issues without chasing off news editors and content creators who have good intentions. We should be welcoming opposing views that are reliably sourced - it's the heart of NPOV, a core content policy. I've not seen anywhere in our PAGs that we should discourage opposing views, rather the opposite is true, particularly considering this case is political and not a MEDRS issue. There have been far too many unilateral/sole discretion type actions, some of which have arguably gone overboard since the inception of DS/AE, enough so, that it has received negative attention from media. There is no set limit of time that one may argue a position on an article TP - that opens the door to a subjective time limit - so when one is arguing one POV vs another, the opposition typically uses the claim of bludgeoning or overzealousness against effective arguments that threaten their own. If they were not effective, they would be ignored - TP arguments require participation by both sides, therefore both sides should recieve the time-out. DGG's suggestion for an overnighter, or a few days should work wonders. Editors become emboldened when admins protect their argument over another. WP:BLUDGEONING should be an essay, not a formal guideline or even taken seriously. It is the heart of debate and our ability to reach a NPOV. It takes two+ to argue, so why is it one side is always wrong, especially when there is only 1 editor with a substantive argument against 3 or 4 editors who are pushing their own POV? I don't know if the latter has happened in this case, but it is worthy of consideration before slamming the ban hammer on a new editor - which may have been done, but the oppose arguments lead me to believe there is a valid question. Unless someone is trained over many years to suppress their biases/prejudices as a writer, it is the most difficult thing to do and it does not come easily to the untrained, so much so that they may not even realize they're doing it. WP:POV railroad also comes to mind. Bottomline here, Nature presented a well-written article, as did BBC, NBC News, and NY Magazine, all of which are RS which pass WP:GNG relative to ScrupulousScribe's investigation article. The opposition to it may actually be what deserves scrutiny, although as I've mentioned, I have no dog in this fight and have not done a thorough investigation of the behavioral allegations, which is the only reason DS/AE should have been triggered. Just my nickel's worth. Atsme 💬 📧 15:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The TBAN wasn't enacted under discretionary sanctions, and is not indefinite. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: The General Sanctions ban (which is for three months and can be appealed right way, not indefinite) is nothing to do with reliably-sourced opposing views. I have no opinion whatsoever on what should be included on this topic if it is reliably sourced. The ban is for a number of issues, culminating in the creation of a BLP article based on one of the worst violations of WP:BLPRS I've seen for some time - it's deleted now, so you won't be able to see it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"a BLP article based on one of the worst violations of WP:BLPRS I've seen for some time". I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Arcturus (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Considering that you don't know what I've seen for some time, you can't have any idea whether it was an exaggeration. Sure, there may have been far worse violations recently that I didn't see. But this one was particularly dissapointing after the significant feedback the editor had been given in recent discussions on the need for reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Boing, as you may be aware, and with the utmost sincerity, I have a great deal of respect for you as an admin because you exercise good judgment and caution, but I am a bit confused over this case because CS states (my bold underline): While not limited by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines, community authorized general sanctions ordinarily follow the procedures and scope of standard discretionary sanctions authorized by the Committee, but with the community handling all appeals at the administrators' noticeboard. Deviation or additions to these standards typically requires community consensus, unless purely clerical in nature. What I'm seeing is "deviation" because of the BLP portion. In retrospect, it appears you acted within your admin rights of standard DS/sole discretion. Somehow, I missed any mention of any BLP vio in this t-ban discussion, and have since read the AfD. I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome. My apologies for any misunderstanding but I was focused on the "fringe" issue here and did not see any prior mention of a BLP vio. I read your sanction on his UTP, but if your action was the result of the BLP being the last straw (and I'm hard pressed to consider a BLP creation by a newbie as a sanctionable vio), doesn't that "technically" take it out of the Community discussion here? Your sanction reads: You are now banned from writing about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, on any Wikipedia page (with the exceptions outlined below) for three months from the date of this message. Therefore, it wasn't based on the community discussion because you said "Your creation of the Huang Yanling article is the last straw." I probably would have taken a different position had I known, and would not have given the Oppose votes as much weight here, although it did give me an opportunity to state my case about DS/AE, which is where I believe your action should apply. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 17:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, thanks for your kind words - right back at you :-) The sanction I placed was not done as a community sanction under Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions but under WP:GS/COVID19 which gives admins more leeway to act unilaterally. And yes, perhaps I should have made the "it wasn't based on the community discussion because you said "Your creation of the Huang Yanling article is the last straw" thing clearer. Finally, the sanction is not under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and is not an Arbitration Enforcement action - I know, the array of different sanctions confuses me and I have to keep looking them up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Topic banned

I have banned ScrupulousScribe from writing about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, on any Wikipedia page (with some noticeboard exceptions described on their talk page) for three months from 20 January 2021. This is in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. The sanction is a lesser one that that proposed above, and the community can of course continue with the discussion and impose a greater sanction should the consensus go that way. But I chose what I thought was a minimum, taking into account that ScrupulousScribe is a newcomer here and I think they genuinely don't understand the problems with their contributions (despite, admittedly, a large number of other editors challenging them and trying to explain the problems). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: ScrupulousScribe emailed me about this ANI discussion and their subsequent TBan. As I understand the situation, SS has made mistakes and may have held some beliefs with respect to editing that are not completely compatible with WP:5P. I have suggested that they they adjust and align their beliefs to the principles of Wikipedia and learn more about community policies and guidelines, should they choose to continue making contributions to the project.
  On the other hand, SS complained about a small clique of users leveraging WP:MEDRS as a cudgel to exclude non-medical claims, which I share a similar concern. I have been editing collaboratively with SS and others on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I consider this article largely a work in progress that has a lot of potential to have well-sourced, WP:BALANCED information and perspectives, both scientific and non-scientific, presented in a way that meets the standard of the project. I did sense some tribalism and WP:BITE mentality when I examined the editing history of some of that article's more recent editors, as well as when I participated in the discussions on the talk page Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I hope this comment can raise the awareness from the broader community about these issues, and I urge more editors to help monitor and check unconstructive behavior and conduct on this article as well as related topics. Normchou ^💬 22:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Normchou: Thanks for your thoughts. The "beliefs with respect to editing that are not completely compatible with WP:5P" thing is essentially why I only made the ban for three months, though I'm convinced that is not the entirety of the problem. I'm hoping that ScrupulousScribe can spend the time contributing in other areas and getting on the right side of Wikipedia's requirements and of the community's expectations for working in the Covid-19 topic area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, as I said above, I think you are in error to make the topic ban so long. Quite apart from my own view, I do not think there was consensus to do so. I very strongly urge you shorten it. I'm not sure of the etiquette here--when I was an arb, I would not have let myself be involved in this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  As I said above, the block is in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and is not as a result of this ANI discussion - I informed the community here as a courtesy. I imposed no minimum time before ScrupulousScribe can appeal the ban, and I'm open to shortening the length if they make an appeal that convinces me it doesn't need to be so long. But I do think they would benefit from editing in less controversial subject areas for three months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I also note that the discussion here preceded the creation of the most recent article that was snow deleted at AFD, and I think that article was a microcosm of the larger problem. It was what trigged my action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have often complained of the procedure at arb com, but I see things are even worse here--we would never have a single arb enact a ban or block when the committee had not yet decided. t am not suggesting I am appealing on behalf of the user, which under current practice I think only the user can do. Rather, I do want to appeal against your misreading of consensus.in a discussion. I have widely discussed the need to reform the over-slickyness of AE based DS, and a number of the current arbs seem at least partially convinced, but it seems there/s another process which has copied our bad ideas. ( I know it may seem strange to see an arb asking questions like this, but I was not elected on the basis of my (almost nonexistent) previous experience here at AN/I. ). Hypothetical: suppose we had formed consensus here to do a one year topic ban and enacted it; could you then over-ride the discussion here by placing an indefinite block for essentially the same offense? If you personally could over-ride or preempt the decisions of an admin board, why do we have the board? Suppose that in analogous case I were to have enacted under the same community sanctions a 2-week topic ban, and informed this board only under courtesy.

I do recognize the possibility that this board or for that matter arb com should be discussion one offense, and a totally unrelated one by the same editor might occur--the community has in practice pre-empted the need for arb action several time in this manner. DGG ( talk ) 11:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not misread any consensus, because I was not acting on consensus. I acted unilaterally as permitted by the applicable General Sanctions applied to Covid-19, and to stop what I saw as ongoing disruption. And as I say, I acted upon further developments that had not been discussed here and did not play a part in the !votes cast so far. If you don't like the current General Sanctions then feel free to try to get them changed. And if you don't understand what the General Sanctions empower an admin to do, then I suggest you read them (sorry, that sounded a bit snarky) it is all explained at WP:GS/COVID19. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But to answer your hypothetical (on what I would do rather than what I could do), had any topic ban already been enacted (by another admin under GS, or by community consensus), I would have not have modified it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For all the various complaints I have with DS "slickyness" is not one of them. Here is a great case of where an admin taking some initiative with the GS reduced disruption and provided quicker relief than waiting for the wheels of consensus to turn. More admins should step up and use it in cases where it's needed, now and earlier in the year. Not doing so is a great disservice to readers (who rely on non-fringe information, especially in these times) and editors (who spend countless hours removing nonsense whilst screaming for admin help to no avail). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

PR, I think your reply can more accurately be expressed by modifying your sentence to Here is a great case where an admin acting only on his own view of what ought to be done took some initiative to reduce disruption by removing a principal editor on a one side of an contentious issue, without waiting to see whether there was consensus or not, being aware of an ongoing discussion where the proper action to take was disputed.. relying on our practice that nobody would modify it (which is what is meant by "sticky) And then to go on to say that more admins should act as quickly as possible in disputes without worrying about consensus.

Boing, I know what an admin 'is " empowered do--it is, as you imply, very different from what an admin ought to do. What an admin ought to do is specified in WP:Community sanction. and I quote:

Community sanctions, like community bans, are proposed and discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard. Sanctions may be proposed by any editor, and they take effect if there is a consensus.... the standard for determining consensus is "no uninvolved administrator objects".

It appears that the rule is not quite what you seem to have thought it was, though It does seem it was not directly violated here , but rather worked around. Maybe I should myself do as has been advised, that when an issue comes here that might fall under a community or DS sanction, act early in the discussion before there is likely to be a chance to see if there is real consensus, and let my own view of what is or is not fringe (or whatever is the question) settle the dispute de facto by getting in first. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

DGG, I agree with everything you say here. The situation is quite extraordinary. A lengthy debate is held with the objective of reaching a consensus and then an admin comes in and unilaterally effects a topic ban, completely ignoring the debate. What is the point of editors contributing to a discussion that is destined to be ignored? If Wikipedia policies allow this to happen, then all I can say is that they are sadly lacking. As for the ban itself, it's completely over the top. User:ScrupulousScribe is a productive editor and is no more a POV-pusher than those who have made their opposing views known. At least he's an editor who wants to add content and build an encyclopedia. Arcturus (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee was 100 % correct in their actions. As has been amply demonstrated above, User:ScrupulousScribe is not a "productive editor," but is instead actively harming Wikipedia by devoting all of their time to spreading conspiracy theories about the origins of COVID19 onto a number of different sites. The outcome of this is that a half a dozen editors need to endlessly explain characteristics of virology, evolutionary biology, and scientifically rigorous sources, while also ensuring that readers aren't being misled. Our project is to educate readers, and more admins need to step up and put a squash on these conspiracy theories and the editors promoting them. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong to call the "lab leak theory" a "conspiracy theory", given that one of the WHO investigating team members has said he will keep an open mind to it. The possibility of a lab leak is an origin scenario of Covid-19 has been covered by: The BBC, Reuters Bloomberg, The Telegraph, The Times, Presadiretta and Culture France, Le Monde (2), and multiple Washington Post articles, such as this. It is true that I have dedicated an inordinate amount of time to this topic, at the expense of other topics I am familiar with, but that is only because I saw real issues of bias that irked me so much, I created an account to start a discussion, and here we are. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Utter rubbish. First, as to whether they are conspiracy theories is the current debate. I happen to think they aren't, but discussing the matter as ScrupulousScribe has been doing, is hardly "harming Wikipedia". As for the half a dozen editors needing to explain the points you mention; they're not being forced into it; I bet they enjoy it, if the truth were known. And I bet most of them are not qualified in the relevant subjects anyway. As for educating readers; no, Wikipedia is here to provide facts. Readers can make up their own minds. Arcturus (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to provide facts. Readers can make up their own minds. <- I'm afraid that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, an WP:ENCyclopedia, with policies about this sort of thing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

See Education. I also noticed somewhere in this extended, multi-page debate, that an editor stated something along the lines of how we (Wikipedia) need to protect our readers; a quite laughable sentiment. Arcturus (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think an encyclopedia, with policies about this sort of thing is a factual, but very narrow description of the nature of Wikipedia. I agree with Arcturus in highlighting the educational aspect in the overarching goal of Wikipedia and related projects, which is clearly stated in the Wikimedia Foundation Mission: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Normchou ^💬 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: You appear to be confusing Community Sanctions with General Sanctions. My topic ban was not under WP:Community sanction, but under WP:GS/COVID19, as I have previously explained to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll also point out to you that Wikipedia:Community sanction says "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DGG: Wikipedia:Community sanction says "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." and is not the rules for any active sanctions regime, if it ever was. It was certainly never the rules for the COVID regime. It appears it was marked historical in 2008, which precedes COVID by over a decade.

The community-authorised discretionary sanctions system was authorised for the COVID topic area in this discussion. As a result, Boing!'s action seems wholly proper to me, in line with the community authorisation, same as it would've been had this ANI discussion not have existed at all. The comparison of an admin "getting in early" with a weak sanction sounds to me like a WP:GAME analogy.

As per the regular rules of the sanctions regime, the editor is free to appeal to WP:AN and a clear affirmative consensus can remove the sanction. I imagine such a consensus will not come to fruition, though. This situation seems like a good use of GS in a contentious area (hence the community authorisation), to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the error in wording. The effective difference between CS as it was and community-applied GS is small,; and the difference between such GS and AC/DS is merely a matter of form in where the request, sanction, and appeal can be made and logged.--in fact one of the perennial questions at arb com is whether we can as a last resort here an appeal from community sanctions--in general we have not, but I don't think I'm disclosing any secret to say that a key motivation for that is merely to decrease the flow of appeals arb com must consider. Both AE sand GS sanction are admin actions, and admin actions require express or implied consensus. Admins do not decide content any more than arb com does, though in both cases the decision can affect content. Some admin decisions that affect content require Deletion Appeal, which is effectively an admin board, but does require explicit consensus,; some are reversible informally by another admin, generally after discussion. But I do not think any person here can actually decide on their own account whether something is fringe, though they certainly can decide on whether a person is disruptive, and they can base that decisions in some measure over the general consensus that something is fringe. I have not located the exact wording yet, but I have always thought the basis of admin policy is that administrators 'act for the community'--they they act only to enforce what they reasonably believe to be the explicit or implied consensus of the community. That's actually a quite flexible wording, and does leave room for good faith disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) .

GS explicitly allows admins to use discretion. The community can always override the unilateral admin action on appeal, which the editor is entitled to submit for consideration. This is the same process as at WP:AE I believe. eg Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser: El C took an admin action under the DS on the original AE, and the process allowed for this immediate appeal at AE again for consideration of a consensus of admins. Similarly, this can be appealed to AN for consideration by a consensus of editors. Using DS/GS, or enacting a regular admin block, in the middle of an ANI discussion is not even that uncommon I think. Equally, I'm not sure the meta-philosophy on DS and consensus is true; if it were, a no consensus appeal would result in the sanction being overturned (same as a NC ban discussion). However, per the rules at WP:ACDS#appeals.notes it appears this is not the case - a no consensus appeal results in the sanction remaining in place. Part of the so-called "first mover advantage", I suppose. Although imo, based on the last few GS discussions, I believe this is the correct behaviour to ensure stable controversial editing areas. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

.*I'm losing interest in the Wuhan lab article. After spending some useful time working (mostly with Forich) to try to identify which were the WP:BESTSOURCES, this work was set aside because apparently it was too much like hard work and instead things have descended back into too much forum-esque argument, with too many editors with their switches jammed on "transmit". The final straw was finding I had spent a great deal of time arguing with a sock, JustStalin. As has been said, we've had similar problems with Ivermectin, which is actually much more serious because it's treatment information rather than stuff about a conspiracy theory. More proactive admin involvement would have been welcome in both cases. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WHAT?

How did my complaint about a personal attack through accusations of sockpuppetry by Britishfinance, and now Alexbrn twice (once after being warned), and now followed again by Novem Linguae get turned into this?

Seems some editors here know full well what they are doing in using these tactics and are choosing to double down. Shameless.

I wonder if they have a history of this behavior and collusion? Any other complaints about bullying and failing to advocate for a NPOV?

You see how easy it is to discredit editors instead of following the rules yet?

You all should be embarrassed by your behavior. Dinglelingy (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

When you file at ANI, the conduct of everyone related to the situation, including yourself, is just as open to scrutiny as the editor you're bringing up. This isn't "behavior and collusion", this is how ANI works. For everyone. Your reaction to this speaks volumes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Dinglelingy: WP:BOOMERANG is a principle that affects admin noticeboards. I believe that it was originally conceived to prevent vexatious reports, but I could be wrong in that respect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To be 100% clear, I am not suggesting or accusing anyone with my "history of behavior and collusion" comment. It was a sample of how destructive those type of accusations are to productive collaboration. My apologies if anyone misinterpreted my point or I was not clear. Dinglelingy (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"You all should be embarrassed by your behavior" seems pretty clear. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Current behavior yesDinglelingy (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sure everybody who has contributed will hear what you say. On behaviour, do you think avoiding WP:SCRUTINY is okay? Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For the last time. There is a procedure for reporting accounts you suspect of sockpuppetting and you have failed to follow it multiple times (even after being warned) by making the accusations in two different Talk pages. On one of those talk pages I have a combined total of 3 comments, two of which had to be used to refute sockpuppet allegations. Since WP:BOOMERANG applies to the admin noticeboard, you are free to repeat it here, but I maintain the position that the accusation is a discrediting tactic, which you are now using again, this time to avoid culpability for your bad behavior. As are the comments suggesting my name be added to the SS topic ban by two editors who have followed your lead in accusing me of sockpuppetting.

I think the following is a total distraction from the original complaint but I will respond.

In no way, shape, or form can my comments be associated with SS but for my suggestions that the topic of a 'lab leak scenario' no longer be labeled with the non NPOV tag of 'conspiracy theory' and in my opinion that SS is being treated unfairly, severely. Heck I was done with this topic and suggested CowHouse and SS work together since CowHouse seemed to be working in good faith, understood the logical fallacy of labeling it a conspiracy theory, but also understood the legitimate criticisms of some SS sources.

That was until I read the second accusation of sockpuppetting by britishfinance that prompted my complaint here. It was an unfounded, incorrect, and unfair personal attack on my reputation in blatant violation of the rules and procedure. It required administrative escalation due to it being a second sockpuppet accusation made quite literally in the next thread after alexbrn by britishfinance.

I will also note that after that complaint I tried to engage alexbrn in a good faith discussion of sourcing and NPOV that was a complete was of my time due his inability to respond to specific questions without changing the subject or moving the goalposts and culminated with alexbrn throwing out another accusation of sockpuppetting. It is an absurd dialogue and I recommend anyone commenting here read it. In fact I suggest all my comments be read.

I'd suggest britishfinance and especially alexbrn are 'projecting' in their criticism of SS and are absolutely in the wrong and out of line in their criticism of me.

I'll have no further comments here except in response to admins. The facts stand for themselves. Dinglelingy (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As admin already said (and you didn't respond): "it is pretty obvious to me that this is not a new user". Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That is three times Dinglelingy you have accused me of calling you a sock puppet, and twice after my statement (above) proves I did not. I do not see a future for you editing on Wikipedia when you persist in such behavior, and doubling-trebling down on it? Britishfinance (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy: I suggest editing the encyclopedia instead of accusing editors: your edit history will speak for itself over time (I too was one of the editors you accused earlier). Since the obvious answer to your loaded question was "no/your invention", I didn't bother replying then (and this comment is to show evidence of a pattern). —PaleoNeonate – 05:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Gospel singer Yolanda Adams versus CeCe Winans

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.

---

• Yolanda Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CeCe Winans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Texas and pro-Winans 2600:1700:1BD0:9AB0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Texas and pro-Winans 71.139.41.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Florida and pro-Adams 2601:340:8300:1340:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Florida and pro-Adams 2601:344:C300:6540:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Florida and pro-Adams 2600:1006:B164:1F8D:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Florida and pro-Adams 73.104.45.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Pro-Adams Blackandeducated (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Somebody using IPs from Texas has been putting unrealistically high praise and inflated stats into the biography of CeCe Winans while removing the same kind of praise and inflated stats from the Yolanda Adams biography. This IP range isn't the only malefactor in the ongoing edit war, but is definitely the most persistent. The other side of the coin are some Florida IPs, and the registered account Blackandeducated, which have been pumping up the stats of Yolanda Adams, and removing same from Winans.

On December 26, CambridgeBayWeather put the Adams biography into pending changes protection for six months. The Winans biography could use the same protection. That, or a rangeblock in Texas. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I too am concerned. My suggestion would be indefinite ECP for all of the articles. While I would not be opposed to a state-wide IP block for Florida and Texas (for so many reasons) it's not the best option, and even blocks at the ISP level would not be ideal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Came across this as well after getting beaten to the revert by Walter Görlitz and looking into it more. There needs to be ECP to stop first time editors just coming in to make these changes, Yolanda Adams article has pending changes and that doesn't appear to be enough at the moment. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 02:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't go straight to ECP, but both articles have been semi'd for 6 mo. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Doxing

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.

---

• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this is the wrong forum to report this, but a recent edit in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department an editor has appeared to have added a SSN# on the page. I do not believe a simple revert is sufficient in this case and a full removal of the edit is necessary. Hope Admin can assist, thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oversighted. Washuotaku, Wikipedia:Oversight is the guidance to follow in these cases. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Biased reversion by Archives908

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 Artsakh Conservative Party is an Armenian political party in Artsakh."

I made a minor wording change by adding the phrase "self-proclaimed". According to Wikipedia: Republic of Artsakh Artsakh, is a BREAKAWAY STATE in the South Caucasus, whose territory is INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AS PART OF AZERBAIJAN. I'm simply stating the facts. However, Archives908 reverted my edit, despite the fact that my edit is based from the information on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Artsakh is a self-proclaimed state. Archives908 justified their reversion by stating "poor edit quality". How exactly is this a "poor edit quality"? It's literally just two words! SELF-PROCLAIMED. How exactly is this a "disruptive editing"? How exactly is this a "vandalism"? Is stating the facts is a "disruptive editing? I didn't write anything racist, sexist, homophobic. I didn't insult anyone. I'm merely stating the facts. This seems like a blatant attempt to prevent free expression of ideas. My edit is based from the information on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia contradicting itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDQUD1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello JDQUD1. Attempting to seek consensus for that change at Talk:Artsakh Conservative Party would be the next step, unless you have plausible evidence of disruption or behavioral issues by Archives908 to present. The dispute resolution guide might be helpful, —PaleoNeonate – 15:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding: you did not notify Archives908 but that is expected when posting here. I'll ping them for you, —PaleoNeonate – 15:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Please note that Wikipedia, in English or any other language, is NOT a WP:Reliable source. We need good external sources for imformation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued vandalism/ multiple accounts

Hi All, user JDQUD1 has been engaging in disruptive editing on several articles. Primarily on LGBT rights in Armenia, where the user has attempted to make unsourced edits (using multiple accounts) since early December. Some of the IP's being used are 212.241.24.198, 212.241.16.220, 185.66.254.162, 185.66.254.20, 185.66.255.15, 185.66.254.138. The user has made practically identical edits each time. I initiated a conversation on the article's talk page on 5 January 2021, asking the user to present their arguments- which the user ignored. I then sent warnings to the user on several of their IP addresses. The user has been warned on their main talk page, as well, by myself and user 331dot. JDQUD1 has attempted to remove the warnings from their talk page. In terms of LGBT rights in Armenia, the article was page protected on 6 January, as a result of disruptive editing. Since the protection was lifted, the user has continued to make disruptive edits, and has since used aggressive language against me on the LGBT rights in Armenia talk page. I initially assumed WP:GF (as seen in the talk page), but now it is clear that the user has an agenda and is not here to build this encyclopedia, in addition to potentially being a WP:SOCK. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"where the user has attempted to make unsourced edits"

The allegation that my edits are "unsourced" is simply untrue. You can check them yourself. Please, check the history of my edits.

"and has since used aggressive language against me"

What exactly? I didn't insult the user. I didn't use any racist, sexist, homophobic etc. slurs against the user. The user is just playing the victim in order to justify their biased reversions. You can check them yourself.

I presented my arguments several times, but Archives908 ignored them, stating "poor edit quality", "the last warning", "You'll be blocked". This seems like a blatant attempt to prevent free expression of ideas. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDQUD1 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for soapboxing and seriously mooning the jury. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Sid.ghodeswars

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.

---

Sid.ghodeswars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sid.ghodeswars was blocked and he made a legal threat on his talk page here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1001412256 Vikram Vincent 16:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

DavidCBryant is not here to build an encyclopedia

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.

---

DavidCBryant (talk · contribs) has admitted to abusing the Wikipedia e-mail system to send a personal-attack-laden hate mail to Newslinger (talk · contribs). When called on it, DavidCBryant declared

the Communists and Socialists who consider themselves "woke" are conspiring to convert Wikipedia, once "the free encyclopedia", into a pinko propaganda tool. A day later, you launched an assault against me. You, who have never made a single edit on Parler since the day it was created (May 28, 2019). How did you even get wind of my insignificant edit? Who gives you your marching orders? "GorillaWarfare", maybe? Do you understand why I suspect a conspiracy?

I submit that this diatribe, combined with the abusive e-mail, is prima facie evidence that DavidCBryant is not here to constructively build an encyclopedia and should be invited to take their talents elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This all happened after a change of DavidCBryant's at Parler was reverted. The change's edit summary is also unacceptable: "Tell the truth. It's not moderation. It's censorship. I bet I'll be reverted in less than a minute. Damned commies." Robby.is.on (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content

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.

---

• Harbour Porpoise9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question has been adding unsourced content/info to different articles for a number of months now, as evident from the warnings on their talk page, first warning (and from me...) is from February 2020. They've rarely been using edit summaries, and have seemingly been ignoring all their warnings, even the 'final' warning given for this edit, of which, none of the sources support the release date the user added. Latest unsourced content has been unsourced characters on The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run (every single character currently listed is sourced). Another recent content addition includes unsourced characters/actors for a different movie. The user was even warned reverted back in July about unsourced/original research content on List of tomboys in fiction. Seems like they're just going to continue ignoring warnings at this point and will continue adding unsourced things.

Just as a note, I originally reported this user at AIV, and was suggested to report here instead. Magitroopa (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As this user has never edited a talk page, I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get them to a talk. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Rev/deletion needed at Karl Malone

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.

---

• Karl Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Serious WP:BLP violation. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:AD7A:6DBF:B28:D89C (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Removing a certain information about China Jocson

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 user 122.52.235.102 [[223]] edited only 1 article for 3 months, but all of his/her edits for January 2021 in the article China Jocson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were in a form of a removal of a sourced and verified information. I moved that this IP user be blocked at the meantime. Thank you. Jayjay2020 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Mr. Master of 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.

---

• Mr. Master of Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. This editor seems to have massive WP:CIR issues, including edit-warring. A quick glance at their talkpage can see dozens of warning messages from multiple editors. This recent edit, which removed the correct stats from the infobox, is just one of countless bad edits this person has done since day one. I think WP:NOTHERE applies IMO. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - They also removed this section when it was initially created but were reverted. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 09:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And later did this to overwrite/blank the section. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

LTA - Multiple IPs posting personal grievance on various Indian gov 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.

---

These are the examples I could find, a couple have already been REVDEL'd but all are same message.

• 20th Jan: Special:Contributions/112.110.11.1
• 19th Jan: Special:Contributions/112.110.24.234
• 18th Jan: Special:Contributions/49.15.73.164
• 14th Jan Special:Contributions/112.110.111.121
• 13th Jan Special:Contributions/49.15.144.1

--Paul ❬talk❭ 10:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Various IPs blocked, multiple revisions deleted, pertinent pages protected. El_C 15:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Jleel appears to be WP:NOTHERE

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

I have moved this from WP:AIV where I reported it previously. Jleel (Special:Contributions/Jleel) appears to be engaging in WP:NOTHERE behavior. Multiple edit summary problems and edit warring at Shooting of David Dorn, with vandalism type edits involving both WP:POVPUSH and removals of significant, sourced information. They also previously vandalized Talk:Parler.

1. "David Dorn was killed by looters who were part of multiple criminal events happening during Black Lives Matter protests." [224]
2. [225]
3. "Black Lives Matter involves looting and violence. These events were happening all over the cities and during the murder of David. Black Lives Matter is heavily associated with his death. Many news outlets and the police have stated this." [226]
4. "Added the police chief statement regarding the scribing in the area of the night David Dorn was savagely murdered" [227]

Talk page and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior:

1. " Stop censoring the truth." [228]
2. [229]
3. WP:CIR issue with policies [230]
4. WP:CIR issue with policies [231]

User page vandalism:

1. [232]

Similar behavior user was warned for previously at Talk:Parler removing talk page informational notices and DS/Talk notice:

1. [233]

I'd appreciate someone taking a look. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• This was obviously inappropriate and against WP:FOC, after being warned of vandalism for partly removing WikiProjects here... Yet another account with intent to whitewash the Parler article in one of their first edits. They then hope for the Shooting of David Dorn article to blame Black Lives Matter using WP:SYNTHesis, eventually proposing two sources that don't mention BLM... —PaleoNeonate – 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Given this edit in the last 10 minutes, it would appear some serious action is needed. FDW777 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I will final-warning and alert the user to AP2 DS. Any further disruption will result in a block and, if related to AP2, a topic ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I just placed a 31-hour-long block on them for the recent unsourced, editorializing edit to Black Lives Matter, which I saw followed plenty of warnings about similar behavior at other articles. In doing so I saw there was a discussion open here. If a longer-term sanction is needed I have no objections to my block being replaced with something longer-term, but I wanted to at least stop the disruptive behavior in the short term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing at Mediumship by Flowcode

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

Flowcode, a SPA, has been making non-neutral edits at the Mediumship article. The edits mainly involve adding original research to the lead of the article. These are the following edits:

• [234]
• [235]
• [236]
• [237]
• [238]

Regardless of our own personal views of matters relating to spirtualism (for the record I am not an advocate) the edits are clearly non-neutral Several editors have taken Flowcode to task at Talk:Mediumship#Mediumship_is_not_a_"pseudoscience" and the prevailing view is that their edits fall short of Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality standards. This type of article often attracts non-neutral editing although in the past it has mainly been from people advocating for mediumship. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe this to be a masqueraded ad hominem attack against me, to simply support a certain viewpoint. Most of the edits referenced here, are moot now. The final edit, which appears to have prompted this accusation towards me, no longer deals with "pseudoscience", which was what the original dispute/edit war revolved around. It seems that any edit from me, which attempts to contribute to the scientific viewpoint, is met with hostility with the argument that it doesn't meet WP:NPOV. I believe I'm respecting WP:NPOV, and I'm doing this in good faith based on the fact that I saw an article which I believed grossly understated the scientific viewpoint by downplaying it to a bare minimum, and referring to the scientific consensus in downplayed phrases. Such as calling it a mere "skepticism". It is very easy to use words to emphasize a certain viewpoint, and this article was (and still is) anything but neutral. I would like to add that I'm also a beginner at Wikipedia and feel like I'm stepping on the toes of senior editors that are overly protective of their articles they involve themselves in.Flowcode (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Flowcode, you were clearly edit warring to insert your desired changes into the Mediumship article. When your changes are contested and reverted, you should then seek consensus at the article talk page rather than simply repeating your additions multiple times. Any further edit warring will result in a block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, talk. You're saying that I was "edit warring", but the other user, Betty Logan, was not? Didn't the other user revert the revert just as many times? Why is it that Betty Logan can revert, while I may not? Furthermore, you didn't address my statement towards this being moot. The final edit didn't state that mediumship is pseudoscience. So that leaves the obvious question, what was wrong with my final edit? Even if I was "edit warring" in the previous edits, what bearing does that have towards the final edit? Why was the final edit also reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowcode (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No hard feelings, but my suspicion is that Flowcode is a sock rather than a SPA. Their uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia WP:PAGs does not plead for them being a new user. Other than that, Flowcode does have my sympathy in this dispute, since they work in the spirit of WP:ARBPS. By uncanny knowledge I mean knowing that WP:NPOV boils down to WP:SPOV in scientific matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was presented with the links to the WP policies by the very same user that reverted my edits, and no, I didn't read all of them. In fact, I read very little of them. I read some of them, and respond as best I can to something I consider a blow to the face when I'm trying to correct what I find to be outrageously incorrect. However, I'm fully capable of realizing that this doesn't have anything to do with WP policies, and has everything to do with two things. 1, treating a senior user better than a new user, especially someone as arrogant as I am. And 2: Assigning similar weights to anecdotal pseudoscience as real science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowcode (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

and no, I didn't read all of them. In fact, I read very little of them And that's the first major problem here... (also I'm struggling to parse what your "1." means there without having to slip on the good-faith front). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Elizium23

• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Elizium23 is engaging in persistent disruptive behavior regarding the captions and new photographs I've added at Wilton Daniel Gregory. After adding 3 new photographs, first the user made uncivil and entirely false claims against me at Commons, then attempted to claim they were copyvios, despite the website claiming they were free use and in the public domain.

• here;

• here;

• here

Then, moving from Commons to WP, the user was forced to remove those claims and did offer an apology for the false personal attacks. But now the user is engaged in edit-warring when all I am doing is captioning those photos consistent with their provenance. The user was warned against warring. The user was exhibiting WP:OWN behavior, which the user was warned against.

Now the user tagged my talk for the crime of Style Guide vios(?) and now, inexplicably, has tagged the entire article itself? Because of the captions on 2 photos?!! When I civilly engaged the user, this was how that went. Now the user has RFC'd those captions. Seriously? Enough. Recommend user be temporarily topic blocked from this article. Or at minimum, be given a timeout and advised to act more civilly and reminded to edit more collaboratively. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

X4n6's behavior speaks for itself. I myself reverted the copyvio templates on Commons, once it was pointed out that the Diocese had suddenly modified their legal terms to something that we could actually use. Nevertheless, my conduct (and his) on Commons is not at issue here.

I've opened an RFC, per WP:DR. Why is this at ANI if DR is in progress? *shrug* Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So Elizium23 admits to having to self revert (several times!), both at Commons and here - and even apologized at Commons - but yet somehow my behavior speaks for itself? Baffling bit of doublespeak there. As I said, the user has also opened an RFC providing 2 supposedly conflicting captions, when the caption presented wasn't even a disputed one. There's just a lot of erratic behavior going on with this editor and I just don't want to fall down the rabbit hole any further. My request for review here was basically because I did not appreciate getting tagged at my talk for nonsense. That misuse of tags for the purposes of attempted intimidation is ultimately what brought me here. So my request for a warning or timeout for the editor on the subject page still stands. Just some warning/reminder re: behavior and collaboration with other editors. Also throw in a bit that the user doesn't OWN the subject page in question, regardless of how much time the user has spent there. Then I'll happily move on to lots more interesting matters. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: Yes, the use of terminology in the captions has been disputed. What exactly is wrong with opening an RfC to settle a content dispute? And you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG before complaining about edit warring, especially since 3RR has not been violated. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also take offense at someone dropping the welcome message on my talk page and then following it up with a FINAL WARNING over MOS issues. But I think the grammarians of MOS are a well-meaning niche group who are constantly at odds with good-faith editors over mundane issues that have little effect on the substance of articles.

100%, it is on the editor claiming copyvio to know the policies of a website before they accuse an editor, so yes you should have known policies suddenly changed.

With that said, this looks like a content issue that should be resolved through DR and other community methods especially as both editors are veterans and know the tools available to avoid being here Slywriter (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, well unfortunately I had no choice because X4n6 has a long, long talk page history full of warnings, including WP:EW and similar ones to the one I issued, so I did not feel comfortable using one at a lower level.

As to Commons, I checked the archdiocesan website where the uploader obtained the photos. I wrote: 'website specifies images are "public for free use"' and I stand by my statement that "public for free use" does not constitute a release to public domain or a valid license for use on Wikimedia Commons, which has stricter standards than enwiki. I only wished that an administrator arbitrate the situation as they are the final say about copyright issues. X4n6 chose to illicitly remove tags from his own files, which is against policy, so I restored them. No edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Slywriter:. Now you see what I was dealing with. Nothing like a little "I had no choice, the Devil made me do it!" Followed by more obnoxious slander out the door, from Elizium23. And you wonder why we're here? Fifteen years here and Elizium23 wants to bust out the proctoscope to find less than a handful of items during that entire tenure. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Within just the last 24 hours, Elizium23 has had to self-revert over half a dozen times over two platforms. Because the files were/are public domain. The damn website says so! But you know, reading is still fundamental! Besides, are there no mirrors in Elizium23's world? This could go on ad nauseum, but I'd much rather focus on vaccine delivery and a peaceful transfer of power. Can't give this obstreperous editor any more oxygen. But you mentioned the style niche folk? Funny thing is, I was a big JOBTITLES editor myself back in the day. But the anal retentiveness of some of them was too off-the-tracks for me then; and now I see little has changed. Anyway, I've had my say here, so whomever else wants to weigh in next can have theirs. Although I'd still appreciate a little comportment reminder for the subject of this ANI. Not for me. I'm beyond immune now. But for the next editor who may have the misfortune of falling down that rabbit hole. Thanks again. Now off to find a good Star Trek rerun somewhere. X4n6 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As for "exhibiting WP:OWN behavior" you haven't shown us any diffs. Interesting.

Often I do write in the first person plural, because I represent the consensus of interested editors in a given topic. It's quite the opposite of OWNership: I carry out the wishes of others as we have forged consensus about how articles in a given topic-area should look. I don't claim any singular power to override this, so any editor seeking to contravene it should be prepared to follow WP:DR to overturn the consensus in their favor. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons issues don't really concern us. But websites can claim whatever they want. When it comes to copyrights, we need to be certain. If there is any doubt e.g. whether a copyright or licencing statement is clear enough or whether the website is actually able to licence the images that way, it's quite appropriate to raise the issue. If you don't want people asking such questions, then don't upload media, or at least not media from someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't just comment generically. Often it doesn't assist in resolving anything. Here is the exact website at issue - and what it states: "The images below are free use and in the public domain. For questions or more information, contact communications@adw.org." By any reasonable standard, Wiki or otherwise, it could not be clearer. X4n6 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's what it states as of 05:02, January 15, 2021, but I assure you that it had different wording less than two hours before that. When I checked the license, the verbiage did not include the phrase "public domain". I wish the Internet archive had saved copies. Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 already pointed this out to X4n6 here [239]. So even if they didn't remember the old wording, they should have remembered it changed. While it's great the website has clarified they copyright policy on the photos, it's disturbing that User:X4n6 is now misleading people on ANI into thinking that the wording was always so clear to make it sound like Elizium23 was silly to question the copyright status. Actually in my eyes, with the latest response this comes very close to a personal attack on Elizium23 by X4n6, since they're misleading people into thinking Elizium23 did something they didn't. No wonder Elizium23 is so frustrated with them, frankly while I haven't looked into the other stuff, this is looking like a major WP:boomerang to me. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: even without Elizium23's clarification my point stands. If you don't want people questioning you on copyright then don't upload stuff which isn't your own work. It's as simple as that. Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopaedia and commons in particular is intended to have only free content. It is imperative we get copyright right. If you don't respect that then sorry you don't belong here. Actually Wikipedia in general is intended to be a collaborative project so if you aren't happy with people asking questions then sorry but you don't belong. While Elizium23 was wrong to comment incorrectly on your history at Commons, something they've already admitted and apologised for, they are fully entitled to question you if they have doubts over copyright which again I'll repeat it's imperative we get right. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Your ability to consistently get it wrong is what's impressive. Originally, I warned you that generic comments weren't helpful. So now you've gone to the opposite extreme and apparently concluded that cherry picking the log is the way to go. But my response remains the same. It doesn't assist in resolving anything. Especially when your cherry picking is so sloppy that it gets everything backwards. Contrary to your claim, Elizium23's apology had nothing to do with the website's policies. It had everything to do with falsely claiming: "Given your past history lifting an image from the website." Which was provably false from the log. So Elizium23 got it wrong and apologized. But now you've accused me of a personal attack against Elizium23 when, as is plainly evident now, I was the one attacked. So now you owe me an apology. So where is your BOOMERANG now? Then you said Elzium23 told me the website's documentation had changed. And? Did it never occur to you that perhaps Elizium23 may have been doing some CYA, because he/she couldn't find exactly where on the website the public domain statement was made? Or in your leap to judgment, was that not even considered? Unlike you, I stop short of making accusations. I'm only pointing out the possibility. It wouldn't be the first time a well-intentioned editor simply missed something, then swore up and down that it was never there to begin with. We're both veterans here, so I've seen it. Would be shocked if you haven't. So you should know better. And you should do better. Especially since you're spending so much time weighing in on Noticeboards these days. I've already shown you in bold above exactly what the website says about public domain. There isn't an editor here who would ask it to be any plainer, nor an editor who could reasonably be criticized for using it. So let's stop the nonsense right now. You still owe me apologies for both your false claims and your false conclusions. But seriously, if you're going to wade into disputes and hurl accusations, which again by your Noticeboard log appears to be your current penchant, be damned sure you know what you're talking about. And as a final response, if Wikipedia or Commons wanted to require that only original content be uploaded across its platforms, the community is certainly capable of making that decision. So it's above your pay grade to be unilaterally dispensing that advice on Noticeboards. Just as you're way over your skis saying who does and doesn't belong here. To anyone. Let alone to veterans. So stay in your lane. X4n6 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wading over his skis into disputes above his pay grade while hurling accusations out of his lane? What a workout! EEng 15:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's right, mixed metaphors. Definitely taught at Harvard. X4n6 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Stay in your lane" is uncivil language that does not belong here and is, in fact, a huge red flag that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a way of driving others editors away. EEng 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Y X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Entirely true. Also entirely true: "stay in your lane" is language that is not compatible with a collaborative project and is in fact antithetical to the very method in which Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Entirely your opinion perhaps, but that doesn't inherently make it true. I've seen much worse. Even from people with admin titles. Bottomline: I was falsely attacked and responded. Making it worse, in the attack someone overstepped their bounds, misquoting policy in the bargain. So my response was reasonable and appropriate. Which is more than might be said for your non-proportional fixation on 4 words out of a 437 word rebuttal. Words, I should add, that don't meet any of the criteria of NPA. Further, re: CIVIL: This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. Which is exactly what you're trying to do. So we're done. X4n6 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

X4n6, you weren't falsely attacked. Provide diffs of attacks and proof that they are false or that didn't happen the way you say it did. Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, read the thread. You weren't being referenced. X4n6 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

X4n6, Oh, I see, it's ANOTHER false attack? How many people falsely attack you in a given day? That kind of thing must get old after a few years! Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 But no personal attack there, right? X4n6 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No - actually it is something I go through on a weekly basis, because of the areas of the project I work in, I am regularly accused of harrassment and false templating and being mean in general, and sometimes we come to ANI and have it out and it turns out I'm not so mean after all.

But sometimes people refuse to get the point -- my grandmother used to say "If you don't listen, then you must feel" -- so I would say it is in your best interest to be polite to administrators who are making the case that you should be blocked. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: I never said Elizium23's apology had anything to do with any website's policies. I said they apologised because they incorrectly characterised your commenthistory (modified at 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC) after X4n6's reply below) which you seem to agree with.

I also pointed out that you appeared to be misleading as at ANI. I stand by that comment. I did try to look for an archive, before my responses above to confirm that it had changed but I didn't find any. Since there was no archive, I took Elizium23 at their word that the website since they specifically made that claim and you did not, and still have not disputed it. If you want to dispute Elizium23's view that the website has changed, then say so, and since there is apparently no archive, we'll just have to leave this as a case of we don't know what happened.

Until you actually dispute Elizium23's statement that the website changed, I'm going to stand by my comment that you are misleading us at ANI. If you do challenge Elizium23's view that the website changed, I withdraw my characterisation and apologise for being wrong. (Since whether you're right or wrong about the website changing, I'm willing to accept that you genuinely believe it didn't.) I won't apologise for making the comment though since I stand by my view that if someone has claimed the website changed, and you dispute that, you need to actually tell us this rather than expecting us to guess you disagree, especially when you come to ANI. Maybe I could have asked and given you one final time to dispute the claim, but frankly I was hoping to never revisit this thread hence why it took me so long to respond.

And I stand by my other earlier comments as well. Again let me say for the last time, if you are unwilling to be challenged or questioned over stuff, especially over copyright issues then Wikipedia is not the place for you. We need to collaborate, which means you need to be willing to accept people will ask you questions. We also need to get copyright right. Sometimes this means people challenge stuff where you feel it's unnecessary. Provided they don't challenge stuff unnecessarily so often that it becomes a problem, and they are reasonable about their challenge, that's fine and an expected part of editing here.

This doesn't seem like an unnecessary challenge anyway. Whatever else, I see no reason to doubt that Elizium23 genuinely thinks the website changed. Whether they are wrong, and just missed or misread it the first time, or they are right and it did change, it's reasonable for them to ask the question. If they simply missed/misread it, then all you had to do was to point out what and where the website said it and it's over, which is more or less what happened. (This is why I feel your first reply to me is so pointless. Whatever happened to the website, there's a reasonable reason why Elizium23 challenged it which they already explained to you before you even opened this ANI. The fact that they may or may not have been wrong doesn't change this.) That's part of collaborating and besides copyright, it comes up a lot with sourcing stuff where people don't see what you saw. Again I'll say this does not excuse Elizium23 incorrectly characterising your history, but since they've apologised for that, I see no reason why we should continue to worry about that.

P.S. You're wrong about the release being the best possible. It isn't. While I'm fairly sure it's good enough for commons, there's a reason why actual attempts to release stuff into the public domain by copyright and legal experts, like CC0 tend to be so complicated [240] [241]. Copyright law is complicated as with a lot of laws, especially when you consider all the different jurisdictions out there, some of which don't really have a clear concept of releasing stuff into the public domain, As opposed to stuff entering the public domain from expiry of copyright. While to be fair, this was likely considering the US only, it could still be better. One obvious example, it's unnecessary to say anything about "free use" if it's in the public domain. Free use generally means a work where the copyright is retained but offered under a free licence, something which is different from releasing a work into the public domain which tries to give up all copyright.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Quite a lot to unwrap. Which is unfortunate, because I was done here. But since you pinged me, I'll respond this final time. Afterwards, feel free to have the last word. You wrote: "I said they apologised because they incorrectly characterised your comment." As I already told you, you're wrong. The apology was for falsely claiming: "Given your past history lifting an image from the website." Totally false. So the apology had nothing to do with incorrectly characterizing my comment. And no, I did not "seem to agree with it." In fact, I said this about the apology: "It had everything to do with falsely claiming: "Given your past history lifting an image from the website." So you were wrong again. Then you said: "I also pointed out that you were misleading as at ANI. I stand by that comment." Still wrong. By your own admission you said: "I took Elizium23 at their word." to which, again, I said: "It wouldn't be the first time a well-intentioned editor simply missed something, then swore up and down that it was never there to begin with." So let's be clear: if you want to take someone at their word (with no proof), that's your business. But you don't (based on that same absence of proof) accuse someone else of being misleading. You can stand by that all you want. You're still wrong. Finally, then you tried to lecture me saying: "if you are unwilling to be challenged or questioned over stuff, especially over copyright issues then Wikipedia is not the place for you." But I was "challenged and questioned" here, here, here and here. So your claim that I never disputed Elizium23 saying the website changed is rubbish. I consistently said the images were taken from the website and legal for our use. That's all I needed to say. For Elizium23's claim to be believed, the website would have had to be legal for me to use when I uploaded the images; then unavailable for Elizium23; then magically available for me again. All within an hour or so. And this supposedly happened for 3 separate images! Did the website play hide and seek? I only know what I know. Since I posted the images and went back to the site to cut and paste the permission as proof of their availability, that is what I know. The editor below has said there were changes recently. Were they during the narrow window of an hour or so that we're talking about on January 15th? All I know, is that the images are available for our use and that has been confirmed by several editors. They are beautiful images and the project is lucky to have them. As to you, from the beginning I said your ability to consistently get it wrong was impressive. I stand by that. But at this point all I really know is we got the right outcome. The project has the legitimate benefit, legitimately obtained, of 3 current, quality images. Take yes for an answer. Now I'm done. X4n6 (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@X4n6: Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say "incorrectly characterised your history". I have corrected my statement above in a manner that makes it clear that it came after you replied. This is what I said the first time "comment incorrectly on your history at Commons". Again apologies the the the confusion, but you there seems to be zero disagreement that Elizium23 described your history incorrectly/wrongly/falsely/whatever you want to call it. This was wrong of them. I agree. They agree. They've apologised for it. You should move on from it. If you don't agree with me that Elizium23 incorrectly/wrongly/falsely/whatever charaterised/described your history at Commons, you will need to further explain, since you reply doesn't address the issue because of my mistake. Your other stuff, I don't understand at all. As I explained below, the dispute is over what the website said, according to Elizium23 and another independent editor, it said something else before. I think you are trying to claim it did not say something else before, but really I have no idea since your description is totally confusing. It's clearly perfectly possible that the website had those images and said something else which you thought was sufficient for us but wasn't. For some reason, the website later changed the wording and so now it is sufficient for us. This is a perfectly plausible thing to have happened. The timing is very weird although as I said below, we have fairly conclusive evidence the images only appeared about 2 days before you uploaded them so it isn't that surprising they were still adjusting the wording. Maybe you know this since I figure if you managed to find these images so fast, maybe you're regularly searching. In any case, I think we don't know exactly what the website said, since no one thought this would be such a big issue so bothered to record it. I expect something like "these images are free use". It's also possible there is someone involved in that website or in contact with them who is monitoring Wikipedia or Commons. If there is, it would be great if they would comment to clear up any confusion, there's nothing wrong with what they did provided they're in complianced with WP:PAID (i.e. have declared if they've been paid to edit any pages). Donating material is something we welcome with open arms. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was somewhat sceptical about the website's wording having changed, and looked for an archived version a couple of days ago. Archive.org didn't have one; nor did archive.vn (archive.today's current guise), but it sent me to a Google cached version of the page. The wording was indeed changed quite recently: the earlier version did not say that the pictures were in the public domain. Unfortunately, I didn't save the cached version, and Google's bots being the efficient creatures they are, the current cache has been updated to reflect the revised version of the page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks greatly BlackcurrantTea. I realised I'd forgotten to search search engine caches, and unfortunately as you've found, it's now too late. And I did try Bing and Google. Although interesting enough, I also found from Yandex this [242] suggesting those images are very new, at most about 2 days before they were uploaded here. I guess given how new they are, it's not surprising they were still adjusting the wording. In any case, with 2 different unrelated editors saying it changed, I think we can be sure it did. I have no idea WTF User:X4n6 is on about above. No one has ever said the images were unavailable for Elizium23 AFAICT. The only thing that has been said is that the commentary associated with the images changed over time. Originally it did not specifically say in the public domain. Then it did. No one has ever suggested it changed to say public domain then stopped saying public domain then said it again. (Although it's possible website caching could make it seem like that depending the the device used I guess.) The specific wording x4n6 keeps highlighting only appeared on Wikipedia, after Elizium23 had raised the issue, so we have no evidence X4n6 ever saw it before they highlighted it when Elizium23 brought it up. Instead the evidence from 2 different editors suggests it did say something else before. I'm still willing to WP:AGF that X4n6 is simply misremembering what the website said before if that's what they claim. Even if I find it interesting that not only did the website quickly change after there was a dispute, but the images were uploaded to Wikipedia so soon after they appeared on that website. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:"Unavailable" meant "unusable" as in they could not be used by us. Hope that helps Nil Einne understand. It should also be obvious that I knew they could be used by us when I uploaded them. Hello?! If Nil Einne really wants to AGF toward me at this late date - long after accusing me of misleading this ANI - then that would be an excellent place to start. How about assuming good faith enough to assume that I knew they were legal to use from the text provided at the time I uploaded them. Listen, nobody understands the need to be vigilant about uploading copyvio images and copyvio text, more than me. I've been a varyingly prolific member of this project for (almost) 15 years and was an IP editor for years before that; and still have the battle scars from both to prove it. So I suggest your AGF should start there. Employ some AGF to assume I knew WTF I was doing. So the website tweaked their text after they uploaded images? And?! Obviously, most major websites update all the time. Some update several times a day every day. Did some version of their text confuse Elizium23 as to our ability to use their images? It seems so from the log, where Elizium23 alternately says the license "is unclear."; to, since the website changed, I may be the webmaster or photographer; culminating, mercifully in Eilizium23's apology. All while I consistently said the images I uploaded "passes muster" (Elizium23's term); and "the images are 'free use and in the public domain.' It couldn't be more clear"; to trying to graciously accept Elizium23's apology. So I don't know what Elizium23 saw; or didn't see; and where he/she looked; or didn't look; and if/when the text changed; and if/when this particular text changed. And neither does Nil Einne, or anyone else for that matter. The bottomline is: however we got here, we're here. We have 3 great images that we can use! That part, no one has disputed! And to answer Nil Einne's final question: I found them because as far back as last November, to end another unpleasant exchange with a contentious editor, I said I would take it upon myself to find "an image that will be above any editor's reproach". So I kept looking. It seemed logical that either the Archdioceses of Atlanta or Washington where the cardinal has recently served/serves; or the Archdiocese of Chicago where he's from and first served as a bishop; or even the Vatican itself; would post current images to celebrate the cardinal's elevation. And because of its historic nature, those images might even be in the public domain. Possibly even hi-res. If not them, any number of other religious organizations with online presences might have offered their own original images for public use. So it was just common sense to check regularly. Which I did on a weekly basis. Finally, I hit the jackpot and found 3 great images on the Archdiocese of Washington's website on the same week they were posted. And they were "unusable" as in they could not be used by us. So I uploaded them immediately; luckily before some other editor found them. So I just did what I said I would. So there you have it, Nil Einne. So unless Nil Einne, or anyone else would like to ping me again - this time for the sole purpose of an apology; or perhaps (gosh!) a thank you; or (warning: shameless plug to follow: jeepers, even a... barn star) - then kindly do not ask me to return here again. Done, please in the name of all things holy, done. In closing, I'd just like to thank the Academy. X4n6 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-report by Elizium23

While we have this going with some steam, I'd like to self-report myself for cruelly and viciously stalking and harrassing Rcb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who were respectable, constructive editors until they met the likes of me. I improperly warned them over and over about their good work on additions to year-based chronological articles. I dragged them to a noticeboard rather unnecessarily when they complained. I have been mean and rude and I deserve the punishment you decide to mete out. (I acknowledge the need to notify these users but I am unable to do so myself. Sorry.) Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

MTATransitFan

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• MTATransitFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – See filter log. Possibly compromised account. >2000 edits and vandalizing Donald Trump. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. @Suffusion of Yellow: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Not sure why this wasn't acted on at the time. If repeatedly attempting to a add a vandalism image to a very, very high visibility page isn't AIV-worthy block-first-ask-questions-later behavior, just what is? That would have been very embarrassing for Wikipedia had that edit saved.

In any case, they seem to have stopped now, but I'm not sure who is in control of this account. Not seeing any obvious previous vandalism from this user, so it seems out-of-character behavior. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, the attempted edits never went live and were several hours old by the time I got to the AIV report so an immediate block wasn't necessary at that point to prevent further disruption. Hence referring you here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Ok, sorry if I was a bit snippy. I was a little annoyed at the admins who didn't block in the first few hours, not you. To those admins,  the edit filter is not magic pixie dust. Clever people will work their way around, sooner or later. Please assume that the filter won't stop the next attempt, and act accordingly. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsure what this is about - I made a joke edit at noon when Biden was inagurated which I quickly reverted. If that is cause for blocking, I am sorry! If there's another reason, please let me know, I'd love to fix this! Thanks! Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 21:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You have over 2000 edits, and you attempted a "joke" like that? Really? Oh and you didn't self-revert; you made four attempts, all blocked by the filter. After the third attempt, you didn't stop to consider if that was such a good idea? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:MTATransitFan, don't make jokes like that again. If the filter hadn't caught it you'd be even more embarrassed, and HJ Mitchell's words suggest also that if an admin had seen that while you were doing it, you'd have been blocked. I would have blocked you. OK? Now please don't do that again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow:@Drmies: Sorry, I will not do it ever again. I just wanted to celebrate Biden's inauguration, BUT I realize that I shouldn't have done that. I am sorry.

Also, weird that it said that I had edited four times, I made the edit on my computer and phone each once. Then I closed off the publish-preview tool (essentially reverting the preview), and that is what I meant by reverting. Sorry I did this, I am still a somewhat new user of Wikipedia, and have never made joke edits before, and will never do them again (except in my sandbox).Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 22:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Joke edits regarding BLPs are not okay even in your sandbox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Right on. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, it was inauguration day, and so that will draw people to those articles, but the sudden spurt of edits to political articles today - and only political articles - by this account is wildly out of character with the rest of their edit history. In addition it's rather preposterous that an editor who has been editing heavily since June, with only a few minor don't-do-this-es on their talk page, would think it was okay to make a "joke edit" on one of our most heavily watched BLPs, attempt to do so four times, and then react (as seen above) in such a "what's-the-big-deal?" manner to boot. Either MTATransitFan's account is compromised or we have a major issue that they don't seem to understand the seriousness of - and apparently they don't understand how the preview and edit filter tools work as well, also, seriously, you "closed off the...tool" four times in a row? Really? Either way at this point we can't assume good faith that further disruption won't occur. I was in the process of blocking when this was edit-conflicted by the few above edits and I'm still not certain I shouldn't go through with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I celebrated a bit--on Instagram. Anyway, with my magic glasses I see no evidence of a compromised account. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Some things are suitable for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. For everything else, there's MasterCardInstagram". Thanks for the look...and that just makes me more concerned about the conduct here. The day was going so well, too! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(Also we don't "celebrate" anyone's inauguration here, or did WP:NPOV escape your notice?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Winning Jah - seeking advice re my talk page request

Winning Jah has been deleted numerous times, and the last time, I protected it from recreation. I now have a message on my talk page from NOTICE501 to "revert" the article - I think they really mean for me to remove the protection. This is a fairly new editor, and this page has been deleted multiple times, including via this AFD Winning Jah. Need feedback here from other admins. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looks notable to me. If this RS is correct, an album sold 650,000? There are lots of Nigerian sources, and an AllMusic entry. The article that was deleted via AfD was somewhat undersourced but there's certainly enough to write an article here. My thoughts would be to keep the name salted, drop a version into Draft and let it be improved. Black Kite (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE501, I think Black Kite is offering some sound advice here. Creating and editing drafts gives you instructions on how to do that. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Maile66 Understood. thanks for your research Black Kite, how do i start writing in draft? i felt our admins have to firstly give a go ahead, to avoid problems, because i saw it was repeatedly created in 2017. NOTICE501 19:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE501 I suggest you use the article wizard, which will help you create your article in Draft space. When the article is ready, you can then submit the draft for review. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE501 I have restored the reasonably-well-sourced version to Draft:Winning Jah. When you think it is suitable for publication in mainspace, drop a note on my talkpage and I'll have a look at it. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and this version is four years old so you will need to update it (and it may be worth checking that the references still exist online). Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite I just saw the draft now and controlled the sources also, you are very correct, i will try improve the article by writin g and adding more reliable sources to it , i have seen a lot of media coverages about the subject.NOTICE501 09:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite I think, i have writen only the relevant part of the Winning Jah article, i have selected reliable Newspapers, books, Google Scholar nothing more. — Maile Kindly help me to control the links i got, probably you've seen more suitable ones, before fixing the sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winning_Jah NOTICE501 18:58, 20 January 2021

repeatedly removing other editors comments

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

This editor User talk:Distelfinck is being super disruptive, repeatedly removing other editors comments, edit warring with it. They repeatedly remove content and claim BLP violation despite none being evident. I think they are WP:NOTHERE and aim simply to disrupt, a vandal and nothing else. Diffs (I might have missed some, they've been busy):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000551734
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000561680
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000574916
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1000576252
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001159818
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001170211
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001172581
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001174854
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001175479
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&diff=next&oldid=1001175782

It's really disruptive, completely out of line. I don't see any hope of this editor being able to contribute constructively if this is how they conduct themselves. If you look at their history they are generally disruptive, they don't contribute constructively to articles and I sincerely think they are here to disrupt rather than contribute, the broader pattern is that of a vandal. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was going to say that NOTHERE is often overused when it comes to editors who have been here for 8 years. But wait, you just Googled a guy and think this is good enough to say that he's a white supremacist on Wikipedia? Seriously? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Or you could try taking a proper look at the discussion and the diffs? Being here for a long time they would know that you can't just delete other editors talk comments or editwar this way. Kind of behavior you usually get from IP vandals. The discussion is actually about whether the subject is or is not a white supremacist...And that is all besides the point, edit warring and deleting other editors comments is disruptive and then some, I assume you already know this as an admin? I would have thought the diffs above were blatantly actionable. Bacondrum 01:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You say: "They repeatedly remove content and claim BLP violation despite none being evident." Calling a living person a "white supremacist", without providing reliable sources is a BLP violation. Paul August ☎ 02:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like good-faith removals of uncited and thus BLP-violating claims. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? This is just crazy. Did you actually look? The discussion is about whether or not the subject is a white supremacist, I typed their name into google and every article that came up described them as such, so I addded that observation to the discussion. Distelfinck has been edit warring, I'm not the only one who contested his repeat deletion of other editors comments. So, from here on out I should assume it's okay for me to to remove other editors comments whenever I want, even after others have responded, and edit warring is also totally acceptable now? Noted - Thanks, I'll keep that in mind in the future. You guys are admins, you set the standards. Bacondrum 04:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why yes, in fact I did "actually look". I typed their name into google and every article that came up described them as such, so I addded that observation to the discussion. Without any backup for your claim from these "every article"s you say that you found. "I googled the guy" is not sufficient evidence for this sort of claim to be made. You made an unsupported claim that, being unsupported, violated BLP. That's all there is to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

First articles that come up in google search. And keep in mind that the discussion was about whether or not the subject is a white supremacist, pretty hard to have that conversation if you can't say either way.

• https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2020/12/30/22206292/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-wisconsin
• https://www.npr.org/2020/12/03/942355778/kyle-rittenhouse-the-kenosha-shooting-suspect-ordered-to-stand-trial (calls him a white vigilante, but same difference.)
• https://abc7.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-jacob-blake-shooting/9695338/
• https://7news.com.au/news/crime/teen-charged-in-kenosha-shooting-on-bail-c-1623155
• https://www.ajc.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-hoists-beers-with-proud-boys-at-wisconsin-bar/RQTCZMR4T5G5PIKQHROSIE5G3Q/

All describe him as or connect him to white supremacy. And surely Distelfink should not be edit warring with multipul editors, removing multipul editors comments, without discussion. Bacondrum 21:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, now in the future please, when describing people like that even on talk pages, supply these reliable sources to establish the comments. Distelfink was removing what were indistinguishable from serious BLP violations and therefore isn't likely to be sanctioned. If they start removing sourced comments in discussions, we can return to this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I see now. Sorry if I was being a bit curt. Thanks for your time. Bacondrum 09:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that any of those sources would support calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. The old ones don't all say white supremacist and the ones that do say BLM protesters (or similar) have accused him of such. That is not sufficient for us to say he is. Also the way that discussion was going didn't suggest editors were trying to weigh evidence to support an impartial edit. Anyway, none of those older sources say he is. The newer sources talk about a recent incident but again do not say or quote others saying Rittenhouse is a WS. Springee (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they do warrant that claim being included in the article in wikivoice. That being said nearly every article on the subject mentions him throwing white power signs and being connected to white supremacy, he is accused of murdering leftists - I think we can discuss the fact that he may well be a white supremacist. I don't see how the comments at talk were BLP violations. It's not like articles about him are saying "boy scout accused of murder". Bacondrum 09:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I was concerned about IHA's comments and started a BLPN discussion here. [[243]] Even now with (alleged) I think this is a problem. It also refects a pattern on needlessly hostile talk page comments/behavior. By itself this probably isn't actionable but if it continues a tban should be considered. Springee (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Green

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

I am being accused by the above user on Talk:Higashi-Ikebukuro runaway car accident (Special:Diff/999281046), without evidence, that I repeatedly attempted to login to their account. Then I tried to ask the user to retract the accusation, which was refused in Special:Diff/1001556013 with "you had better reflect yourself" in the edit summary.

Note: I asked what should I do at the help desk and was directed here (Special:Diff/1001593529). ネイ (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Warned. El_C 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Dejanmilic

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

The user above keeps removing the content which he doesnt like on the page Predrag Bošković without using the edit summary and justifying the removals. I notified the user on his talk page that Wikipedia does not censor, but I did not get a response and he still removed the content once more. He removed the content 4 times already.

Please check (Special:Diff/1001601138) Elserbio00 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh, do either one of you know that WP:3RR is a thing on Wikipedia? Well, now you do, so please take note. Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WP:ARBEE (Balkans) noted in the protection summary. El_C 15:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've also dropped explanatatory once-and-final-warnings regarding 3RR/edit-warring on the users' talk pages, plus a note about "official" vs. secondary sources that seemed relevant from discussion on one of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

120.22.81.111 at Talk:Novak Djokovic

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.

---

120.22.81.111 (talk · contribs) is practically ranting at Talk:Novak Djokovic about Djokovic.[244] While ranting, they have decided to include attacks toward Novak. I reverted it twice and informed them both times about our talk page guideline. The user has insisted since then to expand more and more these attacks. I also think that there is an enormous difference between what they have said there and "Hey guys. Where's the entry about Djokovic's behaviour". Can someone take a look at this? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a rant, but a reflection on Novak Djokavic's outlandish requests at the behest of himself. It is not a discussion, but a summary of what has happened today with his requests to the Australian Open directors, and it should be met and dealt with in the same fashion with a thorough and logical rebuke of his actions particularly considering the state of the world right now. --120.22.81.111 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for producing an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, not a place to discuss or rebuke things that are in the news. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well shall we say, that the ultimate form of rebuke from an academic perspective (I'm assuming Wikipedia actually wants to meet the standards of academics one day rather than being a laughing stock across the world) is to repudiate what was said... I'm not saying I was nice, I don't care about being nice, I did say what I said was the truth of the matter, and further to that point, the real sentiments of many people living in Australia right now. --120.22.81.111 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The real sentiments of many people living in Australia right now are not encyclopedically relevant, except as reliable sources report on them as a reaction to Novak's actions. Nobody cares about your being nice or not (within the bounds of WP:CIVIL), we care about the fact your HONEST statement was against Wikipedia policy, potentially against our most critical policy, and whether or not it was the truth of the matter is not relevant to inclusion in Wikipedia. We deal a lot with editors who come here to promote "The Truth", registered or not, and a large fraction of them go on about Wikipedia being a laughing stock across the world. We're used to those slings and arrows. We want to meet the standards of being verifiable and reliable about notable subjects, regardless of what 'academics' think (and in many cases what they think is, in fact, against policy). No more. No less.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

considering I was making an edit request almost none of this stuff about actually editing is relevant to me. But if you really must have a sourced opinion... Here you go... "Djokovic is a tool" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.81.111 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a case of WP:NOTHERE & WP:CIR, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You had better be careful with charging competence unless you like boomerangs... You may not like my tone or my civility but as should already be understood... This is not a competence issue at best it is a civility issue, at worst case the OP has drawn a long bow and gone off half cocked like most people who charge IPs with lack of competence... So charge me with incivility if you want, but that's exactly why I don't have an account here. A lot of editors here on Wikipedia are full of shit about their "knowledge" and are quite openly POV pushers, who abuse rules such as 3RR to filibuster and stifle change, and systems such as AN/I for things like these that have nothing to do what so ever with competence but more so to do with civility. Most of these editors of Wikipedia wouldn't know the first thing about NPOV from a truely academic perspective or how to check your biases at the door when you engage in topics and it is so blatant in relation to the matters of sports such as "whose the best" in tennis that the whole discussion there over recent years already proves my point of view. So, before you charge me with competence, I suggest you check your own civility issues at the door, and then reflect on how to check your biases at the door also. Maybe then you will actually understand the point of what I was actually saying...

On that note I never said I was "nice." I don't profess to follow the etiquette of nicety when I'm charged with such nonsense as incompetence, when it's far from the case either. I did say I was honest in my statement. My HONEST statement about Novak this morning was an honest assessment of the facts... and in this case I don't like it has already been assessed as not being a good enough excuse to be here at the administrators noticeboard so please feel free to shut up.

The point was made that the article should reflect Novak's poor behavior in an already terse situation, and his expectations in a country faced with the fragility of being one of the few countries that is covid free in the community... Moreover, that his behaviour (not mine) is beyond rebuke.

I think we're done here. --120.22.81.111 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the above rant is good enough for a WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Buh bye now. Slywriter (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

if you really must have a sourced opinion... In reference to what I said above... Here you go... "Djokovic is a tool" --120.22.81.111 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you threatening me IP? If so, you're only boring me. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not Cornholio I have no reason to threaten you. I'm just reminding you about incivility and if you're going to throw sticks about competence, some of of those sticks will be boomerangs, and if it's the case that some sticks are boomerangs then at least some of those boomerangs will come back.

You might not like the language of my request, but there was a clear request that even you understood... and that rebuke has been brought to the table by someone else other than me that Djokovic is a tool. So it's not original research either. If you have a problem with what I say, take it up with someone who cares... --120.22.81.111 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Well this whole argument is about as dumb as bringing this to AN/I and it is definitely about being HERE. The jester himself that has caused this furore has put out his own statement about his list of demands --120.22.20.47 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you like a tennis court with that statement? . I was trying to save you the ignomy of bringing up the jesters backpedal. --120.22.20.47 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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

User:Kings Indian Defense disrupting Ali Alexander 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.

---

• Kings Indian Defense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ali Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was going to put this at WP:AN/EW but there are also BLP and copyright considerations, so I figured I'd come here for a broader venue. Please see the edit war that Kings Indian Defense has begun at Ali Alexander. They have so far added a huge chunk of copyrighted content from a Salon article (which I revision-deleted per RD1), tried to insert "committing fraud" in the "known for" portion of the infobox based on poor sourcing, and have added a "notable quotables" section with a quote calling him "noxious". There has been past discussion about adding Alexander's criminal history to the lead (see Talk:Ali Alexander#Describing Alexander as a felon in lede), and editors have generally agreed it is inappropriate.

I've also got a request open at RfPP about this page, as disruption has resumed basically immediately after the previous page protection expired. If anyone feels like knocking that out while handling this it would also be appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

+1. Really getting tiresome. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The page was updated by me to the source on the infoxbox to use already referenced citations in the rest of the page. The infobox vs lede are two different areas, and there's multiple citations referencing his convictions. What's the minimum required citation reference before it becomes a precedent? 0? 1,000? 5? The additional information with 'notable quotables' was removed, as was the Salon citations to acquiesce to your requests/recommended changes. I'm sorry if it was burdensome. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It was not a Salon citation, it was a copyright violation in which you copy-pasted much of the article. If you would like to discuss whether the infobox at ought to describe Alexander as known for "committing fraud" we can do so at Talk:Ali Alexander; this is not the venue. This is, however, the venue to address your refusal to discuss your changes until dragged to ANI, and your edit warring over your desired version. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The site was cached in my browser, so it appears. As soon as I returned to it I noticed the requested changes, the inbox notices, and addressed the concerns accordingly. It was certainly not intentional or an endeavor out of stubbornness, you have my assurance, GorillaWarfare. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating that your browser managed to load the reverted version of the article without any other portions of the page, such as your notifications, updating. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Kings Indian Defense (talk · contribs) is essentially an WP:SPA (all edits since October 2019 relate to Ali Alexander, and very few edits before then). Their edits do not appear helpful and I would be inclined to issue an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban if disruption continues—they received the discretionary sanctions notice at 01:58, 21 January 2021. Kings might not be aware that articles here avoid overdoing negativity. The subject's problems are plainly listed in the short article and there is no need to shove them in the lead or the infobox (unless the aim is to persuade Google to display all the problems in their summary). Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Kings Indian Defense has been quite open with their intentions in adding "committing fraud" to the infobox: There is a duty to inform the public that they should heed caution before financially contributing to his endeavors, and after January 6, 2021, reasonable minds can conclude putting forth this warning is important. ([245]) GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Partial block from Ali Alexander and Talk:Ali Alexander. Not sure what sense is there to approach WP:BLP violations in this case from the angle of WP:ARBBLP, with WP:AWARE and everything. Anyway, hopefully that will be that. El_C 02:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post reported on accepting contributions without a registered organization. They stated, "his (Ali Alexander) “Stop the Steal” website solicits contributions that aren’t bound by nonprofit rules or constraints and which, at least in its initial iteration, went straight to him (which is illegal, without reporting it for political campaigns or electioneering).

The Post article also draws the correlation that suspicion of his motives as a result of his convictions do play a role in his efficacy. Stating that, "A decade ago, he was flitting around on the fringes of the conservative movement where his past legal troubles contributed to scrutiny of his efforts to raise funds for an online publishing venture." The Salon article also states that "Conservatives had grown increasingly wary of Akbar's felony fraud convictions and other allegations of improper conduct, such as asking donors for personal information." they go on later in the same article, "Notably, Akbar also created a since-deleted donations landing page "paid for by the committee to elect Curtis Bostic," which was quite likely illegal, since the campaign denied ever officially hiring the convicted felon. After Bostic's primary defeat, the campaign dismissed Akbar in the press as an overzealous volunteer."

There is a clear pattern established of this individual misrepresenting himself or his initiatives for a financial benefit/gain, as well as reputable sources referencing it in their reporting. GorillaWarfare: RE:browser: it's hardly fascinating if the problem was resolved after shutting off Brave content blocking and refreshing the cache resolved the issue. Clearly I was aware there were issues if I triaged the problems. Should I probably have done so prior to? In hindsight, absolutely. I appreciate your well-intentioned criticism, though. If I'm not perfect by now, it's definitely not your fault. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Take a break. It's worth it. I personally think this was a misunderstanding and chilling for a few minutes is a worthwhile exercise. 🙂 Jdphenix (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This noticeboard isn't really for getting into the content weeds of it all, although I guess it's pretty much the only place left for you to do so (oh well). But regardless of that, your comment above sidesteps the "noxious political activist" (admins only) defamation, ostensibly, as the only quote in a "Notable Quotables" section (what?). And you didn't even attribute it properly, to begin with — it was said by Jared Holt, not by Roger Sollenberger. What is going on here? This level of incompetence is totally unacceptable when editing articles about living persons. El_C 03:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C: I removed those quotes and phrases, but to your point about attributing properly, I input the article details from which that quote derived, not the specific individual making the quote in the citation. The article was written by Roger Sollenberger. To your concern about "noxious political activist", it would be apparent that his involvement in scheming (Ali's words not mine) what took place on Jan. 6, would prove the definition of 'noxious' as synonymously accurate, rather than the assumption it's used in a defamatory way. Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kings Indian Defense, to me, it constitutes editorializing of a defamatory nature. Also, do I even need to point out that that isn't how quotes work? Again, competence is required, especially for anything to do with WP:BLP. I'm sorry to say, but the manner in which you are coming across does not inspire confidence. El_C 03:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed competence is required, and found it interesting they directly state:

• "It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake." We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process." (I'm certainly new to the editing process, explained the issues that occured and how I was going to correct them and did, and followed the correct procedure as directed of me.)
• "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person." (Violated by a previous comment here, "This level of incompetence is totally unacceptable when editing articles about living persons.", and "the manner in which you are coming across does not inspire confidence".) I'd be happy to concede I'm uninspiring, though it appears to violate competence is required. El_C Kings Indian Defense (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kings Indian Defense, but violating WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP is a serious matter, as is quoting the wrong person and not even acknowledging that this is an issue (even now!). So yes, I'm being firm. As seemingly a single-purpose account, you should be extra careful about your single-purpose here. Or maybe go edit some other pages until you get the hang of things...? Not sure what that "uninspiring" bit is about (a joke, maybe?). Anyway, good luck. El_C 04:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C yes, it was meant jokingly. For reference, though.. is violating WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP more or less serious than incompetence? Are they equal in value, or is there a hierarchy? Is there also consideration made with respect to unintentional violations compared to being knowingly versed yet committing an offense? I'm still very new to this, so I'm trying to understand the lay-of-the-land.(talk) 04:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kings Indian Defense, there is no hierarchy. Each case is evaluated according to its own merits. Anyway, since we're already speaking on your talk page, I'm closing this report. El_C 04:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User obstructing implementation of consensus reached on talk page

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.

---

Czello is being deliberately obstructive on the Conservative Party (UK) page by reverting any attempt to implement the best fit consensus reached on the talk page. Not sure what to do about this. Could an admin please assist?

Moreover, the OP seems to be launching a false attack against me in making acquisitions of sockpupetry because of our dispute on aforementioned Wiki page. Crunchynotsmooth (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So, first things first. Crunchynotsmooth is almost certainly a sock of Politicalguru. He very clearly passes the WP:QUACK test, and several other editors have agreed with me. You can see the investigation about him, with mountains of evidence, here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru.

Secondly, Crunchynotsmooth has edit warred to keep his version of a page (which does not have consensus, contrary to what he says) on top, and has violated the 3RR in doing so. He was reported to the EWN here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Crunchynotsmooth_reported_by_User:Moxy_(Result:_).

Thirdly, the consensus that he is referring to does not exist. He has created an RfC on the talk page to decide the political position of party, but instead of respecting WP:QUO and leaving the article be until the RfC is concluded, he is edit warring to make sure that his version sits on top. The RfC is currently not going in his favour (but he has, frankly, lied and said that his views have a "strong consensus"). You can see the RfC for yourself here. He has been told by multiple editors to let the status quo version of the article sit while the RfC concludes, which he has ignored. Furthermore, as you will see from the article history, he has been reverted by multiple editors, but every single time he undoes their edits and has gone beyond the 3RR.

OP has also been reported to ANI by me in the past under one of his previous socks, which you can see here.

Given that he continually has no respect for the WP:BRD or WP:QUO process, he's happy to trample on the 3RR, he still shows WP:OWN tendencies, and he is quite obviously a recreated sock, I request he be hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. — Czello 15:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Czello on all points, myself and other editors have tried to persuade them to engage in further discussion, but sadly to no avail. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 15:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Laska666 non-collaborative editing and racial PAs

• Laska666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Laska666 began a major restructure of the several articles around Vietnamese dynasties, which was contested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Organization of articles on dynasties by myself and Qiushufang. Laska666 has been encouraged multiple times to discuss the content changes so we can achieve a consensus for how the articles should be structured, and did initially engage slightly in discussing the article structure.

But Laska666 has repeatedly focused on (what they perceive to be) personal background and reverted their edits back in:

1. your don't have much knowledge about Southeast Asia history. I recommend you should read some Southeast Asian history books (04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)‎)
2. This MarkH21 is just confused the difference between Chinese dynasties and Southeast Asian royal houses (04:10, 15 January 2021‎ (UTC))
3. Reverts their contested changes back in anyways (20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
4. Who are you? You're from project China, why you are here? Do you even read history books I recommended? (21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
   • If they're referring to WP:WikiProject China, I'm not even a participant there.
5. What problem with you? The Dinh was a royal family, not a state. I know you are angry guy, but did you buy and read the books I recommended? No? Pseudo enough. (21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
6. @MarkH21 so what stuff you had contributed to Southeast Asia topic? (21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

They were warned about this multiple times during the discussion; all ignored:

1. Comment on the content, not the contributor (please see WP:NPA). (04:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC))
2. Edit-warring warning (21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
3. You continue to focus on the contributor while ignoring the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Organization of articles on dynasties. This is your final warning to engage in constructive discussion and stop commenting on editors (especially without evidence). (21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

Laska666 has engaged on a talk page only one other time in their 6 months on WP, involving racially-based personal attacks against Kanguole at Talk:Chữ Nôm#infobox changes:

1. Stop faking our national customs, Chinese. (17:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC))
2. Stop telling lie, Chinese. (17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC))
3. Stop claiming our cultures, Chinese! (17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC))

I don't think more warnings from me will accomplish anything. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I came into conflict with Laska over linking to Dai Viet instead of the dynasty articles a while ago because he insisted on changing it to Dai Viet, when the page did not contain any useful information. Eventually Dai Viet was improved to the point where it at least had links to the appropriate dynasty articles which contain actual information valuable to the reader. Dai Viet still does not contain adequate information on each individual dynasty and their corresponding historical information, so to delete content from the dynasty pages is essentially destructive behavior. Moreover, it does not hurt to contain more detailed information on the political history of Dai Viet in each individual dynasty page anyways, as it prevents bloat in a single article. Both Dai Viet and the dynasty pages can have useful information, but at this stage of the pages' development, it does not matter because neither have adequate amounts of information to warrant deletion of content. I suggest Laska to simply add content rather than delete, especially when no alternative sources of information exist on wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: That's the content side of it. But Laska666 has several conduct issues here. They need to stop focusing on personal background and engage in collaborative content discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This person attempts to divide our community into a Southeast Asian/Vietnamese section, a Chinese section, and whatnot, by insulting everybody who they believe is of Chinese ancestry or for some ad hoc reason unsuitable for "their" field of knowledge. Such conduct is shockingly racist and highly disruptive to collaborative work. As multiple unmistakable warnings have been of no avail, I believe the time has come to make them painfully aware they've crossed more than one red line. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly actionable behavior. Since Laska666 was warned for blatant copyright violations by Moneytrees though, they seem to have stopped all WP activity. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Outing and legal threats, again

This guy User talk:180.233.126.86 is at it again: [246] this time making legal threats and edit warring [247]. Two minutes ago they outed me again [248] I asked for a page protection to no avail. [249] I think an indef block on this IP is needed at this point. Bacondrum 07:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikemcroberts seems to be a sock. pandakekok9 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A page protection might be better in this case. Vikram Vincent 07:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

can I please have my legal name removed from the edit summaries as a matter of urgency? Bacondrum 08:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted a couple of outing summaries and requested suppression by the Oversight folk. We almost never indef an IP as they are often reassigned to other people (even technically static IPs), so I've blocked for 3 months - we can extend it if the problemns recur after that. I don't have time to properly examine the article history, so I've just put a short protection on it - anyone else can extend it if needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks heaps! I’m pretty sure this Mikemcroberts is a sock. On top of outing my legal name (again), edit warring, etc. They’ve now started racially abusing other editors “Pino commie, stay away from an Australian article”, I assume Pino means Filipino. Bacondrum 09:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that at Special:Contributions/Mikemcroberts, but if you have any specific edits let me know (on my talk page is probably better, with a smaller audience) and I'll deal with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I may be mistaken there. Thanks again. Bacondrum 09:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That was the IP address with the insults.. Vikram Vincent 10:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I assumed it was a typo for "pinko commie"- bizarre, but not racist. Curdle (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The user being attacked is Filipino and the way the IP has used "pino" appears to be racist "Pino (Filipino) commie, stay away from an Australian article". Bacondrum 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I think this edit summery should also be removed, it's a racist attack on another editor "Pino" being Filipino - [250] Bacondrum 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I know Pinoy is a familiar term for Filipino, though that's not derogatory. But I think it's better to err on the side of caution with Pino (especially as the commie bit makes it clear it's not an affectionate message), so I've rev-deleted it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Thanks again! Bacondrum 21:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mikemcroberts does very much look like the same editor as the IP, given their suddenly appearing and joining the edit-war to revert in the IP's edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User: Naiman2020

• Naiman2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user @Naiman2020: has made various anti-Semitic remarks, including inferring that me being Jewish has made me inherently racist because of disagreements about the page, to me on the edit history of One Night in Miami (film) page as well as the talk page. I was referred here by @Facu-el Millo: who has witnessed this and pointed it out as well. After I brought it up on the talk page Naiman2020 denied it until presented with evidence by Facu-el Millo. Then Naiman said said the comment towards me was to vaguely bash any religion, even though my user page clearly states I am Jewish. He has now even seemed to claim he's Jewish as a defense and made another comment attacking me because of my heritage. All of this can be viewed on the talk page and edit history for the film. Thank you.Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (Talk) 02:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless, your religion teaches you to hate others and especially those with Muhammad names? edit summary This was directed towards me while reverting one of my edits Samurai Kung fu Cowboy

4im (Only Warning) given for personal attacks, with a note about unacceptable language. If they don't immediately shape up it'll be block time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this goes here?

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

---

...Uh, why is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brantham_TMD transcluded to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_21?

Sorry if this isn't the right place to bring this up, or if I screwed up terminology, but I think this needs administrator attention and wp:an had a big warning suggesting I go here casualdejekyll (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe someone fat-fingered when entering a different AfD on an article with a similar name? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The nominator linked an old deletion discussion to the log; they should have linked to the second nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brantham TMD (2nd nomination). It is fixed now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Constant WP:SYNTH by User:Am7777

• Am7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Am7777 has been adding ginormous amounts of content in single drops with poorly written edit summaries [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256]. User has been previously warned about their behavior [257] and [258]. User keeps adding unrelated information but is doing original research to link and promote their caste. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a slow-motion edit war, but they're still edit-warring, and communication is not optional - the tiny edits they've made in response on their talk page are not communication. Accordingly an indef parblock from Janjua has been applied. If they start discussing, it can be lifted by anyone without needing to ping me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

New account continuously making large misleading edits

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

This newly created account has been making huge contentious edits and article blankings within a short space of time, including accusing other users of POV pushing while being one themselves. Furthermore, they exhibit WP:NOTHERE with most of their edit summaries being misleading (blanking articles and then claiming that they were "redundant") or accusing other users such as Quoctoann171 of being a "Vietnam based POV pushing user". I'm fairly confident that this user is not new based on this behavior, and that it's most likely a sock account too. ShelteredCook (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

When you started this discussion, a big yellow box was displayed to you stating "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors." So please do. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nitesh Surya Vanapalli

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.

---

• Nitesh Surya Vanapalli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued disruptive editing after final warning.

• Final warning: [259]
• disruptive editing after final warning: [260]

GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

GA-RT-22, please explain why in your view that edit is disruptive. ◅ Sebastian 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(As someone that has also had dealings with this editor) The addition of mumble rap violates WP:V, something this editor repeatedly does as can be seen from all the warnings, including 2 final ones on their talk page. They also have not, to date, bothered to communicate with editors raising concerns on their talk page regarding their disruptive edits, something that is required to edit here. Robvanvee 14:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my first time reporting here. This user has a history of adding or changing material without providing a source, and getting reverted for it. Here are some examples: [261][262][263][264][265][266][267] If you look at the tags you'll see these have all been reverted. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Block evasion at Talk:Alexander the Great

• Talk:Alexander the Great (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

A blocked sock is very likely using IPs for block-evasion and trying to push POV-nonsense. I don't know if there's an effective range-block. Anyway, in chronological order:

• 116.58.201.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 116.58.201.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 103.67.157.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The latest IP also pinged User:Toddy1, although it is rather apparent there's no connection between them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sure the IP is a blocked sock.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The ranges are too busy for a rangeblock, would just excluding them from Alexander the Great (and perhaps Toddy's talkpage) work OK? Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It probably would solve this particular problem for the time being; although the sock was also engaged in other things so we'd probably still have to deal with them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Heads up - this is a mobile provider, and the changes of IP are likely involuntary. They seem to own quite a few ranges, you might be able to get it with 4 ranges. SQL^{Query me!} 18:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Edits by an 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.

---

• Jordan Nash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently I have decided to create a page on the British Actor Jordan Nash. There was an existing redirect created by the User:Cardei012597 so I decided to create a page about him as he seemed enough notable. I just have seen the page has been vandalized by User:GSS and he is making offensive comments about my taking money or getting 'hired' which is nothing but a result of his imagination. I have already put the page in AFD to decide if the page has its place in Wikipedia. Lastly, I want some justice to be done for GSS baselessly casting aspersion on me and vandalizing the pages created by me. Jinahpol (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have shared the details of undisclosed paid editing and socking with paid-en queue and @MER-C and GeneralNotability:. Also, I have speedy closed the AfD since it wasn't nominated for deletion and they are trying to get through their undisclosed paid work. GSS ^💬 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, Vanjagenije has handled their most recent sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harryishere/Archive. @Vanjagenije, It's the same freelancer. GSS ^💬 14:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What is this about? "they are trying to get through their undisclosed paid work"? Are you in sane state GSS? What are you talking about? Paid work? What evidence you ware talking about? If you are doing it right then what is ceasing you from showing me it and asking for rather than repeating same thing again and again?

You can simply check your Upwork account as I'm not allowed to disclose your real name here per WP:OUTING. GSS ^💬 15:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To Admin, Can you please check that why and how this editor is warning me with 3RR while violating the same on his own in the next moment? Jinahpol (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the article, and the merits (or lack thereof) of the sockpuppetry accusation, you're both edit warring now and I would gently suggest you both cease and desist that approach. KillerChihuahua 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1. Redirect locked for a week. 2. It doesn't matter if it was bad faith, GSS, NAC-ing an AfD by an editor you're edit-warring with for the page you're edit-warring on is not on. 3. You really shouldn't roar past 3RR even if you believe WP:3RRNO #3 applies, especially if you haven't shared the evidence. Since it's been ~12 hours I'm not blocking either of you for 3RR but if you start edit-warring again there will be immediate blocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Well since the advert on Upwork has been protected post my revert and warning on their talk page I can now share it here. This advert was posted on Upwork on December 19, 2020, and a freelancer was hired to create a page for Jordan A Nash. The advert has been protected but I have the screenshots which I can share with anyone interested. During my investigation, I also found another advertisement on the same Upwork profile that was posted to remove maintenance tags from a page. That advert was posted on November 12th and reads: "Wikipedia Page Tag Removal - Needs to be removed from an existing Wikipedia Page. Need to be done within today." Jinahpol edited Marc P. Bernegger the same day and removed the tags which further confirm their involvement in undisclosed paid editing. GSS ^💬 07:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Before someone continues with their imagination and desperation, let me point out some facts.

I don't have a lot of time I believe like lot of others over here. I am involved in our family timber business. It will be the last thing in my life that I will have to earn something as a freelancer by writing Wikipedia articles. My esteemed cultural values taught me dignity and honour matters a lot. I see what the editor have shown and is showing - utter disrespect and casting baseless aspersions which I do not deserve in any situation. For the record, I am taking this very seriously and I am now much invested in this and everyone else must concur that this is a cyber bully taking place which should be stopped RIGHT NOW. Firstly, this editor showed extreme bad faith without any proof. It is obvious they are desperate with something but nothing gives him licence to exercise bad faith in this length in Wikipedia whoever he is. per WP:PA "personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration." Such an editor by rule should face serious consequences for continuing their persistent hostile personal attacks. Personal attacks can be seen [268] they said me 'get lost', [269] they accused me of being involved in disgraceful acts without any evidence, [270] again here for spurious block evasion accusation without any proof. Regarding the 'evidence' that they are talking about, I am certain that it is fabricated and manufactured (that's why possibly it took more than 12 hours for them to come up with the specific claim of the 'evidence') as I have apprehended before. Further, to their own admission what they are calling 'evidence' is not verifiable publicly. This makes it clear that there is actually no evidence available to the editor. What is claimed to be an 'evidence' is definitely a manufactured one. I request admins to be very vigilant and scrupulous while evaluating the authenticity of the 'evidence'. Since I am facing obvious false accusations from someone in unjust manner, I have the right to see what they are calling as 'evidence'. I request the concerned admins who have the 'evidence' to kindly share me the same via mail. They violated WP:AFD norms by removing the content of the page when the page was nominated for AFD (as the nomination was right to resolve the content dispute) and also closed the AFD without any consensus, which is illegal. They should have waited for the community to decide. Their action shows lack of trust on our community. They definitely posit themselves above the community. When that is the case, we don't need such an editor undermining the heart of Wikipedia and such editors should be banned immediately.

They not only used abusive words ('get lost') against me but also removed 3RR warning from their talk page and violated 3RR by reverting my edits four times with defiance. This surmounts to Disrupting editing and When an admin warned them about their actions they tried to mislead the admin by quoting inapplicable rules and gaming the system. This action sequence demand grave consequence. The editor moved back my created page Mirko Baschetti with citing abusive reasons and when asked they failed to give any answer. This surmounts to vandalism per WP:MOVEVANDAL. They have persistently tried to make me connect with 'someone he knows' which is very unwarranted and to be reckoned as cyber crime when I have denied the same repeatedly. This violates Wikimedia's privacy policy and WP:PRIVACY and Wikipedia:Outing (essay). If this doesn't settle here, I certainly hope that everything will be revealed at right places. They also referred me as a sockpuppet without any evidence and this surmounts to egregious personal attack per WP:SOCK. Since the editor is freely conjuring up several imaginary stories let me conclude a very compelling situation with obvious facts and common sense. It is abundantly clear that someone else here is actually associated with Undisclosed Paid Editing and familiar with the market place where these UPE take place. It is pretty obvious that they are themselves freelancers. I don't want to say any further about these because it seems distasteful to me. With this, the sockpuppet investigation the editor referred, it appears they are desperately trying to link accounts to some blocked editor who was blocked for UPE (whom this editor supposedly knows off wiki) but they failed. They are now trying to knot me with that blocked account without any evidence and he failed again. It is possibly a case of off wiki beef may be for 'professional' rivalry for which someone is choosing Wikipedia to settle the personal score. Now, We all know Wikipedia is not a place to settle personal grievances and existent of such editors are causing disturbances and disruption in Wikipedia. The off wiki feud should be settled off wiki. For such spill of off wiki dispute into in-wiki, good faith editors like me are falling victim. The foe of some editor was already banned, now the disruptive editor should also be banned to save Wikipedia in light of the stated transgressions. Jinahpol (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Clear legal threat from a static IP

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

---

• 120.89.81.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• NZSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#NZSA ( New Zealand Space Agency Limited ) Cease and Desist.

IP 120.89.81.4 has been blocked at least twice for disruptions about the use of NZRA and is now threatening legal action. -Arch dude (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I notified Ferret. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this is NZSA (no surprise) who has been making these same edits, from the same IP, since 2017. Since barring one single edit in June there has been nothing else from this IP but this nonsense since then, I've blocked the IP per WP:NLT and WP:BE for three years. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Good block, beat me to it. The edit in June is also him. That's another of his pet topics that you'd find on his socks and other IPs I've blocked in the past. -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit comments of IP 116.93.64.30

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.

---

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

Hi. I don't know if this is the right forum to discuss this but can someone hide the edit comments made by this IP user (116.93.64.30)? The IP got blocked on January 3 and their edits for the Xian Lim article were reverted, but the comments that are full of the devil emoji are still there. -WayKurat (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@WayKurat: The best way to request revision deletion is to ask on IRC, on the server #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Swisswiss

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.

---

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

I am requesting enforcement of sanctions regarding edits to Ivermectin and articles related to COVID-19.

Diffs.

• [271] [272] [273]

Related discussions. I've requested ECP for Ivermectin because this kind of editing is becoming a persistent waste of time. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ivermectin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't have time to deep-dig into this personally at the moment but I do note that Swisswiss is at WP:3RR on Ivermectin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

For some reason I thought this was under 1RR. This is probably undue then. My apologies. Jdphenix (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

GDPR non compliance. Bullying innocent users.

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

---

Could someone sort this mess out, I don’t have time.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/711097/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-1-0.pdf

https://gdpr.eu/compliance-checklist-us-companies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.182 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_Emanuel

User appears to have a legitimate legal case. What’s the problem?

Entire edit history needs suppressed and undelete protected till legal can deal with it properly.

Also looks like user is getting bullied, just getting blocked for trying to fight her corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.38 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Admins: no action required (unless its on the IP), per the linked talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(EC) The user, you, ain't getting bullied. You were given an answer and you don't like it. Stop pretending that all the IP numbers are different user. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Ryancoke2020

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.

---

• Ryancoke2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The above user is not compatible with Wikipedia. Outside of placing three or four retaliatory tags on articles I had started, they appear to be only interested in the subject of Tomos Roberts. They have contributed 2300 or so edits on the subject of Tomos Roberts over the past six months, mostly while it was in draft.

I came into contact with them when I decided to rescue the draft of Tomos Roberts, who I thought was notable. Here is one version, where Ryancoke202's edits brought the draft to 97kb. After some wrangling, I managed to get it through AFC. The editor started building it back up to its previous promotional size. I looked at the article again and decided that I had been taken in by the exaggeration of the sources, and that the subject was not notable. Sent to AfD, where five or six editors have agreed about the borderline notability and not-voted delete. Ryancoke2020 has also disrupted the AfD.

There is also the issue of multiple accounts. There are two SPIs open on this: 1 and 2.

Rather than provide diffs for each and every violation of a behavioural guideline or policy, Here is a collapsed smattering of talk page posts by the user starting in July 2020:

Other users who have come into contact with Ruyancoke2020 include @Netherzone, Blablubbs, Theroadislong, and Berchanhimez:. I would ask that Ryancoke2020 be indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE, making personal attacks, disruption, and being overall not compatible to our processes. Possibly (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ryancoke2020 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Netherzone here - I first became aware of Ryancoke2020 after noticing interactions regarding a promotional new article for Tomos Roberts. Possibly and Theroadislong patiently offered advice and mentorship to Ryancoke2020, and assisted in developing the article draft so that it could pass AfC. Later, User:Possibly left me a message on my talk page about a completely unrelated matter, and I (perhaps foolishly?) mentioned to Possibly that I admired their patience with the Tomas Roberts draft. Out of the blue, Ryancoke2020 appeared on my talk; I have no idea why my talk was on their watchlist, but now wonder if they were tracking Possibly's interactions. It seemed a little strange but I gave Ryancoke2020 the benefit of the doubt, and tried to offer helpful information.

Later, I saw a perplexing series of interactions on the AfD for the Tomas Roberts article. Ryancoke2020's inappropriate comments towards Possibly, and later Thisroadislong include these personal attacks: they accused Possibly, a long-time good faith editor of: contempt, malfeasance, bias, pettiness, animus, harassment, bullying, gaslighting, vandalism, vindictiveness, cruelty, “pulling rank”, “offering up a death penalty”, injustice, and unfairness; and accused Theroadislong, another long-time good faith editor with muzzling, censorship and threatening behavior.

In fact the opposite was occurring. Possibly, Thisroadislong, other editors and myself have been trying to direct Ryancoke2020 toward WP policies, guidelines and standards for behavior. Ryancoke2020 then went after some of Possibly's stub articles on notable women and indigenous artists.

After giving it a lot of thought, I believe that Ryancoke2020 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It seems that not only do they refuse to engage civilly with good faith editors; and with the process of consensus, they are solely here to promote the career Tomos Roberts. Equally problematic are the use of multiple accounts. Because of their disturbingly disruptive behavior since they began editing, I feel that a ban or indef block is appropriate. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted the above before seeing that they were blocked for sockpuppetry. Netherzone (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Armatura

User:

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

Comment by reporter:

• The user has serious behavioural issues, mostly present in Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war. Constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS has created quite a toxic environment in the said talk page. I've linked some particular cases below, but it'd be better if an Admin took a look at the overall behaviour of the user. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Particular incidents:

• Accusing a user of bullying and personal attacks when that user asked Armatura to not divert from the discussion topic with other irrelevant topics - diff. Similar behaviour in the same discussion when replying - diff; Armatura was called out for the baseless accusations in this particular discussion by a third-party editor, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI - diff, and Armatura's response to this consisted of judging the commenter, User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI rather than focusing on the comment - diff.

• Accusing me and other editors of denying the Armenian Genocide, out of nowhere, because of our ethnicity - diff and when I reply that I do not deny it, Armatura is surprised and gives "kudoz" to me for "not denying something that is denied by your government" and calls me a "rare exception" - diff.

• Failing to WP:AGF countless times and using weird & irrelevant excuses to justify this behaviour. E.g. they're using the fact that a few Azerbaijani editors were banned for off-wiki coordination in Russian Wikipedia 11 years ago as a reason for why "assumption of good faith is difficult" - diff. They have used this 11-year-old incident in multiple occasions (e.g. in their reply to User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI which I linked earlier - diff) and have also threatened to report the few users that were involved in that incident to ANI in the English Wikipedia, 11 years later, because, per Armatura's words, they still have the "same zealousness for pushing Azerbaijani POV forward, no change in behaviour" and that this has made "making assumption of good faith practically impossible" for Armatura.

• Armatura was previously reported 2 months ago. Though, as the reporter was, at the time, topic-banned, the report was dismissed, although the closing Admin also suggested concerns with Armatura's edits, including other Admins and Users in the report itself who wrote about Armtatura's problematic editing style and behaviour.

Comments:

• Thanks for an opportunity to reflect on my (yes - sometimes frustrated and angry, apologies) and your behaviour . I'll start with reminding about the rules of complaining here:

• Take a look at these tips:

1. Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page [not done]
2. Or try dispute resolution. [not done]
3. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly [not done]

1. Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better. (If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you.) [not done]
2. Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended. ';'[not done]
3. Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. ("That made me feel..." is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was...") [not done]
4. Ask them to strike through an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally. [not done]
5. No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse. Strive to become the editor who can't be baited. [not done]
6. If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors. [not done]
7. In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard. Bear in mind the risk of being hoist by your own petard if you yourself are guilty of policy violations. Please also read the ANI Advice first. [the only step done, without any "emergency", skipping everything above]

• As an example of your habitual reverting in general behaviour being scrutinised, I will provide just one example where the only reason you were not blocked was that the admin was kind to offer abstinence from NKR-related articles as an alternative. A search with name "CuriousColden" on noticeboard archives gives so many results it would take a life to post here all diffs of people being unhappy with your edtis, so I won't, admins have better tools of batch-searching then me I believe.

• Now,

1. Could my behaviour been better? - it definitely could, mostly by not taking the bait and not answering the provocations and being less emotional
2. Does CuriousGolden's background of being from Azerbaijan / Turkey / Turcic world / Muslim world matter much? No, because there are other editors from the same background with whom it has been possible to talk and reach consensus, despite some of them having strong points of views and being on the list that caused a scandal on Russian Wikipedia. Even awareness of Azerbaijani Laundromat does not preclude from interacting with Azerbaijani editors constructively. And when a good suggestion is made I don't hesitate to write thank you.
3. Do CuriousGolden actions matter much? Yes, and they make assumption of good faith justifiably difficult - constant edit reverts, arbitrary additions from Azerbaijani/Turkish-only sources, voting to support a "faction" instead of providing sensible explanations and trying to reach a consensus, baiting, intimidating and attacking other editors on Armenia / Azerbaijan / Nagorno Karabakh related articles while remaining formally civil, demonstrating symptoms of ownership of the articles he contributed to significantly, making other editors who disagree with his edits feel frustrated with what the discussion become in the end. There are multiple people unhappy with his behaviour yet instead of reflecting and improving he keeps accusing Wikipedia guidelines and tries to eliminate the others, so he could Azerbaijanify Wikipedia even further.
4. Is CuriousGolden to be blamed for his behaviour? No, he is not alone; it is not a secret Armenophobia is widespread in Azerbaijan, as Armenian Genocide denial is, and formalists shouting AGF better look into these realities carefully.
5. Does CuriousGolden need to be sanctioned for trying to eliminate a user whom he did not like, taking the abovementioned into account? I will leave this to uninvolved admins, but I think the user is not there to build an encyclopedia, but to infiltrate English Wikipedia with Azerbaijani POVs. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
6. What else can help the situation in the Nagorno Karabakh related topics and their talk pages? More admin presence, please.
7. I suggest all editors who may comment below to first state whether they have any conflict of interest / involvement on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, for transparency. --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin notice

There have been many incident reports like this regarding this conflict, and still there is no solution here on Wikipedia. In my view, this has to do with the design of ANI:

• Being aimed at urgent issues, it is geared towards quick fixes rather than actual solutions of the underlying problems.
• Being aimed at behavioral problems, it focusses everybody's attention on individual users rather than issues, contrary to what WP:FOC recommends.

Since there is no rush for this issue, I will therefore put this on hold while I do some research at my own pace and will report back here in about a week. ◅ Sebastian 08:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reopening the case now. In order to prevent this case from dragging on until it becomes TLDR, I am asking involved editors to refrain from adding more opinions to the case – see hatnote to the next section. ◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am now recusing myself from this case, because (as I learned (from Dreamy Jazz) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Moving towards closure) once I expressed my opinion, I may be regarded as involved. Therefore I'm asking other admins to take over the responsibility for closing this case correctly. ◅ Sebastian 11:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Call for action

It is now two days since I reopened the case, and one day since I asked to be recused, but no admin has stepped in yet. So, I'm calling on other admins to either close the case correctly or let me know what I can change so that it can be closed correctly. I'm aware that the way I structured this case is unusual, but I had reasons for that, and I'm happy to discuss them in the General comments section below or my talk page. ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Findings by neutral editors

To avoid the prolonged discussions seen in other ANI cases, this section is reserved for uninvolved editors who impartially investigated the behavior of defendant and plaintiff, as well as for short questions pertinent to these findings. Off-topic remarks, even if phrased as questions, will be removed or replaced with a link to their diff. For any questions or concerns regarding this decision, please use the General comments section below.

SebastianHelm's findings

Previous related AN cases: I'm aware of the following:

• 29 October 2020 at AN/EW: CuriousGolden reported by Գարիկ Ավագյան – Result: agreement that can be described as an informal, short topic ban
• 17 November 2020 at AN: Armatura reported by Mirhasanov – closed with no action because reporter was under AA2 topic ban.
• 26 December 2020 at AN/I: 212.156.71.30 / 37.155.240.129 reported by Armatura – this was the first time I became aware of Armatura. We closed it with no punitive action, but some recommendations, including to “first seek agreement on which sources count as reliable”.
• 26 December 2020 at AN/EW: CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura – I did not contribute in that case.

Overview of the diffs provided: Because most of the diffs appear on the same page or even in the same section, I am listing them just with their time stamps, so that it will be possible to just display the talk page as of the time this report was filed, and then search for the time stamps (in parentheses). Unless otherwise indicated, the section is “Non-reliable sources”:

from Particular incidents, bullet 1

(19:53, 10 January), (20:42, 10 January), (14:00, 12 January), (18:54, 12 January)

from Particular incidents, bullet 2

(16:00, 10 January), (16:48, 10 January),

from Particular incidents, bullet 3

(19:07, 12 January) in section “Dilgam Asgarov & Shahbaz Guliyev”, (20:42, 10 January) – same diff as above,

from Armatura's reply

None of the links are diffs.

As requested by both parties, I looked at Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war (and some other places) to get an impression of the overall behavior of Armatura and CuriousGolden.

1. The topic that contains most of the evidence provided here, section “Non-reliable sources”, was started by CuriousGolden in compliance with my recommendation (in the IP case of 26 December listed above) to seek agreement on sources first.
2. The discussion about “Non-reliable sources” seemed to have reached a conclusion with Armatura's argument at (14:58, 10 January), but neither side said so. Armatura kept ranting about their pet peeve, and CuriousGolden switched the topic to the still relevant, but different question of whether Armatura's inclusion met WP:UNDUE.
3. Sometimes both sides agree, at least in other discussions on the same page: (00:01, 10 January), (20:29, 6 January), (16:05, 9 January). Those can be seen as good signs that cooperation is at least possible.
4. CuriousGolden, while bringing up the 29 October 2020 case against Armatura, omitted the fact that CuriousGolden, themself, was a defendant in the 29 October 2020 case, where he was issued an informal, short topic ban.
5. The diffs provided by CuriousGolden in their first bullet, and most of the others, do not exhibit behavior that is significantly different from the behavior of other editors in the area, including CuriousGolden.
6. In the “Comment by reporter” section, CuriousGolden accuses Armatura of WP:ASPERSIONS without providing diffs. That itself meets WP:ASPERSIONS in the description given at 22:45, 13 August 2013.
7. The behavior described in CuriousGolden's third bullet refers to disruptive behaviors exceeding that of other editors. This has indeed occurred several times (although the characterization as “countless” is clearly peacock wording). While one should have full sympathy for people traumatized by genocides in their recent history, the repeated off-topic bringing up of this and other pet peeves – as again here on this ANI case – is striking. The effect is similar to the first corollary to Godwin's law: It makes it much harder for the discussion to remain constructive.
8. In one case (12:48, 12 January) Armatura further fans the flames with yet another off topic stab – even as reply to a demand for other [on-topic] arguments.
9. Armatura's reply, at 815 words (excluding signature and headline), is far longer than CuriousGolden's report with 374 words (excluding signature, two usual headlines and the usual “user5” template).
10. Most of Armatura's long reply does not address or explain the points of the report, but either veers off to Armatura's pet peeves (see finding #7 above) or is dedicated to accusing the plaintiff and even casts aspersions (finding #21).
11. Armatura begins with the sentence “Thanks for an opportunity to reflect on my (yes - sometimes frustrated and angry, apologies) and your behaviour.”, which sounds promising. However, the text that follows (see previous and next finding) contains hardly any reflections on Armatura's own behavior, so this doesn't seem to be more than a well chosen polite phrase.
12. Another sentence of Armatura's, the confession in “Now, 1” goes a bit further than the former, but it remains superficial, because (a) by insinuating “provocations” it places at least part of the blame on others, and (b) there is no indication that Armatura actually “reflected” on how to prevent these inappropriate reactions in future.
13. In their reply here, Armatura accuses others of “provocations” without backing that up with diffs. Conversely, in at least one case, (16:00, 10 January), Armatura is the one gratuitously provoking the other editor.
14. About half of Armatura's reply consists of a copy of the lists on top of this page and at Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility, commented with short accusations that CuriousGolden didn't follow them.
15. These two lists are bundled together, without reference for where they each come from, with duplicated numbers so that they are hard to refer to.
16. There is no evidence that Armatura themself considered the aforementioned recommendations either in the situations where they felt provoked nor in Armatura's own report two weeks earlier. (Examples: #1 of the first list #6 of the second.) In some cases, such as #2 and #5 from the second list, CuriousGolden was better than Armatura at following the advice.
17. In view of Armatura's accusations against CuriousGolden for not following these points, it should be said that CuriousGolden just followed Armatua's own request: “If you have problem with my behaviour, raise it on my talk page or the noticeboard of your taste, please” (20:42, 10 January).
18. Taken by itself, it takes little AGF to see the “Kudoz” (16:48, 10 January) as a well-intended concession. The evidence provided here by CuriousGolden contains no indication for assuming otherwise. CuriousGolden therefore failed to AGF when they used that in their second bullet as an Argument against Armatura.
19. However, the “Kudoz” are put into question by Armatura themself later in this report: In bullet #4, Armatura again connects CuriousGolden with “Armenian Genocide denial”, this time even throwing in “Armenophobia” in the same breath. That doesn't sound like Armatura honestly felt anything like “kudos” for CuriousGolden. Conceivably, with much AGF, one could assume that Armatura only was very clumsy when writing bullet #4, but that wouldn't look good for somone who wants to be an editor – see WP:CIR.
20. Armatura wrote that for them “assumption of good faith [is] practically impossible” (21:36, 12 January) based on an incident that has nothing to do with the topic nor with the editors participating in the discussion.
21. In #3 and #5 of the fourth bullet, Armatura accuses CuriousGolden of misbehavior and alleges that CuriousGolden “is not there to build an encyclopedia”, all without evidence. That meets WP:ASPERSIONS in the description given at 22:45, 13 August 2013.
22. In #6 of the fourth bullet, Armatura writes “More admin presence, please”. That was appropriate at that moment, since no admins or uninvolved editors had contributed to the report yet. However, there is a reason for that: In the case Armatura opened on 26 December, Armatura was not satisfied with my attempt at being fair to both sides, and asked “would it be too much to ask for more than one admin to help with this, please?”. Only when luck had it that someone showed up who, in addition to being an admin and uninvolved, also met the standard Armatura demanded of knowing the area, was Armatura satisfied. Later, in the case of 26 December, that other admin apparently wrote something Armatura didn't like, resulting in them now recusing themself.
23. Summing up the above points, it becomes apparent that Armatura creates a lot of drama and need for admin involvement. Chances that Armatura will improve are slim, as the evidence provided here shows no sign of true introspection. In conclusion, I have serious doubts whether that editor is a net benefit for Wikipedia.
24. CuriousGolden is creating problems, too. But there is still hope that CuriousGolden can learn and improve.

◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommended consequences

1. Armatura needs to stop off-topic remarks that are not conducive to a calm atmosphere. This includes in particular such emotionally charged topics as the Armenian Genocide or the ru.wp incident.
2. Armatura needs to decide whether they can assume good faith or not. If not (as suggested by finding #20), then Armatura needs to stop editing. WP:AGF as a fundamental principle on Wikipedia is not negotiable.
3. CuriousGolden and other editors in this topic area, regardless on which side, also need to make more of an effort to assume good faith. I know that that can be hard especially in conflict areas, which is why I came up with A4GF, which I'll be happy to discuss with any editor who is making an honest effort to try or understand it.
4. Armatura should be subjected to an AA2 topic ban. A 6-month AA2 topic ban could be justified, but I believe that Sanctions against editors should not be punitive and therefore suggest an AA2 topic ban for one month. That should allow Armatura to cool off while editing in a less controversial area, to thoroughly understand their own actions and reactions and to decide whether they still can assume good faith on Wikipedia.
5. CuriousGolden is warned that any repetition of WP:ASPERSIONS, as per finding #6, will be sanctioned with serious consequences.
6. Armatura is warned that any repetition of WP:ASPERSIONS, as per finding #21, will be sanctioned with serious consequences.
7. Armatura is advised to refrain from WP:ADMINSHOP (per finding #22)
8. CuriousGolden is admonished to not use peacock terms, especially when writing anything potentially controversial, such as the term “countless” in their third bullet above. Instead, in discussions, do the homework and count. (One doesn't have to count to an arbitrarily high number; one can easily write e.g. “at least 3 times” and provide 3 diffs.) (In article space, of course, sources are usually needed instead.)
9. CuriousGolden should stop using the expression “Jeez”: As that article explains, it's a minced oath from the word “Jesus”. It therefore is offensive to some Christians. Even if one disregards its religious connotation, it still focusses on emotions, contrary to WP:FOC, and is therefore disruptive.

◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

General comments

Thanks Sebastian. This is an example of ideal treatment of conflicts - the parties should really expect to be subject to such treatment, rather that throw mud on each other and hope that something sticks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I can see why it's usually not done this way: All they give us is a mop, and this was just so much mud that it took several days. Nobody, not even the nicest unpaid janitor, enjoys searching through buckets full of mud to find offensive material. I started with this because it reminded me of some mediations I completed many years ago. In those days, I could find some bricks in the mud with which we could build an article, but this time all I found that might be useful for content work was finding #2, for which it isn't even decided whether it can be used at all. ◅ Sebastian 15:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I reopened the case two days ago, nobody has contributed in any way except for you, who unfortunately had recused yourself. While involved editors presumably are just following my request for them to not add opinions, for the question why uninvolved editors or in particular admins are not contributing there is no easy answer. Is the reason really what I wrote yesterday here, or were my findings TL;DR? Neither would be an entirely satisfactory explanation; the former should be even more of a reason for a conscientious admin to step in, and the latter should be ruled out by the fact that much longer threads are being closed, when, as Primefac writes at Closing discussions at AN, “As a closer, you're expected to read through the arguments, and (if necessary) any tangential or related discussions that might affect the outcome of the discussion.” (their emphasis). Since I already did the work of summarizing all arguments, that should be much easier here than in those other cases. ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think people are just not interested to jump into an area which is known for its high antagonism and for the habits of users on both sides to follow up.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest I did originally have a long comment, but I feel it may not be appropiaten now. I think Sebastian has made some good comments, and his recomandations are sutiable. Regretably, these topic matters will always be controversial, and I am very sure a similar incident will come to this board soon. As Sebastian said, ANI is designed for quick fixes, an IBAN, etc, not having an sysop analyse long discussions and note multiple points in order to help reach a consensus on the action that should be taken. However, this is a very good analysis, and I commend Sebastian for what he has taken the time to write here. Hopefully this issue can be brought to a close, and both parties can settle without conflict. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this topic under discretionary sanctions? Sebastian, doesn't that mean that you don't need anyone to close this, or any discussion at all? If you believe your recommendations above are necessary to reduce disruption, then you're authorized to implement all of them yourself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian said above that he considers himself involved.

The report could go to WP:AE where an uninvolved admin can review the evidence and enact discretionary sanctions as required. It is generally a more stable venue than ANI, in my experience, for these kinds of cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, I somehow missed that. Sorry for the useless comment. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Northern Trains 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.

---

Hey all. Quick heads up about the Northern Trains article. Seems to have attracted a feisty and F-bomb heavy IP editor. I'm not an admin so I have very limited ways to deal with them, I'm just wary of 3RR, CIVIL and all the rest. Could this article be bookmarked and kept an eye on please? Ta. doktorb _words^deeds 07:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Trains....why they engender such passion is beyond me. And don't get me wrong, I love trains, but this on a whole other level. Doktorbuk, Page protected. In the future, you can ask for page protection at WP:RFPP. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers CaptainEek, I knew of a few pages to go to but not RFPP so I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your swift response. I've barely had my first cup of tea of the morning, it's too early for IP address drama! Thanks again. doktorb _words^deeds 08:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have placed a notice at the editor 124.187.21.179 following disruptive and blanking editing with F-bomb edit summaries at Northern Trains and Liverpool Lime Street railway station. I suspect the editor is WP:NOTHERE for constructive purposes. I am not an admin so have limited tools available to deal with them. I was at 2 reverts on the Northern Trains article and they just kept on going! doktorb _words^deeds 08:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to block the IP too, my B. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Question - why were the edit summaries removed? Other than for extremely egregious abusive material and legal issues like BLP violations and outings and such, shouldn't records of the vast majority of bad behaviour be kept? As examples, and also for transparency reasons &c...? The descriptions above don't seem to me to suggest anything reaching the magnitude that would warrant suppression of this information. Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicole738

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.

---

• Nicole738 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Nicole738 has, subsequent to a dispute at the article Maddie Ziegler, copied my entire user page onto their user page (this was deleted by an admin). They also seem to have created a number of sockpuppets to aid in their dispute and edit warring on the Maddie Ziegler page especially in the section headed "LSD", which has been collapsed by an admin. Nicole738 has been edit warring over various issues at the Maddie Ziegler article since December, but especially during the past two days. I have tried to discuss this with them, but they deleted the discussion from their Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's ridiculous. Partial blocked from the Ziegler article for 6 months, all sockpuppets blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course you would say that you are all old people who are losers and this is your only form of life. I was right about the article and I was right here. The edits will continue from people who agree with me. I hope you all get lives so this isnt the closest you will ever get to authority. Nicole738 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You are bullies who make this your whole life so when you are wrong you have a meltdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole738 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nicole738 has now vandalized my user page and the user page of User:Tim riley (the vandalism has been reverted). -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have extended the block to the whole project due to personal attacks and vandalism. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Good grief! Thank you, Black Kite, 331dot and Ssilvers. The things conscientious Wikipedia editors and admins have to deal with! Tim riley talk 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Since The edits will continue from people who agree with me. I have semi-protected the article for three months. It had only just come off a previous protection. Black Kite (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Does this mean that Dance Moms now enters the rarified world of wrestling, MMA, UFC and beauty queens that people are willing to lay down their lives for? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Promotional and otherwise questionable material and problem 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.

---

I've just done a bit of a radical change to Skyline High School (Michigan) and I'm also having to deal with a new (?) user who seems unaware of WP content policies. A second set of eyes (to judge if I've been too rash, though I hope I wasn't) would be appreciated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Two quick things. The first graduating class line is factual in that if they started in '08, it would be 2011. Now whether that's relevant is a different question or if No OR says we can't do basic math. And in the highlights section, you removed reliably sourced material while leaving material that's sourced to a google site. With that out of the way, everything else is promotional and does not belong IMHO. Though I do wonder If this question should be on VP as doesn't appear to be a behavioral issue with other editor Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If the class started as freshmen in 08, they would have graduated in 2012 unless I'm missing something. 08-09 freshmen, 09-10 sophomores, 10-11 juniors and 11-12 seniors. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

OR is fine with simple aritmethics, see WP:CALC. The issue is more whether that's a relevant detail. Some high school FAs seem to include it, ex. Amador Valley High School, but I am obviously not convinced (anyway, anybody who is interested in that detail can probably do basic math such as adding four to the opening year...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

108.54.32.185

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.

---

108.54.32.185 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Good afternoon, unfortunately, user 108.54.32.185 has violated talk page consensus and reverted edits repeatedly on Lana Del Ray, including here, based on "defamation". During initial discussion they initiated multiple WP:PA, including accusing me of reverse discrimination, and most recently told me to "Go f&@& yourself shit for brains." on their talk page. Obviously, this person is not here to build an encyclopedia and continuously engages in personal attacks, I would appreciate administrative action on this matter - I believe this user has been blocked once before on the article itself for disruptive editing. Thank you and have a great week!--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I ran into this IP a few days ago and warned them for repeated personal attacks. They were blocked in October for edits with similar summaries to the same article, so it certainly seems to be the same user. Compare this edit summary from October [274] with this recent one [275], both to Lana Del Rey, for example. Meters (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to say that I'm not commenting on the actual content in question, just the IP's behaviour. Meters (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should put WP:FREESPEECH in the same sort of red box that's at the top of this edit window, on all of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Flowcode 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.

---

• Flowcode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mediumship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Non-neutral editing at Mediumship by Flowcode

Flowcode is still pushing the fringe POV that some people can talk to the dead.

An interesting twist: They started out by acting as if they don't believe that some people can talk to the dead:

" 'Mediumship' appears to consist of a set of beliefs and practices that claim to be factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Hence, mediumship is pseudoscience."[276]

...but quickly switched to acting as if they do believe that some people can talk to the dead.

"However, there is also no evidence to prove mediumship is impossible."[277]

"There are no double-blind peer reviewed papers that prove conclusively that mediumistic ability does not exist"[278]

Changed "Purportedly mediating communication between spirits of the dead and living human beings" to "Mediating communication between spirits of the dead and living human beings"[279]

Edit warring to re-insert the previous edit: Edit summary: "but there is no proof that this doesn't exist, hence there is no reason to have that word in there."[280]

"It is also important to note, that no double-blind, peer reviewed academic works have been able to disprove mediumship."[281]

This raises that suspicion that this is not a SPA pushing a fringe view but instead a Troll trying to get a rise out of Betty Logan. Concern was expressed at the previous ANI report that this may be a sock instead of a SPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• just block them. They have contributed nothing of value thus far and we have no space for fringe nonsense. (Also it’s past my bed time by a lot) CUPIDICAE💕 05:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Argumentum ad ignorantiam - the logical fallacy that a proposition is or may be true because it has not been proven false. It is most often seen employed by those with WP:FRINGE views and WP:TROLLs. Narky Blert (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good call, but can you prove that Jibbers Crabst doesn't exist? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Created account just to disrupt sport page

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.

---

• Isaiasig978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.14.130.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:908:e845:9600:906b:7b2b:6e82:cf85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8003:d90a:2500:914c:1eb:4733:f18e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.27.115.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users created account just to disrupt UFC pages. Kent Bargo (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Those UFC event articles really ought to be protected pre-emptively. They invariably get slaughtered the day of the event. I have semiprotected this one. The accounts/anons probably don't need to be blocked, but they might deserve it for raiding or whatever you want to call it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

An axe to grind and inappropriate content at RMIT University Student Union

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.

---

• RMIT University Student Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Endemetriosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've twice removed unencyclopedic content here, added by someone who's not happy with the school, and sourced to a private letter of complaint. I've given the editor a final warning, and am bringing it here to a) determine whether the content merits rev/deletion as copyright violation or defamatory and b) just to have more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User blocked, excessive quotation removed as a copyright violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

‎False claim of administrator rights

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 top user box at the user page User:JzG identifies him as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and contains a hyperlink to verify. However, when I click that link, it displays user rights not for JzG, but for User:K6ka. This is very confusing, and may lead unwary users to mistakenly conclude that JzG is indeed, as he falsely claims, an active administrator. NedFausa (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This does not rise to the level of ANI. Of all the thousands of things to do on Wikipedia, why choose this? Have you considered, perhaps, asking @JzG: about this? CUPIDICAE💕 17:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, NedFausa was subsequently blocked for 48 hours for continued personal attacks against and regarding JzG on his own talk page. The discussion on said page is WP:HAPPYPLACE-worthy in and of itself.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

IP editor making personal attacks at Talk:Male privilege and my talk page

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

---

• Talk:Male privilege (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• 71.211.129.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can someone take a glance at Special:Contribs/71.211.129.129? I've already warned them about the personal attacks and ABF at Talk:Male privilege, and now they've taken to attacking me on my talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Given their "response" here, I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Blocked. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

They seem determined to try to evade the block. I've gone ahead and blocked the IP for evasion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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.

---

If there is an admin who is not asleep, could you please block Dunny124a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A particularly prolific and active vandal, appears to be a sock of Jets124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). AIV is backlogged, so it may be a while before they get to that report there. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Serious conflict of interest issues, blatant advocacy and defamation

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.

---

• Austhistory99 (talk · contribs)
• PetroAntonio (talk · contribs)
• Bruce Pascoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dark Emu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two editors user:Austhistory99 and user:PetroAntonio have been editing the Bruce Pascoe article and the article about his book Dark Emu. They have both previously revealed on Wikipedia that they are the authors of attacks on Bruce Pascoe. Austhistory99 has admited he runs this attack site, dedicated solely to defaming the author and his book [282] and PetroAntonio has admitted to being the author of this hatchet job [283]. They've both been notified that they should not be editing these articles due to a conflict of interest and have failed to declare their conflict of interest properly and they continue to try and add content which they authored themselves to the article. [284] [285] They are clearly in breach of COI rules. Looking at their recent efforts to defame Pascoe [286] they are most likely colluding off Wikipedia to defame him, but regardless it is unethical and a breach of policy on a number of levels for them to be editing like this. Look at the narrow field of edits: [287] [288] I believe they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and thus should both be indef blocked, they are here to attack Pascoe and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, nothing else. PetroAntonio is obviously an WP:SPA at the very least. Bacondrum 11:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And it gets worse, PetroAntonio should be indef blocked, no question about it. This is something they penned recently about this specific issue, they are clearly here to campaign against Pascoe and promote their book: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/ Bacondrum 12:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And if you scrawl through the comments in that article you'll see what is clearly our man Austhistory99 posting as MungoMann, making it clear his contributions are part of an off-wiki campaign being run by Quadrant (magazine) contributors and their supporters. Bacondrum 13:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And it appears that the dodgy behavior here knows no limit. Turns out that our man Austhistory99's promotes and links to sales at Quadrant for PetroAntonios book here on his website, which is dedicated to attacking Pascoe: https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/2016/1/30/room-to-work-ye2nx-ghxgn it's all so dodgy. Bacondrum 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Added user links above for ease of access. Both are clearly SPAs, a dose of WP:NOTHERE combined with WP:FRINGE. Talk:Dark Emu (book) is a mess. CMD (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am convinced that PetroAntonio is a disruption-only account and should be indef blocked, so that's done. As for Aushistory99, they have created at least one article that was accepted, so I am loath to block them without stronger evidence. Can anybody supply a diff to prove the statement, Austhistory99 has admited he runs this attack site [www.dark-emu-exposed.org], dedicated solely to defaming the author and his book? I don't see the admission. Beyond that, we need to decide whether a person interested in history and writing strong opinions qualifies as a COI. I am not sure that it does. This may be a situation where the editor can be warned to avoid pushing their views, since there appears to be other useful work they might be doing.

On another note, I see that Aushistory99 may have triggered an autoblock.[289] This raises the issue as to whether they are operating another account in parallel or doing mischief as an IP. @Yamla: any advice you can provide? Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}}

Here's Austhistory99 letting us know that Dark Emu exposed is his site

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Pascoe&diff=prev&oldid=931505444

If you look at the last comment in this article written by PetroAntonio: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/ You'll see this: "if we have some spare time it is worthwhile lobbing into Wikipedia ( the Oracle of the Progressive Left!) some real history from time to time. In the long run it will help our cause in the cultural wars. Today Wikipedia approved my entry on the Aboriginal inter-tribal Massacre of Running Waters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Running_Waters" And if you check that link you'll see who created that article, the same person who says "if we have some spare time it is worthwhile lobbing into Wikipedia...In the long run it will help our cause in the cultural wars." Austhistory may have created an article, but their primary activity on Wikipedia has been to attack Pascoe. They have clearly been colluding with PetroAntonio, whose book they promote on their website dedicated to attacking an author who has been the primary focus of their edits. At the very least they should be indef blocked from anything to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, though I think they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and should simply be indef blocked. Bacondrum 14:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, they've been warned repeatedly about the COI and never heeded the warning. Bacondrum 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Partial block request to stop President Polk 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.

---

• 2600:1700:1228:3400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• James K. Polk

Can we get a partial block on the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1228:3400:0:0:0:0/64? The person has been edit warring at James K. Polk, causing disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Ammu Editz

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.

---

Ammu Editz (talk · contribs) is having issues understanding copyright. They've had four images deleted on commons today, and then turned around and uploaded two of them here, one twice (EBhA6rjU0AA7Q V.jpg and Shivani Narayanan.jpg are the same image). I've left a copyright warning and would have thought the image being deleted multiple times would also be a clue, but they've continue uploading. Would an admin review and block as needed? Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

They're also reverting removal of unsourced information from biography and repeatedly adding back their copyright infringing image. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:FOLLOWING

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.

---

Primarily Invasive Spices and Chiswick Chap:

• [290]
• [291]
• WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [292]
• WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [293]
• Attempt to deescalate and return to content issue: [294]
• WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:ABF, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [295]
• [296]
• Again attempt to deescalate and return to content issue: [297]
• Nonexistent policies that contract WP policy: [298]
• WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [299]
• [300]
• WP:FOLLOWING, WP:DAPE, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [301]
• WP:FOLLOWING, WP:DAPE, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS removing reliable sources, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [302]
• Yet again attempt to deescalate and return to content issue: [303]
• Veiled threats, mischaracterisation of events, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS disregard other editors: [304]
• WP:CIVIL, taunting: [305]

Already atttempted [[WP:3O]], deemed not appropriate there. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a content editing matter, despite the assertions to the contrary. It concerns just two reversions: one at Octopus, confirmed by another editor; the latter at Predation a simple reversion on the grounds of being off-topic, and not objected to or discussed by any other editor. WP:30 was rejected over there by another editor on the grounds that it was too early for that. Happy to discuss on any reasonable forum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Call for close as withdrawn

It appears that Lukan27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to stop disrupting the Marjorie Taylor Greene talk page and is instead focusing their efforts on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#"Conspiracy theory" is a value-laden contentious label (plus a few edits on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol making similar arguments). In my opinion the specific problem that let to this report has been resolved and thus someone uninvolved should close this as withdrawn. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from User talk:2600:1003:B02C:8B17:0:6:B05E:3801

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.

---

Not sure how the No legal threats policy applies to IPs but this may be a static IP due to no previous edits before the disruptive behaviour? FozzieHey (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the IP is static, since I saw similar behavior on 16 January from a different IP in the 2600:1003:b02?:* range. See edit history at Steve Walsh (musician) for more info. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Just looked up both of those IPs and they're both under AS6167, Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless so they seem to be cellular IPs as opposed to residential IPs. Not sure we can do much here in terms of blocking then. FozzieHey (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what remedy they think a court would give them. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not really a legal threat, this is just vandalism. I've semi-protected Steve Walsh (musician) for a year - this has been going on for a long time, now with lots of oversighted edits. I was going to suggest a long term range block on that page, but it looks like one of the recent IP's has been doing this to other pages too. So probably one or more long term sitewide range blocks is more appropriate. The current short-term range block placed by someone else should buy some time to figure it out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, after looking at the history it's probably more vandalism than a legal threat. The issue with a long-term range block on these IPs is that they aren't even in the same /44, now that's already a massive range so you'd have to effectively put an AS block on AS6167 to stop this. Not sure how feasible that is, would it be more acceptable as these are cellular ranges? FozzieHey (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Review requested: Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

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 is a request to review the closing of Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance

El_C closed the ANI with the comment that I have not made any edits in 10 days and a warning to not make unsubstantiated allegations. I reached out to El_C on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#Personal_attacks_-_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_by_User%3A_Britishfinance

My complaint about accusations of sockpuppetting by BritishFinance and Alexbrn seems to have been lost in the POV war between both sides in the 'lab leak' discussion started by Hemiauchenia within my ANI complaint. I raised this concern as I thought it was a distraction from the issue at hand - the personal attack and discrediting of my account in open Talk discussion made through allegations of sockpuppeting.

To review my complaint.

My very first edit on either topic was met with this response from Alexbrn

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=998678306&oldid=998658838

"huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)"

I then made four comments Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=998843174

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=999017959

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=999056735

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=999182886

Does anyone want to argue that any of these comments violate ANY rules or that I am POV pushing? Am I not trying to be helpful and facilitate consensus, as you are supposed to do here?

But then I notice that BritishFinance has popped up with another allegation of sockpuppeting and POV Pushing in the very next thread right after Alexbrn instigated the first allegation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=999086842&oldid=999084407

"Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website shows that NinjaRobotPirate's earlier concern at your unblock request that you should be topic banned is well-founded. I am concerned that if NinjaRobotPirate checks Dinglelingy, who has been pushing the same material on Wuhan Institute of Virology, that more substantive action may be appropriate. You now have consumed large amounts of editing time constantly pushing theories regarding COVID lab leaks on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOTHERE territory). Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)"

I have done absolutely nothing wrong, yet two experienced editors are going off the reservation in making claims that they are concerned about me being a sockpuppet and pushing POV. Where? How? Why?

I am sorry to take up time here but what choice do I have but to defend my reputation against multiple sockpuppeting accusations? That's the insidiousness of making those types of allegations in discussion. They are dirty tactics and the rules against them need to be enforced, especially when used by experienced editors who should know better. Both BritishFinance and Alexbrn responded to my complaint with the same justification. They were only bringing up their concerns about sockpuppeting in the form of a question. Does bringing up their concerns in the form of a question in an open Talk discussion somehow absolve them from the my complaint because it is more of an implied accusation than outright accusation?

No, this is not okay. This is called casting aspersions. There is a procedure for making allegations of sockpuppetting if there is a concern. There is a reason for this procedure, correct? What kind of collaboration can occur if editors are allowed to throw around unsupported accusations implying someone might be a sockpuppet? Did either of these experienced editors take my complaint to heart, offer an apology? No, in fact they expanded the attack on my reputation. My ANI complaint became the battleground for a ban proposal for user SS and debate on POV pushing from both sides of the 'lab leak' scenario and with zero evidence BritishFinance went so far as to push for my account to be included in the ban as retribution for my complaint.

After the complaint I tried to engage Alexbrn in good faith discussion, pointing to MEDRS sources he said were needed. He couldn't even do that and seemed to have some sort of mental breakdown, once again responding to my comment with allegations of sockpuppeting in open talk discussion with a link back to my complaint...after being warned by my complaint!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWuhan_Institute_of_Virology&type=revision&diff=999346748&oldid=999345702 "Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[7] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)"

I voiced my concerns about my complaint being turned into a distracting sideshow. The Bushranger and Tenryuu said WP:Boomerang applies to ANI but I don't see how the summary closure of my complaint by El_C does anything but validate my original concern. What did I do wrong? How am I supposed defend my reputation against unfounded and wrong accusations of sockpuppeting by editors who have shown in their responses complete disregard for the WP:5P? These editors are experienced, they should know better, and they should be held to high standards, especially on pages with sanctions in place.

My account has been discredited and smeared by BritishFinance and Alexbrn, accusations and casting aspersions of sockpuppeting are a personal attack. Their stated defense is further accusations of POV pushing and frankly bullying behavior in the form of POV railroading (false narrative & Brand, discredit and ban). I think their are some serious questions that should be asked about the POV pile-on in my complaint as it was used to further discredit my account through additional unsupported sockpuppeting and unsupported POV pushing allegations.

"I also support investigating this user's sockpuppet behavior. I also support a topic ban for Dinglelingy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)"

"agree with Novem_Linguae on their extension to all COVID topics, and include Dinglelingy. Britishfinance (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)"

"This user only made 13 edits to two pages since their account creation prior to the 6th of January, when they also became fixated on advocating the lab leak theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)"

I understand that BritishFinance and Alexbrn are high volume editors and probably have admins they are friendly with. But that does not excuse their behavior, in fact I think it makes it worse, it is toxic. I would have settled for a simple apology but both Britishfinance and Alexbrn choose to victim blame and double down in their attacks. Is there any doubt they think their behavior is justified and will continue? Where is the WP:Boomerang?

Wikipedia Violations

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

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe."

WP:PA

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

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

"Point of View (POV) railroading refers to the use of bullying tactics to discredit an editor with an opposing viewpoint or eliminate them from a discussion."

"False accusations are a common form of bullying on Wikipedia, although people do sometimes make honest mistakes. Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack."

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

"A false narrative is a fabrication of a "story" about another editor in an attempt to discredit them, damage their reputation within the community, frustrate, or bait them. Unsubstantiated accusations of canvassing or conflict of interest, labeling an editor as a point-of-view pusher, or accusing them of being a sock puppet or meat puppet of a banned user are common false narratives. Editors may also misrepresent actual edits (including their own) or take diffs out of context to support a skewed version of events that supports their false narrative."

"False narratives and canvassing can be used to recruit multiple editors who "pile-in" to support a viewpoint or editor, resulting in the opposing editor being outnumbered, and feeling intimidated, helpless or under attack. A group of editors with a similar viewpoint may create a clique in which they rely on each other to support a point-of-view and act together to eliminate editors who do not share their POV."

WP:SMEAR

"POV railroading may be performed in attempts to malign or destroy the reputation of targeted editors by labeling, shaming, branding and discrediting them in a progressively more prejudiced and misleading manner, until the targeted editor leaves a topical or discussion area out of frustration or tiredness, or is potentially blocked or banned."

PS Not sure who I am supposed to notify as this is a review request, I'd appreciate help if I did this wrong. I will respond to admins but no further goading and baiting by Britishfinance and Alexbrn. Dinglelingy (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Has an SPI been opened up for this?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WaltCip I just opened an SPI. [306] –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet again - you HAVE to notify editors who you start discussions about - I have done so now.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is way too long for any reasonable person to actually read. Can you summarize what exactly the problem is? CUPIDICAE💕 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Ish that's why I asked, thank you.

CUPIDICAE💕 My original complaint was short and sweet. El_C complained it didn't have enough diffs or wasn't clear enough, not really sure what he was looking for as he preferred that I ask for review. Sorry. Dinglelingy (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• While WP:SPI may still be worthwhile, I suggest a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. Please see the above closed ANI thread, where I warned them about making baseless accusations. Other than POV pushing at COVID-19 related articles, there very few contributions. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sleeping socks and WP:MEATPUPPETs are a common problem on Wikipedia and any expressed suspicion was warranted using the editing history and behavioral evidence, although SPI would indeed be a better process to use. Editors try to assume good faith and treat apparent new editors as independent people editing in good faith, yet evidence shows that this editor is mostly here fo feud. —PaleoNeonate – 15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  That was my reaction, too. Sock or not, they are not bringing much of value that outweighs this nonsense. Grandpallama (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Holy wall of text! What is happening here? El_C 15:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm breaking out some steam exploded corn kernels for this one. Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm curious if WP:TIMESINK is a bluelink or not. Huh. Well, that's a surprise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyway, the level of investment in protesting over "reputation" (about grievances from weeks ago, anyway) by a user with less than 100 edits (I think, I haven't counted) is totally suspect. You'd think they'd take the hint from User_talk:El_C#Personal_attacks_-_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_by_User:_Britishfinance, but I guess they think that doubling-down is the way to go. What a weird timesinke. El_C 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, made it blue. El_C 16:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Dropthestick and back away from the horse. Seriously, nearly everyone forgot about this over the last 2 weeks and moved on with their edits. Your name forgotten as just another new user who passed through ANI. Withdraw this and go on to have a productive editing life on wikipedia. Don't look back. Don't hold a grudge. Or triple-down and risk the community settling this and not likely in your favor. Slywriter (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Do you think I might get lucky and this thread will be closed before anybody even notifies me about it? Must say, it's a classic of its kind, complaining about personal attacks while making an accusation that I had "some sort of mental breakdown". Perhaps it's performance art of some kind? On the substance, at the last AIN I said I was happy to accept that Dinglelingy was not a sockmaster of ScrupulousScribe. But as two admins have now observed, this does not look like a new account. I suspect it's a question of WP:SCRUTINY evasion, possibly by a user with a grudge. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, well, respect (I guess...?) for actually reading Dinglelingy's treaties in full. That is more than can be said for me, the person actually facing the review.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As an aside, I'm always amazed whenever users just dump a ton of text and expect everyone to stand at attention. Usually, it stems from their lack of appreciation that this is a volunteer project. El_C 16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Close, since this circumvents the admin closure of the lengthy debate above. And I'd encourage admins to take some kind of action against Dinglelingy. WP:BLUDGEON is a major issue with this editor. I have also opened a sockpuppet investigation into Dinglelingy and ScrupulousScribe if anybody would like to add evidence. [307] Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think this wall of text that repeats baseless accusations demonstrates that Dinglelingy is not a good fit for this project and ought be invited to find another hobby. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry my complaint, unaddressed in the previous ANI, has now strained the eyes of a few unpaid admins here who think that my reputation is unworthy of defense and that severe policy violations should be overlooked. I expected better responses to a well articulated complaint, especially after my first complaint was hijacked and then sumarily dismissed because it was not specific enough.

I see I have now also been warned to withdrawl my complaint if I don't want to risk continuing with wikipedia. Thanks!!

I have a different idea.

I will withdrawl my complaint if both Britishfinance and Alexbrn admit that they did not follow policy by bringing up their concerns about sockpuppeting in open Talk discussion. That the reason you don't make/imply/allege/accuse/cast aspertions like this is because it looks like a personal attack to discredit another user and that they are sorry for this as it was not their intention to discredit my account. I would like this genuine apology with no weasel words to be in the comments directly under the three accusatory comments that I identified above (two by Alexbrn and one by Britishfinance) or I would like the apology here and the three accusatory comments deleted.

I don't care if this happens before or after completion of the SPI. I see both Britishfinance and Alexbrn are pivoting off the original complaint that never held water to new accusations that I must be some alt-account that requires scrutiny. Like this is rocket science not common sense. Whatever floats their boat.

Barring this apology, my complaint stands and is appropriately documented for escalation. You don't want to deal with this, that's my proposal. Doesn't seem hardly unfair. Dinglelingy (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to master the art of writing reports that are both succinct and which include sufficient evidence by way of diffs. You'll get more action, or at least more serious consideration of action, and fewer complaints that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and as I already said two weeks ago I was "happy to accept" that Dinglelingy was not a sock of ScrupulousScribe, following my initial question about that. It's true that, based on the observations of admins, I have thoughtfully "pivoted" to thinking that Dingle is another kind of sock. But that is a separate matter. So far as I'm aware there is no way to launch an SPI in such cases, as it would require a Checkuser trawl, and that doesn't (officially) happen. Alexbrn (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Per my statement in the earlier ANI at Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance, I proved that I did not call you a sockpuppet, but you chose WP:IDNHT, and doubled-trebled down on your baseless allegation against me. Now, instead of heeding El_C's warning, you start a whole new ANI repeating the same falsehoods. It is clear that you are a returning user, so you should know better that "walls of text" combined with a hard WP:IDNHT approach, gets you nowhere on Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy, to be blunt, I think you place far too much importance on whether your report stands or is withdrawn, or whether you "escalate" (whatever that means to you, concretely), but my sense is that those are all of little consequence to anyone else here, except perhaps to you, in so far as a WP:BOOMERANG is concerned. Don't say I didn't warn you. El_C 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy - can I ask, what do you consider to be "escalation" here? Also, I would ask - please don't use double spaces at the beginning of a new sentence, as this impairs readability for editors reading the Teahouse with screenreader technology. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, this is ANI, not the Teahouse. To reiterate, whatever Dinglelingy sees that escalation as being, I highly doubt it's gonna go their way. They have already strained the patience of pretty much everyone else here. Their WP:IDHT levels are pretty off the charts for them not to pick up on this. Unless they have and the entire thing is some sort of a social experiment. Honestly, who can tell anymore. El_C 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

terribly sorry! one board blends into another if I'm not paying attention, my apologies --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, it's okay, that's pretty much been the theme of the day for me, so at least I'm not alone there — in Hebrew we have a saying: צרת רבים חצי נחמה (which basically means welcome to the club!). El_C 23:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, with respect, as I know you are a volunteer; I feel this matter is deserving of your time, or another uninvolved admin's time. An accusation was leveled against me and Dinglelingy or being socks (among other things) by editors who were pushing a POV contrary to ours on the issue of Covid-19's possible lab origins (due to an accidental leak). The accusation of sockpuppetry was made to discredit us, and Dinglelingy has made the time to carefully outline the exact nature of the complaint (upon your request), so that it should get the attention he (and I) feel it deserves (we are new users and deserve to be treated with good faith, and certainly not to be "bitten"). I feel the last ANI was closed too quick, and I am currently appealing the topic ban with Boing! said Zebedee, as I was not accused of disruptive editing, and the issue of contention has gained further attention in the popular press, such as this BBC article from last night, which calls it the "biggest scientific controversies of our time" (here is another article the BBC published on the issue just a couple of weeks ago), so it is clearly not a "conspiracy theory" in the same sense that other lab origin theories are (such as those who claim it was created as a bioweapon and deliberately released). This issue will only become more and more contentious, and we as Wikipedians will have to learn to communicate with each other in a more congenial manner, so as to be able to cover it in a neutral way. Britishfinance and Alexbrn's accusations/questions of us being sockpuppets who are on Wikipedia only to promote "fringe" theories, and "casting around" to find sources to support our POV, were not affable, and their indignant comments above are highly disingenuous, so I would like to ask that you treat this matter seriously. Another Hebrew phrase that comes to mind is כולם מדברים על שלום אף אחד לא מדבר על צדק. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, I feel I have spared this entire thing more than enough time. This is suspect. This is a timesink. That is my evaluation. That view seems like it's pretty much universally shared by everyone else who has commented here. Also, I'm not sacrificing justice for peace or whatever, I just think going on further about this is a waste of everyone's collective time. I'm more than entitled to hold that viewpoint, just like Dinglelingy is entitled to seek review of my close, which I don't actually have any control over. Finally, sorry, I'm not really interested to get into the content weeds of the dispute in question at this time. El_C 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I too was quite impressed as to the detail Dinglelingy went into for his complaint, and its been a long time since I read up on the those rules myself, but "POV railroading" very accurately describes Alexbrn's conduct in how he accused of us socking, casting around, and what not. Evidently, Novem Linguae too was so impressed with Dinglelingy's knowledge of the rules, he filed an investigation into him (God forbid that new editors or lurkers should figure out how the rules work around here and seek for them to be implemented fairly). Clearly, Alexbrn isn't going to apologize to Dinglelingy, or acknowledge my own request to him, so it would probably just be better for us to close this ANI and have uninvolved admin make the necessary reprimand to the subjects of this complaint as per WP:BITE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, if wishes were horses... I would be petting a lot of horses! El_C 03:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, you say: I too was quite impressed as to the detail Dinglelingy went into for his complaint — if you mean positively impressed, then... wow, just wow. It is obviously long-winded and unfocused, not to mention arrives at flawed conclusions. Suspect. Timesink. Full stop. El_C 03:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, whether you agree with the complaint or not, you have to understand how upsetting it can be for new users to face animosity, particularly in areas of controversy. Both I and Dinglelingy were involved in a topic that the BBC just yesterday called the "biggest scientific controversies of our time", and neither of us were afforded the assumption of good faith, but were instead branded as conspiracy theorists. In our discussion, contrarian editors employed the "casting of aspirations" and "POV railroading" tactics that Dinglelingy described above, which made it impossible to agree on content changes. Much has been written on why Wikipedia is losing contributors, and the burden placed upon new users to conform to policy, and I think it can make a big difference if good faith is assumed. As it stands now, other users have stepped in and made content changes, and as new information comes to light, more content will be added. I feel I have accomplished something in deciding to create this Wikipedia account and correct the error, an I will go on to contribute a lot more. I don't feel any need to continue with this ANI, but for the administrator who does preside over it, they should understand the issue at hand and take it seriously. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, yet again, it's suspect and it's a timesink. I'm sorry that, like Dinglelingy, you seem to lack the capacity to read the room. Oh well. Doesn't really bother me too much, though I do hope you figure it all out (both of you) sooner rather than later. Good luck! El_C 04:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy, ScrupulousScribe, we did with the accusation what we generally do, which is check it and found it was extremely unlikely. This is how things should work. I do not know the motives of other people at Wikipedia, but I cannot see why Dinglelingy thought he was helping by opening this complaint here, or why ScrupulousScribe thought it would be helpful to comment. There is a technique sometimes used around here by people trying to win an argument, by provoking their adversaries into doing something that will get them banned. Both of you are well into the process of becoming victims. The way to avoid losing an unfair game is to stop playing. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

SS, thank you for the kind words. At first I was a little perturbed at the back & forth between SS and El_C. Another distraction just like what happened to my original complaint. I have no desire to be associated with SS's actions. From my first post on this topic I have been tagged with whatever real or imagined sins he has. Stop please. I am not SS. As per the SPI report, there is basically no chance we are sockpuppet accounts and I not some Alt-account. But then I remembered that SS was the other victim of the same abuse. There are two victims here. SS also has a right to say his piece here, whether you agree with his take or not. But just as Alexbrn's atrocious behavior is far more consistent than Britishfinance, SS and I are different too. I am making my own case.

DGG, I understand what you are saying and I respect that you feel this way. I think that is the wrong approach. I would suggest that if you are aware of these types of editors, and especially if you think that myself or any others are victims of this type of behavior, then you might entertain the idea that you should probably try to put a stop to it. I get letting it ride if no one is complaining, everyone is busy. But this is a legitimate complaint, and it's well documented. I have not been goaded into bad behavior, I have followed policy & procedure, and I have taken my complaint to the only forum where multiple sockpuppet accusations can be countered. It took this review request just to get someone to even begin to follow procedure and ask for an SPI. That's wrong.

You want a better wikipedia, you have to put the breaks on this type of behavior, it really is toxic. Neither Britishfiance nor Alexbrn are willing to even acknowledge that they should not have raised concerns about sockpuppeting in the middle of talk discussions, much less multiple times. Neither acknowledge that they should have followed policy and procedures intended to prevent the type of defective environment that these type of accusations create. Neither are remorseful or even conciliatory, and have had multiple chances to apologize. All they have done is press on the gas, when one personal attack fails, try another. These were pages with sanctions. If you just want to give them a slap on the wrist, that's your call, I'm not going to complain about penalties.

Ineffablebookkeeper, thanks for the heads up on the double line break, sorry. I was trying to avoid 'wall of text' complaints by breaking it into digestible sections with diffs, but what looks better on a monitor obviously doesn't translate well to a device or to others with time constraints, sorry about that. Review/escalate, whatever the process, Britishfinance and Alexbrn won't acknowledge or apologize for their severe and documented policy violations.Dinglelingy (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinglelingy, you were advised to let it go, on multiple occasions. First, with my original ANI close. Then, on my talk page where you challenged that close. Then, further yet, here in this (lengthy) review of that close. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here at this point, but it still isn't going anywhere good. We get it, you feel like you were bitten. But maybe it's time to move on now...? Because your endless complaints have become a drain on volunteer resources. El_C 15:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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